139 Years Ago Today... Bobby Lee gives it up to US Grant!

[DivinBreuvage]

Sorry if somebody posted this earlier, but it is one of the greatest dates in our history, IMO. And I proudly say this as a native of the state that produced Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, Harriet Beecher Stowe and John Brown, and that gave a higher percentage of its population to the Union Cause than any other state. Ohio kicks ass!

Just a little historical detail, we also hosted the true "high tide" of the Confederacy, suffering a cavalry raid in 1863 by John H. Morgan, who got as far north as Salineville before the Ohio milishy and Union cavalry ran him down. (I don't count the Vermont raid because the Confederate agents came in from Canada, they didn't fight their way up from down South).

To our Southern DU brethren who find something to cherish in the memory of the Confederacy, I do not condemn you on this day. Any fair and honest person must concede that Lee had some truly great moments as a general, and that the Army of Northern Virginia was one of the finest armies in the history of man.

To some other of our Southern DU brethren, I do not forget that Nat Turner and Denmark Vesey were great men also, and worthy a better fate and a more prominent place in the national pantheon than they have received.

[rfkrocks]

1. God bless Mr Lincoln and Mr Grant!

Lincoln is rolling in his grave today because of shrub

[DivinBreuvage]

3. I wish the Railsplitter were here today

He'd go up to the Monkey House and lay the smack down on any little primates who were getting out of line.

[rfkrocks]

5. LOL!!!!

[Yupster]

16. And God bless General Lee

for surrendering.

President Davis wanted him to keep fighting and he knew that.

He could have ordered the army to scatter into the mountains and the war could have kept going in guerrilla fashion for years. General Lee was theman who decided the war was over and that was a truly great decision.

[DivinBreuvage]

21. You are right, probably the pinnacle of Lee's greatness as a human being

Here is a little of what he told E.P. Alexander, who suggested it:

If I ordered the men to go to General Johnston few would go. Their homes have been overrun by the enemy and their families need them badly. We have now simply to look the fact in the face that the Confederacy has failed.

And as Christian men, General Alexander, you and I have no right to think for one moment of our personal feelings or affairs. We must consider only the effect which our action will have upon the country at large.

Suppose I should take your suggestion.... The men would have no rations and they would be under no discipline. They are already demoralized by four years of war. They would have to plunder and rob to procure subsistence. The country would be full of lawless bands in every part, and a state of society would ensue from which it would take the country years to recover.

And as for myself, while you young men might afford to go to bushwhacking, the only proper and dignified course for me would be to surrender myself and take the consequences of my actions.

And Alexander noted "Then I thought I had never half known before what a big heart and brain our general had. I was so ashamed of having proposed to him such a foolish and wild cat scheme as my suggestion had been that I felt like begging him to forget he had ever heard it." (Fighting for the Confederacy: The Personal Recollections odf General Edward Porter Alexander, p. 533)

[GainesT1958]

2. Hmmm...I wouldn't claim Sherman so quickly...

He was a genuine war criminal...to the South, as well as to Native Americans!:mad:

It's hard to believe that it's only 11 more years until the Sesquecentennial of Appomattox...if only Lincoln had lived...Reconstruction would never have been what it was, and the rights of the newly-freed slaves might well have "stuck" a lot earlier than they did...i.e. perhaps, oh, 98 years earlier!

B-)

[DivinBreuvage]

9. I agree with you re: the Indians, but not about the South

He liked and respected white Southerners and he was fine with slavery (In fact he was teaching at a military academy in Louisiana when the Secession Crisis started). But as he told them before the war started, you have it awful damn good in America and if you try to wreck the Republic for all of us because of your States Rights nonsense you are going to get the crap kicked out of you and you will deserve every minute of it. (that is an interpretation of his words, not a quote)

As he himself said, "war is cruelty and you cannot refine it." But his depradations were nothing compared to what the US is doing in Iraq, what the Germans and Soviets did to each other, or any of the barbarisms that went on during the 30 Years War. He destroyed the economic base of the Confederate army, which was a legitimate military target, and he broke the will of the Southern home front to support the war, another legitimate military target. He did not go through the South committing genocide and in fact very few white civilians were killed or raped by the Union Army (I do admit to his disgrace and his army's that black people sometimes did not fare quite so well). In my opinion his actions against white Southerners were justified, and if the South was not prepared to face those consequences it shouldn't have started the game.

I also agree with you about Reconstruction, you make a good point that is far too often forgotten!

[Yupster]

19. I don't agree that breaking the will of the civilian population

is a legitimate war aim, especially by burning their food, killing their livestock and digging up and looting their valuables.

[DivinBreuvage]

22. Why not? If the populace demands that the army continue the war?

Numerous observers North and South commented on how influential Southern women were in promoting and sustaining the war. And I repeat, the cruelties of Sherman were mild indeed compared to other conquerers. I'd be much more in line with your way of thinking if he had engaged in murders, rapes, wholeslale slaughtering of civilians, and so forth... but I say again, in terms of the treatment they got from him I think the white southern populace sort of had it coming.

[Muddleoftheroad]

26. The Southern populace

Was also committing the lovely crime of enslaving an entire race.

As ye soe, so shall ye reap.

[RummyTheDummy]

46. We did the same thing to the Germans

But you know, Im not sure the Conferderates losting to the Union was any kind of big achievement. It really wasn't a fair fight. Anyone who has studied that period knows that.

[DivinBreuvage]

53. Yes, but anyone who has studied the period also knows

That the South had a good chance of winning. The North was going to have to not only defeat the Southern armies but also invade and occupy huge expanses of territory, an immense undertaking for armies sustained by 19th century logistics. All the Southerners needed to do to win was defend themselves long enough for the North to tire of the struggle. Southerners of the time obviously thought they could pull that off, as did numerous observers in Europe; and in fact they came very close to doing so on a couple of occasions, particularly in the summer of 1864.

And while the North did have an advantage in men and materiel, the disparity was not as great as it had been between the Colonies and Great Britain in the Revolution; a fact which Southerners cited to show that it was quite possible for their smaller but more inspired patriot armies to stave off the assault of inferior Yankee mudsills and "greasy mechanics". Furthermore, the size disparity of the armies was often not as great as is commonly supposed, a factor which was further offset by the huge tactical advantage the defense had over offense at the time.

The fact of the matter is that in the end the Northern will to win proved stronger than the South's; and the South made a couple of bad choices at particularly unlucky times.

[Zomby Woof]

40. ever read Sherman's memoirs?

It might give you some surprising insights about him.

I do adhere to his quote "War is all hell". He damn sure made it hell, but he also never romanticized it and did not come away unaffected by what he both saw and did.

[buycitgo]

4. If only it had been a draw

sigh......

[homelandpunk]

12. Excuse me!! I'm black. In Mississippi. Care to explain yourself...boy?

Ok, I am a white guy. In Missouri. Sorry for the misleading dramatic header.
But just for shits n' grins, care to explain your "sigh" and for what you grieve?
I have no romance for the goddamn rebels.

[Muddleoftheroad]

27. Yeah, who cares about us darkies after all

Jesus give me strength.

[NoPasaran]

6. Huzzah for General Grant!

His Presidency nothwithstanding US Grant is worthy of his place in the pantheon of American heroes for his services preserving the Union.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

7. Yay!!!!!!!!!!!! God Bless the Union!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[kentuck]

8. And so ended the war of northern aggression...

:)

[buycitgo]

10. please......take it all back......esPECIALLY Texas

just think, if we'd played to a draw

Bush would be president of some other benighted third world nation

think about it

[DivinBreuvage]

14. They'd be on some kind of Lebensraum nonsense now anyway

They'd be calling us "Mudsills" though, not Untermenschen. But they'd still want to grab the riches they didn't earn, still want to eat the bread that was earned in the sweat of another man's face.

They thought they were a master race, the rich white Southrons did. As they sang in a little ditty of the day:

You have no such blood as ours for the shedding
In the veins of cavaliers was its bedding
You have no such stately men
In your abolition den

[NoPasaran]

24. Bush is from Connecticut

You'd still be stuck with him. Our president would be Molly Ivins.

[buycitgo]

31. you think you'd have WOMEN in office, much less voting?

come ON!

the Boosh family would've gone south so FAST after it was over, they'd have turned all the escaping slaves WHITE!

[Ishoutandscream]

50. And I wouldn't be an American citizen

Remember, there are Texas Duers on this board. Do you wish us to be "third world" citizens?

By the way, Bush was born in Connecticut. He would have been eligible to run for president if Texas were a "third world nation."

Tired of the Texas bashing on this board.

[DivinBreuvage]

11. Yeah, sort of like the way the Poles started World War II !

Y'all shoulda freed your slaves first, boy. :)

[MonicaR]

39. The Correct Alternate Title would be..

The War To Preserve Slavery

[Yupster]

41. I like the

War For Southern Independance.

Seems the most accurate and least biased.

[theHandpuppet]

48. Have you actually read the Articles of Secession?

As to the root causes for secession, preserving the abominable institution of slavery cannot be excised from Confederate Secession. The ongoing, determined attempt by modern-day southern partisans to whitewash the history of the Confederacy is not an attempt to memorialize so much as it is an exercise in denial.

Just a tiny selection of historical documents relating to the secession of Southern states:

Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
http://www.etsu.edu/cas/history/docs/secdeccauses.htm

Ordinances of Secession of the 13 Confederate States of America
http://www.etsu.edu/cas/history/docs/ordofsecession.htm

Message of Governor Isham Harris to the Tennessee Assembly, Nashville, January 7, 1861
http://www.etsu.edu/cas/history/docs/tngovonsecession1.htm

More...
http://www.claremont.org/writings/940415jaffa.html

[pezcore64]

55. interesting

"Ordinances of Secession of the 13 Confederate States of America "

I always thought kentucky was always considered neutral in the war, its people giving to both sides.
funny how kentuckys makes the most sense out of the rest of them. seeing as it has nothing to do with slavery, but hatred for war.

[kentuck]

60. 139 years later and we still can't make a joke about it.....

maybe later.....? :)

[jpgray]

13. Too bad Johnson was first such an asshole, and later such a tool

:(

[DivinBreuvage]

15. LOL... He had a rough time of it

At one point he went on a train tour around the country with Grant, and got mightily pissed because whenever he'd come out to speechify people would start screaming to see Grant. Probably a couple of those rough frontiersman even hollered at him to shut the hell up and git the general out there.

[markses]

17. Huzzah!

n/t

[Taverner]

18. Sigh...Maybe if they would have executed Lee

And all of his thugs the racist part of the South would have learned their lesson...

[Yupster]

20. Would he get a trial first?

Or an execution first?

And what would he be tried for?

[Taverner]

23. Treason

He took up arms against his country - that is, by very definition, Treason.

[NoPasaran]

25. They should have hung Jeff Davis to a sour apple tree

But I can forgive general Lee. He did after all advise his men at the end of the war to return to their homes and be good citizens despite some of his officers' urging that they turn to guerrilla warfare. He was a complex man.

[Taverner]

33. I understand Lee may have done some good things

...but as another poster said the confederacy was every bit as evil as Nazi Germany. Not just because of Slavery (although slavery was the American Holocaust, plain and simple ), mind you. Under the Antebellum economy, there were plantation owners, slaves and everyone else - Three classes rich, owned, and neglected. No middle class, and the South wanted it that way.

Freedom of Speech? Give me a break! One should read accounts of what life was like for the average person in the antebellum South...but I digress...

Lee and Davis both took up arms against their country, and even invaded at one point. This is at least mass murder, if not treason.

[NoPasaran]

38. Not to defend the confederacy, but

1. It was not was evil as Nazi Germany. It sought to perpetuate an aristocratic agricultural economy whose labor power was an evil system, chattel slavery. The CSA was never engaged in a project of world conquest and did not perpetrate the Holocaust.

2. True, abolitionist sentiments were repressed in the South, and the right of habeas corpus was suspended during the war (as it was in the Union). But newspapers critical of the Davis administration did publish (e.g. The Richmond Whig) and political candidates who opposed the policies of the government did participate in state elections.

3. I will not argue that Davis, Lee and the rest of the confederates were guilty of treason. But they waged war; they were not mass murderers.

[Yupster]

29. Virginia left the Union

by vote of its state legislature which was then ratified overwhelmingly by a popular vote of its citizens by referrendum.

Whether that was a legal secession or not is a question the courts should have decided. It hadn't ever been done before in the US so there wasn't a clear answer one way or the other.

General Lee and President Davis were both indicted for treason.

Lee did not want a trial. He just wanted to be an example to his soldiers by being a good American citizen and going back to work. He lived about five years.

Davis demanded a trial. He had a high priced legal team willing to defend him made up of anti-slavery northern millionaires like Horace Greeley and Cornelius Vanderbilt. His defense was that secession was legal, and therefore the USA invaded and conquered and occupied an independant Confederacy.

Though Davis was indicted, the federal government refused to ever try him. He never did get his day in court because the government was too cowardly to test whether secession would be ruled legal or illegal. What a situation we would have had if the Supreme Court would have ruled secession legal. What would have happened then?

Better not to take the chance. Davis was just left indicted, and was eventually bailed out of jail by the same northern millionaires. He lived 25 more years and never did get his day in court.

So, in my opinion, there's a lot more to the story than "Lee's a traitor, hang him."

Treason is a serious crime. It's decided in courts by juries and judges. Not by guys on an internet discussion board. In general, if an indicted defendant begs for a trial, and the government refuses to try him, then I'm not going to jump to the conclusion that the government must be right and the defendant must be guilty.

[Muddleoftheroad]

28. Thank God Lee surrendered

He did more to heal the nation with that one act that any other Southerner.

Lincoln knew we needed healers.

[DrWeird]

30. The Confederacy was every bit as evil as Nazi Germany.

They just hadn't invented gas chambers yet.

This date in history is as great a day as V-E day.

[Yupster]

34. Okay, I'll bite

Please expound on how the Confederacy was as evil as Nazi Germany. I'd like to hear it.

[Taverner]

35. Slavery=American Holocaust

It was genocide, and the American Holocaust.

The Union's hands are not blood free in this either, I'm afraid.

[Yupster]

37. Genocide according to my trusty Random House is

"extermination of a national or racial group as a planned move."

Whatever evil terms you want to list under slavery, genocide clearly is not one of them. Slaves were valuable property, and were not exterminated. In fact, after the slave trade was legally ended in 1808, the A-A population of the south steadily rose right up until the Civil War. The population of Jews in Hitler's Europe did not rise right up until the end of World War II. That was genocide. Slavery was not.

Also, Nazi Germany was characterized by invading Poland, Norway, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Luxembourg, Holland, Belgium, France, Yugoslavia, Greece and the Soviet Union.

The Confederacy fought a mostly defensive war with a almost all the battles fought on its own soil.

Politically, Hitler's Germany was a pure one-man dictatorship. Anyone opposed was arrested or killed. Say what you want about Jefferson Davis, but he ran no dictatorship. In fact, many historians today count the disunity of the Confederate government as one of the principal reasons for its failings. Certainly Confederate politicians and newspapers felt no fear of criticizing Davis in the press or in Congress, and governors defied him openly, even when it hurt the war effort.

Honestly, don't you think comparing Nazi Germany to the CSA is a bit over the top? Every bad guy isn't Idi Amin, and every criminal isn't Jeffrey Dahlmer.

[bicentennial_baby]

52. Try the UN Genocide Convention definition

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm

[walmartsucks]

57. Alas

They take great pains to define it yet do nothing to stop or prevent it vis a vis Rwanda, Bosnia, Myanmar, Cambodia...what country will be next on the list?

[Zomby Woof]

32. screw Sheridan

I wouldn't be so proud of him. He was the genocidal asshole who coined the phrase "the only good Indian is a dead Indian."

[DivinBreuvage]

36. Yes indeed, but I mentioned him not as a great human being

But as one of the men who kicked the living daylights out of the Confederacy. That STILL deserves credit, despite his later treatment of the Indians, for which, yes, it probably would have been preferable if he had gone down with Custer. And while it pales beside his treatment of the Indians, the way he handled Gouverneur K. Warren, one of the great heroes of Gettysburg, in the last days of the war was pretty damned shabby too.

On the other hand, he also said "If I owned Texas and Hell I'd live in Hell and rent Texas."

[K8-EEE]

42. Does Anybody Ever Think We ARE Two Countries?

Man I have more in common with any given Canadian or Mexican or whatever than those "proud of the Confederacy" places....GAK!

Seriously what the heck are they so proud of...of their forefathers being traitors to this nation? Of fucking SLAVERY?? Hoop skirts? WHAT??

[Elwood P Dowd]

43. More Southern bashing. No wonder the South votes repub.

More posts about the North kicking the South's ass in the Civil War. I'm a proud Southerner who was born in Alabama, and I have lived here 52 of my 57 years. My parents and grandparents were also born here. However, when you go back to the 1860s, the family tree is all over the place.
Some were living in the South, some were living in the North, and some
were still living in Europe. There are millions of Southerners who have little
or no relation to the Confederacy, yet we’re all painted with the same broad brush.

What the fuck is this obsession with you Northerners and the constant
bashing of the South? Hell, the North had four times as many men and
ten times as much money. You should have won the damn war in 6 months!

[DivinBreuvage]

44. I didn't bash you... I just said it's a good thing that you lost

And I stand by it.

[Elwood P Dowd]

45. I didn't lose anything!

I wasn't alive then and neither were you. 75% of my ancestors were not
even living in the South then. I'm fucking tired of this crap. You
wanna' fight it all over again? No wonder the damn South votes for
Bushits. People like you make it happen!!!!!

[fujiyama]

47. While I wouldn't say

"you" lost, I would say that it is good the south lost.

Anyways, I think "southern bashing" is exagerrated. I think most people here are simple saying it is good that the union won. Also, I think it is fair to be critical of the voting habits of those in the south. After all, this is a liberal discussion board. The south, as a region votes overwhelmingly conservative and support far right policies. It represents that which is anathema to the left: bigotry, intolerance, and religious fundamentalism.

For example, in Alabama, there was recently a referendum over interracial marriages. Now, keep in that the Supreme Court ruled that miscegnation laws were illegal, and they were not in effect in any state since the 60s (I forgot the SC court case). What is shocking though, is that the vote was still extremely close. FORTY FUCKIN PERCENT still voted to keep such disgusting laws on the books.

It's not because of random posters on internet discussion boards that people in the south vote for Bush. The republican party panders to whhite racism, plain and simple. While racism is a definite problem all over the US, it is particularly acute still in the south, especially the deep south.

[DivinBreuvage]

49. Then what are you so angry about?

And where in this thread have I ever blamed anything on, or otherwise "bashed", modern Southerners? Everything I have said has clearly been directed at the Southern Confederacy of 1860-65 and you wrong me with your baseless accusations.

Perhaps I shouldn't have said "you" lost, in post 44, but I got the impression from your post that you identified with the Confederacy. If not, I do apologize.

Anyhow, I think you jumped the gun on this one and let your passion run away with your head, I'm afraid. A common trait of the hot-blooded Southern cavalier. :)

[Ishoutandscream]

51. Well said. Many poor southerners fought bravely for a terrible cause

It should have taken the north a few weeks, rather than four years, to defeat a vastly outnumbered and un-industrialized south. And yes, this thread was started to get the dander up of the southerners on this board who had also had family members fight in this terrible war.

[DivinBreuvage]

54. Wrong on two counts!

1. Modern historians such as James McPherson, Herman Hattaway and Archer Jones, and Russel Weigley have shown that the claim of the South's "vastly inferior" resources just doesn't wash. P.G.T. Beauregard didn't believe it either.

2. Your assertion as to why this thread was started is not only wrong, it's ridiculous that you would make it. The thread was not started to get up the dander of white Southerners who honor their Confederate heritage. In fact I took pains to point out that I do not condemn them for honoring that memory. But it is a great day for America and a great day for me as a Northerner, and I have a right to celebrate it and be proud of it.

I do agree with you that on the whole the Confederate soldiers fought with magnificent courage and tenacity for a terrible cause.

[Ishoutandscream]

62. What was the population of the two areas? And the number of munitions

factories? Can't quote up front certain historians, but I do know that the south had one munitions plant, no comparison to what the north had.

Not only that, but compare populations of the two areas. The South was vastly outnumbered, and with their insane philosophy of "King Cotton," much poorer. Not only that, the north started and effective blockade. Southern soldiers fought with far inferior numbers and equipment, many with empty stomachs. Many fought in just their bare feet, for God's sake.

The south was destined to lose because of its lack of resources and numbers. I have two family members who fought and died for the south - both dirt poor farmers who did not own slaves (like many in the south). The southern soldier was brave, and showed that bravery by fighting a vastly superior north for four long years. That was a major accomplishment in itself.

I'm glad you have enjoyed yourself on this. Their are many scars left from this war. Like one poster said before, it's this kind of gloating and arrogance that doesn't help our cause as Democrats down here in the south.

[Yupster]

65. Some numbers

Generally the population figures are about 23 million in the north to 5 million - 5.5 million (excluding slaves) in the south.

An additional problem for the south was northern immigration. At Gettysburg, Lee fielded his full army at its finest, increased to nine divisions of 75,000 men. That was about 1 of every 11 southern white man.

In 1861, 92,000 people immigrated to the north, 92,000 more in 1862, 176,000 in 1863, 193,000 in 1864, and 248,000 in 1865. The largest group came from Germany, where a large portion of the men were veterans of the German Armies and soon found themselves fighting again, this time wearing blue. Not only did the Union recruiting seem gigantic, but the supply seemed endless.

The north made 32 guns for every one made in the south at the start of the war, 20 pounds of pig iron for every one, and 17 pounds of textiles for every one.

To me the most amazing stat is that the north had 110,000 factories employing 1.3 million factory workers. The south had 1,800 factories, employing 110,000 factory workers. In other words, the north had one factory for every one factory worker in the south. To me that's amazing.

[Yupster]

64. Very interesting debate currently among historians

Why did the Confederacy lose the war?

The fact that the north had vastly more resources is a given, but the better question is "did the south have enough resources to win?" I think historians have done good work recently concluding that it did.

No battle was ever lost by the south for lack of guns or ammunition. Of course that doesn't cancel the fact that the north had much more of everything, and better everything too, but did the south have enough?

Enough weapons and ammunition? Yes, enough to keep its armies in the field. Enough food? No - armies were often at less than maximum efficiency because of lack of food and especially forage. This was as much a transportation problem as anything, but the ANV had nothing like the vast cities of supplies that followed the AOP.

Some have argued that a lack of southern will to win was more important than the discrepency of materials.

I reject this view because of the percentages of men in uniform and casualties that the Confederate armies sustained while they still fought well.

No group of Americans ever put 75 % of its eligible population in uniform like the CSA did, and no group ever sustained 25 % dead (250,000) and 25 % wounded in a war like the CSA did. To me those numbers are obvious that the Confederate population did not lack will.

So, where do I come down?

After years of research and teaching, my view is as follows. The Confederacy could not win the war. It could just fight long enough and hard enough for the north to get tired and go home. In my view, the Confederate armies did fight long and hard enough to make that happen. In fact they fought harder than any other Americans ever did. However, the north did not go home. They sustained 350,000 dead and kept coming stronger than ever. Yet the north didn't go home.

Therefore, I believe the question needs to be changed. The south did not lose the war. They did as well as they could. The north won the war by utilizing their superior resources and coming back again and again when many other countries would have long given up and gone home.

Give credit where it is due. The north won the war.

I think more research needs to be done on what kept the northern armies in the field and the population willing to arm more and more armies to invade the south year after year. I think this is a very significant political event that has pretty much not been researched enough.

Obviously Lincoln'e EP was a significant event which turned the war from one to save the Union to one to end slavery. I think that probably did much to bolster the Union war effort long-term. It was a cause worth fighting for, regardless of the cost.

That's my very volumninous 2 cents anyways.

[walmartsucks]

56. And the state that has the largest percentage of

black elected officials is....(drumroll please).... Mississippi!

[pschoeb]

59. I should hope so, they have the largest percentage of black residents

of any state at 38%. Still, no Black US Senators ever from Mississpi, and only one US Representative out of the current 4, pretty unbelievable. While I'm not proud of Illinois's track record, we will have if we get Barrack Obama in, have had elected two black Senators, the most of any State. The black population of Illinois is 16%.

Go Illinois, also home of Grant and Lincoln

Patrick Schoeb

[Centre_Left]

58. You are all weird.

I seriously am beginning to think that people in the North are more obsessed about the Civil War than people in the South. The only people who still think about the Civil War in the South are members of the League of the South, rednecks, and other people whose views are generally considered a bit nutty (by Southerners) for reasons primarily resulting from living in poverty. Most middle class people could honestly care less. I have lived in the South my entire life, and the ONLY people who have ever made any sort of rousing comment to me about the Civil War are people from the North.

[Ishoutandscream]

63. Absolutely. I am tired of being called "arrogant" because I'm a Texan

when I see much arrogance from some of our northern brethren here at Du. I want to forget what happended then, but there are some who seem to enjoy bringing it up.

[cureautismnow]

61. Many Slavery Enablers Among South AND North Forebears

- Slavery existed in all 13 colonies.

- The U.S. flag flew over slavery for 89 years.

- 10 of the first 12 U.S. Presidents owned slaves in their lifetimes.

- The United States Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case of 1857 specified that a slave did not become free when taken into a free state, Congress could not bar slavery from a territory, and blacks could not be citizens.

- Grant owned slaves.

- The Compromise of 1850 strengthened fugitive slave laws and allowed slavery to continue in DC.

- Lincoln was afraid to speak out on the Fugitive Slave Act. He wrote to a friend, "I confess I hate to see the poor creatures hunted down...but I bite my lips and keep quiet."

- 1st Lady Polk replaced hired WH servants with slaves to cut costs.

- New Jersey rejected the 13th amendment on its first attempt at ratification in 1865. Accepted on next attempt, months later.

- Delaware ratified the 13th amendment in 1901, Kentucky in 1976, and Mississippi in 1995!

- The last slave ship arrived in Alabama in 1859.

- Nearly 1/3 of all Southern families owned slaves.

- Slavery outlawed in DC in 1862, but a million dollars was set aside to "compensate" former slaveholders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One interesting tidbit on Ohio:

http://www.shelbycountyhistory.org/schs/blackhistory/ohioasanonslave.htm

The year was 1803 and Ohio became the first state carved out of the Northwest Territory where the ownership of slaves was not permitted. Although officially a non-slave state, Ohioans were divided on slavery and racist attitudes were not uncommon, as shown by the Ohio legislature of 1804 in the passage of laws that prohibited blacks from serving on juries and testifying against whites in court cases. It also mandated that no Negro or mulatto will be allowed to settle in the state without a certificate of freedom, and that blacks already living here must register and pay a registration fee of 12 1/2 cents. Whites were forbidden to employ a Negro unless he had a certificate of freedom.