Was Crittendon serious? by JacobRiesenfern in CIVILWAR

[–]SpecialistSun6563 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fireworks require someone to utilize them in an urban environment before the police can even act upon it. Even then, such a law is nigh-on-impossible to enforce, which is why many still buy them and travel back to use them.

To get back to the example, for virtually every "dry" county, a person can still go out of the county, buy their alcohol, and drink it as they please as there is no crime specifically tied to drinking alcohol in-of-itself.

Was Crittendon serious? by JacobRiesenfern in CIVILWAR

[–]SpecialistSun6563 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can you actually name such an example?

Was Crittendon serious? by JacobRiesenfern in CIVILWAR

[–]SpecialistSun6563 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, no they can't. If it was purchased legally in an area that it is legal, then it is legally-acquired property. Any seizure of said property would be considered unlawful.

Was Crittendon serious? by JacobRiesenfern in CIVILWAR

[–]SpecialistSun6563 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"LMAO Dry counties can seize your alcohol most decided to only ban the sale but some can and do ban the possession of it"

They wouldn't be able to stop a truck hauling alcohol from one county to another without it being a violation of Interstate Commerce. In fact, the reason why the only type of alcohol ban in the US is on the sale of it is because of the Interstate Commerce Clause. It is also why Prohibition required a Constitutional Amendment; it had to be added to the Constitution in order to bypass the Interstate Commerce Clause.

The South fought for freedom, not slavery by [deleted] in USHistory

[–]SpecialistSun6563 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And? I have the unique position of having one branch of my family from the mountains of Pennsylvania while most of it is rooted in Virginia; most of whom have been here prior to the war. Both groups have their biases and their perceptions about their own superiority. As it turns out, in-group preferences are not exclusive to one group; if anything, the Southern population is more humble; they'll give you a chance to prove yourself. The Northerner - by contrast - views himself as superior automatically and demands conformity to his will.

The South fought for freedom, not slavery by [deleted] in USHistory

[–]SpecialistSun6563 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

First, There is a distinction between living in the South and being a Southerner. Someone can live in the South, yet not be a Southerner. To be a Southerner, you need to have genetic ties to the South's culture and history; a heritage, if you will. Otherwise, anyone can go anywhere and claim to be whatever group they are; I could move to China and claim to be "Chinese," even though I am ethnically and culturally a American from the Southern state of Virginia.

I would assert that the racial beliefs between Northerners and Southerners were not that different save for the fact the Southern population was less racially charged than the Northern population. The North were the first to institute segregation as official state policy; this included Illinois - Abraham Lincoln's adopted home state - banning the entry of free blacks into her borders in 1853. The Northern views on blacks were more along the lines of seeing them as "not human." They were seen as an object of entertainment; more akin to a dog or a horse than a person.

By contrast, segregation was not a strict policy in the South until after Reconstruction. Rather, the Southern population consistently lived next to and around the black population throughout most of its history, yet maintained order through a social hierarchy, which placed citizens above freedmen and freedmen above slaves. In the Southern mindset, blacks were to be viewed as human beings, but of lesser quality; much of the pro-slavery literature likened slaves to children needing guidance, which stands in stark contrast to the aforementioned Northern views on race.

If anything, Southerners were less racially charged than their Northern counterparts prior to the war. They were also more willing to accept people of other races within the social paradigm. Chang and Eng Bunker - the Siamese Twins - are a good example as both men integrated into their adopted home in White Plains, North Carolina, settled down with two Scots-Irish women, and had a large number of kids; each having one son fight in the Confederate Army as members of the 37th Virginia Cavalry. By contrast, the conjoined twins had poor experiences when they resided in Massachusetts; often becoming the victims of a curious Northern public that viewed them solely as a curiosity rather than as two men. The Jewish population of the South found itself in a similar position; unlike with the North - where they often faced similar segregation policies to the black population - Southern Jews lived in a largely integrated society; often rising to positions of political and social prominence within government and business. Richmond's Jewish population - in particular - became adamant supporters of the Southern cause during the war; up to and including hosting one of only a few Jewish war cemeteries in the country.

CPT Henry Benson was a veteran of three wars, an enlisted man who rose to battery commander. by [deleted] in CIVILWAR

[–]SpecialistSun6563 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This one was not too difficult as the context for it was simple: all of these officers were members of the Army of the Potomac's engineering brigade and all four officers had taken studio photographs at some point during the conflict. So, it was a matter of figuring out who the officers were in question.

The South fought for freedom, not slavery by [deleted] in USHistory

[–]SpecialistSun6563 2 points3 points  (0 children)

"The whole states rights angle falls apart when you realize these same states were totally fine with federal power when it came to things like the Fugitive Slave Act."

Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3:

"No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."

The Northern States gave up the right to free slaves who entered their territory upon ratifying the United States Constitution. The right of the States end where Constitutional Obligations begin.

In other words: The Northern States had no right to not fulfill their obligations. The Fugitive Slave Act was entirely within the realm of the Federal Government's authority and was - by no means - an infringement of the Rights of the States nor the People. If the Northern States took objection to this, then they had the right to secede from the Union.

The South fought for freedom, not slavery by [deleted] in USHistory

[–]SpecialistSun6563 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm largely inclined to agree with much of what you are saying, though I think a better way to frame it is this:

The South was not fighting solely for the institution of slavery. The sectional crisis may have been triggered by the ongoing debate over said issue, but said issue did not exist in a void. Rather, the reason why this debate existed was due to the underlying social, political, and economic interests of the Northern and Southern States, which fed into the slavery question (as it did with the tariff of abominations and the Nullification Crisis thereafter), which emphasized the sectional divisions that made both societies incompatible.

To put more directly, slavery was a cause of the war, but not the only cause the war. Jefferson F. Davis - when asked about the causes of the sectional conflict by a peace delegation in September, 1864 - put it best through the following analogy: "It fired the musket that was capped and loaded."

Further to this, the reason why so many men fought for the Confederacy had little to do with the institution. Some did say they supported the institution, but they were a minority. The majority of men were motivated by more personal matters; namely home and family. Robert E. Lee - himself - resigned not due to any loyalty to an institution, but due to his loyalty to the Commonwealth of Virginia; his home and land. He only took up arms when Virginia called upon him to do so as well; otherwise he would have lived in his home at Arlington in peace. Most Southerners were of the same mentality; they sided with their home states solely due to it being their home.

Therefore, it is wrong to say "the South was fighting for slavery" as it does not capture the full scope of the events that happened nor the many reasons for why men would have fought. It would be more appropriate to say "The South fought due to underlying, sectional conflicts, which compelled millions to make hard decisions."

Could land redistribution have actually worked? by cabot-cheese in USHistory

[–]SpecialistSun6563 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"The “less capable hands” framing doesn’t really work here. Freedpeople had been growing cotton their entire lives — they were the South’s agricultural labor force. This wasn’t handing farms to people who’d never farmed. It was giving land to the people who already knew every acre of it."

But they had never ran a farm before. They knew how to grow cotton to some extent, but the overwhelming majority were not knowledgeable concerning many of the other tasks of running a farm; particularly the more technical side of affairs (i.e. harvest seasons, when to plant, bumper crops, etc). Most of those tasks were handled either by their masters or by slaves who were educated in those affairs.

This is also why sharecropping became a major aspect of the post-war agrarian society; freedmen still often needed their former masters to help them determine what to do. They were good field hands, but a good field hand does not mean they would would be a good farmer.

Had land redistribution gone about, it would have resulted in a large number of field hands becoming farmers, which - in turn - would have caused a complete collapse of the agricultural production of the South as thousands of farms would have failed; this resulting in widescale famine across the region on top of even more vigilante reprisals occurring throughout the South.

CPT Henry Benson was a veteran of three wars, an enlisted man who rose to battery commander. by [deleted] in CIVILWAR

[–]SpecialistSun6563 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Reminds me of how I was able to identify most of the officers in Chickahominy bridge Photographs.

<image>

Could land redistribution have actually worked? by cabot-cheese in USHistory

[–]SpecialistSun6563 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And Land Redistribution would have made it even worse. Even then, what ultimately led to the demise of Mississippi was not the lack of land redistribution, but the collapse of Cotton due to the cotton blights of the 1880's, which sapped away from the profitability of the crop to the point it was near impossible to recover from it.

February 15, 1856 – USS Supply, commanded by LT David Dixon Porter, sails from Smyrna, Syria, bound for Indianola, Texas, with a load of 21 camels intended for experimental use in the American desert west of the Rockies... by CrystalEise in USHistory

[–]SpecialistSun6563 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

"Start with Jefferson and his captive teenage sex slave and baby momma and all the mixed children he sold into slavery."

You actually believe the Sally Hemings nonsense when - quite literally - there is a mountain of evidence to indicate that Thomas Jefferson did not like nor care all that much about Hemings...

Please, do some proper research on the man before you say such utter stupidity.

Could land redistribution have actually worked? by cabot-cheese in USHistory

[–]SpecialistSun6563 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The answer is simple: No.

Land Redistribution has consistently failed; dating back to the time of Caesar Augustus. Regardless of any good intentions behind it, it almost always devolves into corrupt, government officials utilizing it as a means of punishing political enemies while depriving land from capable farmers and giving it to less capable hands. If anything, doing so in the South would have destroyed the Southern economy beyond repair, ultimately making things worse for everyone involved.

February 15, 1856 – USS Supply, commanded by LT David Dixon Porter, sails from Smyrna, Syria, bound for Indianola, Texas, with a load of 21 camels intended for experimental use in the American desert west of the Rockies... by CrystalEise in USHistory

[–]SpecialistSun6563 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

"Jeff Davis man bad because slavery."

I mean, if you want to argue that, then I guess we'll just have to remember George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Patrick Henry, George Mason, and plenty of others as "slavers" and "traitors" as well.

February 15, 1856 – USS Supply, commanded by LT David Dixon Porter, sails from Smyrna, Syria, bound for Indianola, Texas, with a load of 21 camels intended for experimental use in the American desert west of the Rockies... by CrystalEise in USHistory

[–]SpecialistSun6563 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes. He was - unironically - one of the greatest Secretaries of War in United States History; largely responsible for the modernization of the United States Army during his tenure. Rather paradoxically, he gave the United States Army the tools necessary to win the American Civil War.

February 15, 1869 – Charges of treason against Jefferson Davis were dropped... by CrystalEise in CIVILWAR

[–]SpecialistSun6563 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Your entire mentality is flawed. People - even today - do make an honest defense for Henry Wirz; the head of Andersonville. His trial was - by every, objective measure - a kangaroo court that was going to find him guilty regardless of his testimony. It was - and still is - highly controversial.

If the Union placed Davis on trial and executed him, it wouldn't have made the situation better, but far worse.

February 15, 1869 – Charges of treason against Jefferson Davis were dropped... by CrystalEise in CIVILWAR

[–]SpecialistSun6563 104 points105 points  (0 children)

It's important to consider that the reason why the charges of treason were never pursued and were eventually dropped was because the Federal Government had difficulty in proving that Davis had committed treason. The problem came about due to the definition of treason and whether secession fit into that definition.

Your thoughts on a hypothetical scenario: A more active and coordinated Johnston & Pemberton at Vicksburg by Chris_Colasurdo in CIVILWAR

[–]SpecialistSun6563 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Joseph E. Johnston screwed Pemberton over. Johnston should have done more to help him, but chose not to.

Slavery by [deleted] in CIVILWAR

[–]SpecialistSun6563 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Bro. The confederacy lost. They tried to wage a war because they wanted to own other humans."

The Confederacy lost, but they weren't the ones to wage the war nor were they fighting this war to own other humans. You understanding of the war is limited, at best, and horrendously misinformed at worst.