Was the Civil War a genocide for having gone on for so long?

Don't know the answer to this question.
I do know that the civil war we are currently in 'yes it started' will be thousands of times worse . This is not the future I envisioned for my children.

originally posted by: Boogerpicker
C'mon man, they can't define genocide any better than they can define fascist or woman.

I was hoping the thread wouldn't be about the strict definition of genocide but whether the war was deliberately prolonged to increase body count.

My point was, morale is important. Suppose many members of the Union armies only put their best foot forward when Northern territory was being invaded, which led to a lack of a quick resolution, because they didn't try hard enough when there was an opportunity to bring about a quick end to the war by taking Richmond.

What if the commanders weren't dragging their feet? What if the North hadn't deliberately promoted unskilled leaders in order to prolong the war? What if they didn't have the political support to try hard enough to cause the men to fight when invading rebel territory?

McClellan is said to have brought the Union army to a very high state of preparedness.

originally posted by: CataclysmicRocketsI would need to know more about that battle and would ask for proper citation.

I was referring mainly to the entire eastern theater during most of the war.

It seems every time the North tried to invade the South and take Richmond, they would be defeated such as Bull Run, Second Bull Run, Seven Days, Fredricksburg, Chancellorsville, and many others until almost the end of the war. However, when the South tried to invade the North such as Lee's campaigns which ended in the battles of Antietam and Gettysburg, and Early's 1864 march on Washington, then the South was defeated.

It seems the various naval battles and the war in the West by the Mississippi river did not go that way, though.

Some say some ethniciity were not brought here but were native here History was changed to subvert and keep them down.

It wasn't about slavery Lincoln made it about slavery or so they say he was not a very good dude

originally posted by: UnderAether
Some say some ethniciity were not brought here but were native here History was changed to subvert and keep them down.

There is the legend of Hy-Brasil. There was said to be a large island not that far to the west of Europe. Maybe it was a retirement program for aging galley hands who could not row any more. Maybe some were deemed unfit to retire among the people. Maybe they were given a worn-out galley and rowed west. Maybe some of them made it.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Solvedit
Majority of the men fighting for the south had no idea what they were even fighting for, all they knew was that they were called to arms to fight the big bad north.

Can it be they had some idea of what they were in it for, even if they didn't care about what the leadership wanted?

It is possible ordinary people back then would have simply assumed they weren't well included in the plans of the rich.

The ordinary people still could have wished they had a place of their own.

A genocide involves one ethnic group, that all generally agree to dehumanize another ethnic group is nothing but a waste of space or pests and need to be removed down to the genetic makeup of that targeted group.

It just hit me. If pro-slavery forces were manipulating the common folk into disrupting Abolitionist political events, perhaps they also manipulated them into feeling they should fight for their home state, but should be ashamed of taking someone else's home state. This would fit the pattern of the Eastern theater. It is a recipe for stalemate.

Maybe not everyone realized stalemates were deadly because of disease.

Slavery had been ended or was ending in Europe and the Americas due to public pressure. People were turning away slave made goods. One of the largest purchasers of Southern cotton, the British navy, had shelled slave forts and patrolled the seas to stop international slave trading because of public pressure. Surely the writing was on the wall that slavery was on its way out. The Brazilian plantations voluntarily ended slavery in 1868. It was probably in response to pressure from the buying public.

The planters in the South continued to prefer their former help after the war and they probably wanted what land the ordinary people had in the South for themselves. Can it be they talked ordinary people into agitating for slavery before the war, then talked them into holding attitudes which were surreptitiously calculated to create a stalemate during the war? Then those there planters would get more land.

People do tend to think in big dumb groups. Ethnic determinism is an example of thinking in big dumb groups. They know some people descended from some Europeans who came in through Ellis Island in the 1890s, and they think those people are all right.

But what if when the British navy cracked down on piracy in the 1710s, they chased some of them and some of their supporting shore based staff over here?

What if the crackdown had been a sham and the pirates had been operating in support of Britain's interests? What if Britain wanted to retire them without admitting Britain had been using them?

What if the US was gifted the land of the colonies in the 1783 Treaty of Paris in part because they agreed to house and look after these former pirates? What if they took their agreement seriously?

What if a less-responsible, third party wanted the pirates gone so they could put plantations on their land? They were trying to expand into Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas, after all.

It's possible the planters funded the slow destruction of Southern manpower without ever giving them enough to win.

If the planters manipulated ordinary folk in the North and South into agitating violently against their own interests in favor of slavery, maybe the planters also manipulated ordinary folk North and South into the attitude that they should fight for their home state and their side, but be ashamed of attacking the other side?

This attitude was surreptitiously calculated to cause a stalemate and it was not immediately obvious to the common folk that disease was a 4X larger killer than battle in those days.