History Forum / War History / US Civil War / June 2005

Was the civil war REALLY about slavery?
Firstly, the abolitionists were an extreme, secondly four slave states
were in the union, and last, but not least, lincoln offered to continue
slavery if the confederacy would re-join the union

The plan for the assault on the Confederate fortifications appears to
have been that Blair and DeCourcy would move forward in line across the
bayou. Thayer would follow in column up the road. Sheldon and Lindsey
would attempt to move across the pontoon, but if the pontoon was not in

When casualties are reported by a source as so many killed and so many
wounded, does this only include men known casualties immediately following
the battle? Or does it also include men whose fate was eventually
determined. Do wounded include those wounded that fell into enemy ...

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs,May 19 2005 1:50 pm
From: hubcap
"Dave Smith" <dmsmith001@yahoo.com> writes:

DISCOVER THE DRAMA OF OUR NATION'S DARKEST DAYS
IN THE NEW LINCOLN: THE CONSTITUTION AND THE CIVIL WAR EXHIBITION
AT THE NATIONAL CONSTITUTION CENTER
PHILADELPHIA, June 10, 2005 - The story of America's darkest days - when

Because of his unwavering commitment to states rights, Abraham Lincoln
was politically dedicated to protecting slavery. Indeed, he
enthusiastically gave his full and firm support to the fugitive slave
laws, repeatedly asserted he had no inclination or authority to

When the "Confederate" states declared secession, all
the machinery of the Federal government in their
territories was abolished, including the Federal
courts.

I've been amused as I watched the conversation about individuals who
swore an oath to the US as miliatry officers, and then betrayed that
oath, wander off into discussions of which day they might have
resigned, what day was it accepted (the resignation), what day did they

I previously posted the following on alt.genealogy but did not receive
a response.  Hopefully this will be a more appropriate site to post
such a request.
----------------------

I mean maybe im being to CRITICAL OF HISTORY or whatever, but who the
hell fires someone for doing a damn good job but then saying you did
such a good job you should have done better?
I mean, firing someone after winning the most important battle?  What

Another thread has got me thinking about Gov Letcher again. Is there a
bio worth reading? He seems in many ways a most remarkable and
underrated man. A proposition for debate:
The respective efforts of John Letcher and Isham Harris in early 1861

I've noticed that often times the two sides in ACW debates are talking
past each other, not to or with each other. I think part of the problem
is that Union defenders believe that Confederate defenders reject
certain ideas that they hold dear.  I would like to lay out a six basic

Time and again, various posters over the years have used the example of
the American Revolution as a comparison to the Confederacy.  These
comparisons tend to take one of two forms:
1) The Revolution and 1861 secession were equivalent because they were