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

Did the Civil War drag on for so long because it was a deliberate genocide?

An article from Smithsonian Magazine was recently quoted on my MSN homepage. It suggested the Wide Awakes were formed in response to pro-slavery thugs intimidating the political process including disrupting rallies with violence.

Perhaps hundreds of thugs in every major Northern city were being paid to commit political violence by pro-slavery forces. It is possible. However, there is also a strong ethnofascist current in Southern nationalism. They don’t always think of the country as “ours.” They seem to think they will have what is their right when their ethnicity has its own country to run. Perhaps that was the case in 1860 as well.

Can it be the sentiment ran higher in the days when compulsory public education was still new and many newcomers still identified most strongly with their ancestors' ethnicity and homeland? Can it be the political violence was motivated in part by identity politics, or that pro-slavery forces manipulated ethnofascist sentiment?

An army may not be a democracy but low morale can mean they show up for battles but just don’t win. Can it be that a large portion of the Union army sympathized with their Southern counterparts and would have been proud to see a Celtic nation in the southeast? Low morale can be infectious.

In addition, according to the Ken Burns film The Civil War, the nation thought of itself as a collection of separate but united states rather than one country.

A perceived lack of will or moral authority to prosecute the war could have been an important factor in Presidential candidate McClellan’s platform of seeking a negotiated peace with the South in the 1864 election. He nearly succeeded.

From the history lesson I was recently taught the north was demanding lots of cotton for textiles, the plantations were overloaded trying to keep up with demand and it went too far.

Thank heaven for Eli Whitney and the cotton gin.

the war was horrible, it was brother against brother, family against family.

Very sad times.

Imho you should read more about the Civil War in America before trying to create theories and or Hypotheticals. Then actually write your own opinion of the history or other aspects of this war. Maybe this is what you tried to do, I do not know?

a reply to: Solvedit

C'mon man, they can't define genocide any better than they can define fascist or woman.

originally posted by: CataclysmicRockets
Imho you should read more about the Civil War in America before trying to create theories and or Hypotheticals. Then actually write your own opinion of the history or other aspects of this war. Maybe this is what you tried to do, I do not know?

Do you disagree with my hypothesis that the North fought back hard when invaded but large parts of the Union army didn't put on a very motivated effort when they had the opportunity to take the war to the South and end the war? It would have negated many of their advantages.

a reply to: Solvedit

I would like to learn more, can you provide a link to the article that you got this from?

originally posted by: Solvedit

originally posted by: CataclysmicRockets
Imho you should read more about the Civil War in America before trying to create theories and or Hypotheticals. Then actually write your own opinion of the history or other aspects of this war. Maybe this is what you tried to do, I do not know?

Do you disagree with my hypothesis that the North fought back hard when invaded but large parts of the Union army didn't put on a very motivated effort when they had the opportunity to take the war to the South and end the war? It would have negated many of their advantages.

I would need to know more about that battle and would ask for proper citation.

Ah The Civil War. What a messed up time that was. if only people could read the site history first.

a reply to: Solvedit

No. It was a protracted civil war, but nowhere near the longest in history.

What was in the category of Genocide/Ethnic cleansing was how we treated indigenous populations.

"I'm sorry, Choctaw, Cherokee, Creek, and Seminole, but we've decided because George Washington said god said this is supposed to be ours, we can move you to Oklahoma. We promise it's just like the Mississippi River Valley. But we need this land for places like Memphis!"

No way to dress that up, our history is rich in divinely influenced ethnic cleansing and genocide through ambivalence.

a reply to: Solvedit

No.

The word "genocide" has a definition. This is a fact that many brainwashed fools dont understand and instead use the word as a catch-all for people dying.

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

No. Obviously not. Read up on what genocide is. The Civil War isn't it.
It took a long time because it covered a lot of ground and they didn't
have the kind of weapons we have today.

a reply to: Solvedit

Genocide, is not determined by the duration of a conflict or war.

It's determined by the volume of death, of a race.

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.

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.

originally posted by: Guyfriday
a reply to: Solvedit

I would like to learn more, can you provide a link to the article that you got this from?

It's on Smithsonianmag.com, in the April 1 edition. I don't want to post unnecessary links. It's called "The Club of Cape Wearing Activists Who Helped Start the Wide Awakes" or something like that.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

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

No. Obviously not. Read up on what genocide is. The Civil War isn't it.
It took a long time because it covered a lot of ground and they didn't
have the kind of weapons we have today.

They claim it went on unnecessarily long.

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

They won the Antietam and Gettysburg campaigns which were attempts by General Lee to invade the North, and they repelled General Early's attack on Washington, but their campaigns into rebel territory did not result in an end to the war until it had been almost five years. Do I have to list every battle?

a reply to: Solvedit

Please buy a dictionary.

Words in the English language have specific meanings.

Seems that these days people think they can make them mean whatever they want in order to promote their agenda.

Next up, “hey, let’s change the definition of language!”

originally posted by: Solvedit
They claim it went on unnecessarily long.

Poppycock.

April 12, 1861 – April 9, 1865

Have you ever read books about Abraham Lincoln, the man
who directed the war? He agonized over it. The war sucked
the life out of him. I"m sure he wanted it over as fast as
possible.

The war covered a lot of territory, and it was fought by
men on foot with guns and bayonetes. (however it's spelled).
Everyone these days wants a war that is over in an instant.
It doesn't work that way. Unless you have all out nuclear warfare.

a reply to: Solvedit

Cool thanks, I'll give this a read.
For anyone else wanting to read the article: smithsonianmag.com

originally posted by: Solvedit
It suggested the Wide Awakes were formed in response to pro-slavery thugs intimidating the political process including disrupting rallies with violence.

Perhaps hundreds of thugs in every major Northern city were being paid to commit political violence by pro-slavery forces. It is possible.

Sounds very much like the paid and organized Antifa/BLM thugs today, perhaps being paid by the ancestors of those who paid the Civil war thugs. IMO war is nothing but political theater used to divide people and nations and as an 'added bonus' for the evil corrupt 'elites' , it's population control