In Dixie-Land, I'll take my stand, to live and die in Dixie

reply to post by badgerprints


Beautifully spoken. Tell you the truth, I prefer the agricultural environment.

Man, slave owners were unscrupulous as all tarnation though. North, South, don't be surprised people who would take ownership over another person to be morally corrupt.

But the North and the Union shouldn't moralize over slavery when they owned them until up to just a few years before the war. They have no right to claim the moral high ground. Especially when their idea of outlawing something is just changing the name.

Lincoln is in my opinion one of the worst presidents ever. He waged war on his own people, suspended habeas corpus, and made horrible judgement calls. It's a rotten soul that tries to convince a military man like Robert E. Lee to fight against his own home state of Virginia. And it shows a fundamental lack of understanding of Lee's character on Lincoln's behalf.

And it's a poor judge of character to give the position of general to a degenerate alcoholic like Ulysses S. Grant. And then, Grant becomes president. In any fair world, the south would have won independence, Grant would have lived the rest of his life in disgrace like the miserable drunk he was, and Lincoln would be alive to live out the rest of his life as a failure and a deposed tyrant.

A man can dream, right?

Grifter42
reply to post by badgerprints

 

Beautifully spoken. Tell you the truth, I prefer the agricultural environment.

Man, slave owners were unscrupulous as all tarnation though. North, South, don't be surprised people who would take ownership over another person to be morally corrupt.

But the North and the Union shouldn't moralize over slavery when they owned them until up to just a few years before the war. They have no right to claim the moral high ground. Especially when their idea of outlawing something is just changing the name.

Lincoln is in my opinion one of the worst presidents ever. He waged war on his own people, suspended habeas corpus, and made horrible judgement calls. It's a rotten soul that tries to convince a military man like Robert E. Lee to fight against his own home state of Virginia. And it shows a fundamental lack of understanding of Lee's character on Lincoln's behalf.

And it's a poor judge of character to give the position of general to a degenerate alcoholic like Ulysses S. Grant. And then, Grant becomes president. In any fair world, the south would have won independence, Grant would have lived the rest of his life in disgrace like the miserable drunk he was, and Lincoln would be alive to live out the rest of his life as a failure and a deposed tyrant.

A man can dream, right?

I think I could agree with you on the south winning independence if they'd freed the slaves before firing the first shot.

As it is, I think the US ended up a lot more divided because of the aftermath of the war than because of the war it's self.

reply to post by Grifter42

And it's a poor judge of character to give the position of general to a degenerate alcoholic like Ulysses S. Grant. And then, Grant becomes president. In any fair world, the south would have won independence, Grant would have lived the rest of his life in disgrace like the miserable drunk he was, and Lincoln would be alive to live out the rest of his life as a failure and a deposed tyrant.

A man can dream, right?

True that Grant was a drunk, and probably the most corrupt presidential administration ever other than our current one. However he was aggressive. He knew he had men and resources and the South did'nt. At battles like the Wilderness Grant was just throwing as many men as he could at the confederates becasue he knew for every man he lost, there would be 4-5 replacements waiting. For every man Lee lost there would be no replacements. That was the gist of Grants strategies most of the time.

I really believe that America would have been a much different place if Lincoln had not been shot five days after the war ended.

One thing that most people are ignorant of when discussing the "great emancipator" is that he had every intention of taking the former slaves and loading them up on boats and sending them back to Africa. He said that there would always be too much tension between the former slaves and slaveowners for this country to ever heal properly from the war. And he was right too, just look at the rise in power of the KKK from the end of the war to almost 100 years later when their political influence started to finally wane. And even today, where you have people like Jesse Jackson who spew racist anti-white rhetoric constantly becasue they knew that if racism were ever to truly die they would have to get a real job.

You should read some of harry Turtledoves books in the "Guns of the South" series. He writes alternative history and in his version of the civil war, those marching orders of Lee's are never found wrapped around those three cigars and his invasion of the North ends with the capture of washington DC and victory for the South. The books then go into an alternate version of history where the US allies itself with Germany and when WWI breaks out, its France, britain and the CSA against germany and the US. I found them to be very interesting and entertaining reads, you might like them.