diaglo
Adventurer
Canis said:The question of which side is "more morally defensible" or more "civilized" is like asking which of these two apples is more like an orange.
the yellow one
Canis said:The question of which side is "more morally defensible" or more "civilized" is like asking which of these two apples is more like an orange.
Gentlegamer said:I'd also like to point out that the United States has never had a civil war.
There is an important difference between "civil war" and the war between the United States and the Confederate States . . .Canis said:Semantics.
The United States invaded the Confederate States. The decision the Confederate States made was to secede from the United States, not to invade her or capture her leaders, etc.Everyone is getting tied into knots about "the rules of civilized warfare" and other such nonsense phrases. You're talking about the escalation of a situation where two parties have already come to the decision that killing vast numbers of people is a better solution to their differences than continuing to talk about it.
Gentlegamer said:The United States invaded the Confederate States. The decision the Confederate States made was to secede from the United States, not to invade her or capture her leaders, etc.
In April 1861 Lincoln sent word to Jefferson Davis, the President of the Confederacy. He told Davis he was sending needed supplies to the troops at Fort Sumter.
This left Davis with two choices. He could let the supplies in, or he could order his troops to fire on the fort. Davis ordered his troops to fire. The fort returned the fire. This was the beginning to the Civil War.
the way i was taught in elementary school.Brother Shatterstone said:
diaglo said:but you can't always believe what you were taught now can you.
Brother Shatterstone said:I agree totally, its a shame the Booth killed/assassinated the man that was going to give them the easy piece they deserved.
Again I agree totally. The America we are now could not have been formed without the Civil War but I also think, and again this is opinion, that the world would be a worse off if the Confederacy had been allowed to succeed. Small wars between the two countries would have happened and America wouldn’t have been around to be the backbone for the trials and tribulations of the 20th century.
billd91 said:For those of you looking at Sherman as a monster or trying to claim that the Union army disregarded the rules of warfare more than the Confederacy, you should realize that war is brutal business and it generates examples of the both the best and worst in people and nobody is immune.
Did the treatment of black soldiers at the Confederacy's hands conform to the rules of warfare at Poison Spring, Battle of the Crater, or Fort Pillow? I think not.
Was the society under attack by the Union armies, a society where a large segment of the agrarian economy was based on systematic abuse of human rights and racism, somehow not monstrous in its own right? I think not. I won't even get into the issue of reprisals against freed blacks once the war was over and Reconstruction under way. That would just get uglier.
For all the damage Sherman meted out, he's not the only person in that day and age who might be called monstrous by some.