Civil War Trivia

[spartacus53]

Here are 2 quick and interesting questions, feel free to post your trivia questions too

1- What town in Virginia changed hands about 26 times

2- CSA Gen. Forrest has 2 interesting facts, plus a well know quote... Can you identify all 3

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[joecoin]

Tallahassee was the only rebel state capitial east of the Mississippi not to surrender till after Robert E Lee surrendered * -- the Florida state flag backgroud color (white) --is the symbol of "unstained' valor" (we never surrendered ourselves -- the confederate govt in effect surrendered us)--the red stripes --the blood spilled by our men to keep the state of florida free -- the state seal of florida * is like a "center" breast plate .

"Keep the State of Florida free"? I thought Florida was a slave state?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[ivan salis]

free as in free from union govt control * -- ps a bit of history is in order --- look up union gen hunter's general order #11 which freed the slaves in the area under his control on may 9th 1862 (south carolina , georgia and florida)-- lincoln (head of the union) countermanded gen hunters order freeing the slaves * and only changed his mind after several very manpower costly battles later on in late 1862 -- lincoln declared slaves free jan 1, 1863 (several months later than the hunter decree*)-- but only in states "currently" in rebellion (only the south in other words) nothing was said at all about freeing slaves in non rebelling "northern states"--slavery existed under the union "american flag" for many many more years than the confederate flag -- over 17 times as long as a matter of fact (1776 to 1863 -- 87 years under union flag -- 5 years under the confedrate flag 1860 to 1865 )

lincoln himself said the war was not about "freeing the slaves" so much as it was about "preserving the union" (keeping all the states within the union by not allowing them to split away -- northern interest controlled the house and senate -- having control of both the house and senate as well as electing the president , northern interest could "ram thru any bills they wished" -- thus they had control of how the taxes gathered from the entire nation would be spent * a lot of the taxes gathered were coming from cotton export taxes gathered only from southern cotton growers -- who were tired of being taxed with no real say so on how those taxes would be spent by the northern controlled govt. )-- the north refused to allow the southern states to gain any political ground to level the political playing feild --insisting upon 1 new free state per slave state admitted --thus keeping their "political edge" always --it was a "control" issue about who was going to run things politically .

 

[joecoin]

free as in free from union govt control * -- ps a bit of history is in order --- look up union gen hunter's general order #11 which freed the slaves in the area under his control on may 9th 1862 (south carolina , georgia and florida)-- lincoln (head of the union) countermanded gen hunters order freeing the slaves * and only changed his mind after several very manpower costly battles later on in late 1862 -- lincoln declared slaves free jan 1, 1863 (several months later than the hunter decree*)-- but only in states "currently" in rebellion (only the south in other words) nothing was said at all about freeing slaves in non rebelling "northern states"--slavery existed under the union "american flag" for many many more years than the confederate flag -- over 17 times as long as a matter of fact (1776 to 1863 -- 87 years under union flag -- 5 years under the confedrate flag 1860 to 1865 )

lincoln himself said the war was not about "freeing the slaves" so much as it was about "preserving the union" (keeping all the states within the union by not allowing them to split away -- northern interest controlled the house and senate -- having control of both the house and senate as well as electing the president , northern interest could "ram thru any bills they wished" -- thus they had control of how the taxes gathered from the entire nation would be spent * a lot of the taxes gathered were coming from cotton export taxes gathered only from southern cotton growers -- who were tired of being taxed with no real say so on how those taxes would be spent by the northern controlled govt. )-- the north refused to allow the southern states to gain any political ground to level the political playing feild --insisting upon 1 new free state per slave state admitted --thus keeping their "political edge" always --it was a "control" issue about who was going to run things politically .

Yep, I've read about General Hunter. You know, Lincoln was really not too happy with a field General creating Federal policy without permission. Hunter had no authority to do so. Lincoln acted appropriately, as usual.

Slavery existed as a legal institution in North America for more than a century before the founding of the United States in 1776.
By 1821, only States south of the Mason Dixon line allowed slavery with some localized exceptions. Not quite 87 years up North.

The only reason slavery was still legal anywhere in the Union was because of spineless politicians who were more concerned with money and power than with freedom for all citizens. Not unlike today. As soon as the southern States perceived a real threat to the abolition of their cash cow (the election of Lincoln), they took their ball and went home. Guess they didn't think the North was going to do anything about it?
Five years of slavery under the Confederate flag? Why did they stop after only five years?

So here is the question to which I never get a straight yes or no answer. If slavery had never existed, would the US Civil War still have been fought?I've been arguing the point for many years, maybe someday I'll give up.

 

[Rooter]

General Forrest was the first "Grand Wizard" of the Klu Klux Klan after the war in 1866. He was a known gambler and boat captain before the war. He also had no formal military education, or training. He enlisted as a private and was promoted to the rank of general during the course of the war. Quite a colorful character.

 

[ivan salis]

joecoin -- why were only "slaves in states currently in rebellion" freed not all slaves in all states , now right away ?--if the war was honestly about about slavery and the freeing of slaves --why was it that they were not declared free early in the war? - the war started in mid 1861 --the slaves were not freed until jan 1 , 1863 --a year and a half later !

and only the slaves in the "rebelling southern states" were freed -- it was clearly done to disrupt southern farming and labor efforts as well as providing man power to the northern armies as well as draining the south's army and manpower to hold slaves "on the farm , and to chase runaways-- I by no means support slavery --its a vile thing to "own" another being -- and if I have the right to own another --that means some could have the right to own me as well --and that right I give no man.

freeing the slaves was a good and noble BY PRODUCT of the war , but political & economic tax domanation of the south by the north started the war -- true slavery for growing and harvesting cotton was the cash cow of the south --if not black slaves however --poor irish tenent type "indentured" slave /farmers fleeing the potato famine would have been used instead --as they were to help build the leveees in new orleans --same kinda exploitation --differant group /skin color is all.

 

[joecoin]

So here is the question to which I never get a straight yes or no answer. If slavery had never existed, would the US Civil War still have been fought?

My apologies to Spartacus for hijacking this thread.

 

[poorhunter78]

Thought these were interesting!

Q: What was known as the " green-apple quickstep "?

Q: What tradition started 4/22/1864?

 

[ivan salis]

yes -- the civil war would have still occured most likely --the slave labor used to pick the cotton cash cow crop would have just been white "irish" indentured servents / tenant farmer types fleeing the potato famine -- instead of black slaves imported from africa * -- so the cotton would have still been grown / income would have still been made from cotton and and unfair tax burdens taxes heavily laid upon the south --the southern agraculturial / farming interest still would not have been able to politically level the playing feild numbers wize vs northern banking and industrail interest --so the root "fiscal and politicial causes" would have still been there to cause the war to erupt. (this is my personal point of veiw)

 

[joecoin]

Thought these were interesting!


Q: What tradition started 4/22/1864?

"In God we Trust"?

 

[joecoin]

yes -- the civil war would have still occured most likely --the slave labor used to pick the cotton cash cow crop would have just been white "irish" indentured servents / tenant farmer types fleeing the potato famine -- instead of black slaves imported from africa * -- so the cotton would have still been grown / income would have still been made from cotton and and unfair tax burdens taxes heavily laid upon the south --the southern agraculturial / farming interest still would not have been able to politically level the playing feild numbers wize vs northern banking and industrail interest --so the root "fiscal and politicial causes" would have still been there to cause the war to erupt. (this is my personal point of veiw)

I respect your personal point of view, even though I disagree with it. There were more Irish immigrants in the Northern large cities than anywhere else in the USA. Yes, the cotton still would have been grown, but by free men on their own land. Without the plantation society there would have been no compelling reason for the Irish to migrate south. Too much opportunity in the North. Remember, the Irish left behind the tenant farm system, I don't think too many of them would have willingly gone back to it, any more than a black slave was willingly owned. Additionally, who would do the fighting for the south? And what would they be fighting for?

"Indentured servitude was certainly a major element in shaping colonial labor economics, but these servants had virtually dissolved in America by the early 1800s and were eventually outlawed in the United States before the turn of the 19th century." Servitude was already outlawed well before the Civil War.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servitude#Colonial_America

I thank you for being the first person to give an understandable answer to my oft asked question.

 

[ivan salis]

many irish laborers were were brought over on a "contract basis" -- ie -- you are starving to death in Ireland * the British would not bring in food to feed you although they were in charge of Ireland (they would just as soon see all the Irish dead or gone to america --so the land could be given to british folks )--the potato blight wiped out the potato crops the major food source for the bulk of the Irish tenant farmers -- these folks were starving en mass -- stay and starve --or--sign a paper that "contractally bound " you for several years of labor in "return" for payment of passage to america and the most basic of living needs --food , clothes and shelter --for the next 7 years ?

as you say "few would willing go into indentured servitude" bondage (slavery) but can one sit by and watch ones self , wife and children starve when one can avoid it and they were used to basically living like that (moneyless) as tenant farmers in Ireland anyway --plus once in america they had a chance to try to get free after several years --

a "fiscal" form of slavery exist today --its chains are just fiscal "instead of steel chains" * -- its cheaper to work folks and "under pay" them a wage thats less than their "true" cost of living is --thus keeping them in debt always -- if one owns a slave --one has a investment of buying them --then one must look after and feed them to get work from them -- one must feed, cloth, house and take medical care of them --if the slave dies one loses his investment --if the slave runs away and is not caught back one loses his investment -- if one whips and beats the slave too much one can not get good service (labor) from the slave -- yes its much cheaper to use poor desperate immergant "day labor" types fresh off the boat -- you pay them a small bit of money to work sun up to sundown -- its barely enough to feed themselves off of -- you do not have to worry about feeding them , clothing them or housing them --where they go or what they do at the days end "who cares"-- if they are slow or poor workers -- use a quota system where their paid by the amount harvested or simply do not rehire them for the next days work -- ah yes --the hourly worker --or stoop labor type person -- much cheaper in the long run to "rent by the hour" and under pay em --than to actually own em outright and have to 'take care if them" because if you "own" them , it is in your best interst to "protect" your investment long term -- by using under paid hourly workers --you get the benefits of "slave" labor without the headaches of "ownership".

the reason the Irish went to the north instead of the south was the south had slaves * (thus free labor --thus there was no market for their "cheap labor" in the south )--many northerners of american birth hated the Irish as they saw them as holding down the wages of working men because they would work for "any wage" due to being desperate ---if slaves had not been in the south--there would have been a market for the cheap "irish day labor" and the irish would have been working there in the south --farming and general grunt labor were skills the Irish farmers knew well and were familiar with -- Irish laborers were heavily used in the building of the leeves in new orleans by the way --many died of diseases building those leeves --

slavery (of a form) exist when one man makes his living off the sweat of others without laboring himself .

 

[Tnmountains]

yes -- the civil war would have still occured most likely --the slave labor used to pick the cotton cash cow crop would have just been white "irish" indentured servents / tenant farmer types fleeing the potato famine -- instead of black slaves imported from africa * -- so the cotton would have still been grown / income would have still been made from cotton and and unfair tax burdens taxes heavily laid upon the south --the southern agraculturial / farming interest still would not have been able to politically level the playing feild numbers wize vs northern banking and industrail interest --so the root "fiscal and politicial causes" would have still been there to cause the war to erupt. (this is my personal point of veiw)

I respect your personal point of view, even though I disagree with it. There were more Irish immigrants in the Northern large cities than anywhere else in the USA. Yes, the cotton still would have been grown, but by free men on their own land. Without the plantation society there would have been no compelling reason for the Irish to migrate south. Too much opportunity in the North. Remember, the Irish left behind the tenant farm system, I don't think too many of them would have willingly gone back to it, any more than a black slave was willingly owned. Additionally, who would do the fighting for the south? And what would they be fighting for?

"Indentured servitude was certainly a major element in shaping colonial labor economics, but these servants had virtually dissolved in America by the early 1800s and were eventually outlawed in the United States before the turn of the 19th century." Servitude was already outlawed well before the Civil War.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servitude#Colonial_America

I thank you for being the first person to give an understandable answer to my oft asked question.

Hoo Hum. It was States rights the reason the war started. It became about many things in the end. The soldiers could have cared less about slavery but Lincoln was brilliant and worried about re-election Did you know the largest supplier of Slaves to the south and especially Virginia was New york I think that was just prior to the start of the war,

 

[joecoin]

yes -- the civil war would have still occured most likely --the slave labor used to pick the cotton cash cow crop would have just been white "irish" indentured servents / tenant farmer types fleeing the potato famine -- instead of black slaves imported from africa * -- so the cotton would have still been grown / income would have still been made from cotton and and unfair tax burdens taxes heavily laid upon the south --the southern agraculturial / farming interest still would not have been able to politically level the playing feild numbers wize vs northern banking and industrail interest --so the root "fiscal and politicial causes" would have still been there to cause the war to erupt. (this is my personal point of veiw)

I respect your personal point of view, even though I disagree with it. There were more Irish immigrants in the Northern large cities than anywhere else in the USA. Yes, the cotton still would have been grown, but by free men on their own land. Without the plantation society there would have been no compelling reason for the Irish to migrate south. Too much opportunity in the North. Remember, the Irish left behind the tenant farm system, I don't think too many of them would have willingly gone back to it, any more than a black slave was willingly owned. Additionally, who would do the fighting for the south? And what would they be fighting for?

"Indentured servitude was certainly a major element in shaping colonial labor economics, but these servants had virtually dissolved in America by the early 1800s and were eventually outlawed in the United States before the turn of the 19th century." Servitude was already outlawed well before the Civil War.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servitude#Colonial_America

I thank you for being the first person to give an understandable answer to my oft asked question.

Hoo Hum. It was States rights the reason the war started. It became about many things in the end. The soldiers could have cared less about slavery but Lincoln was brilliant and worried about re-election Did you know the largest supplier of Slaves to the south and especially Virginia was New york I think that was just prior to the start of the war,

Hoo Hum indeed. So, if slavery had never existed in the USA the Civil War still would have happened?

 

[ivan salis]

yep -- the same root causes (being heavily taxed by the northern ran govt -with no hope ever being able to level the political playing feild to have more say so on how things were to be ran fiscally speaking ( ie pay up and shut up)--thus permantly being fiscally exploited by the northern politics ) this factor in the long haul would have still pushed the power elite of the south to try and split away from the north --in a bid to control their own fiscal future-- and of course the north having "politic control" would not just give up the " tax cash cow" that the south was --they (the northern politicians )were in control and by god the south had to stay in the union and like it no matter what .

 

[truckinbutch]

yep -- the same root causes (being heavily taxed by the northern ran govt -with no hope ever being able to level the political playing feild to have more say so on how things were to be ran fiscally speaking ( ie pay up and shut up)--thus permantly being fiscally exploited by the northern politics ) this factorin the long haul would have still pushed the power elite of the south too try and split away from the north --in a bid to control their own fiscal future-- and of course the north having "politic control" would not just give up the " tax cash cow" that the south was --they (the northern politicians )were in control and by god the south had to stay in the union and like it no matter what .

Yup ! And things still ain't changed much , have they ?

 

[Shortstack]

yep -- the same root causes (being heavily taxed by the northern ran govt -with no hope ever being able to level the political playing feild to have more say so on how things were to be ran fiscally speaking ( ie pay up and shut up)--thus permantly being fiscally exploited by the northern politics ) this factorin the long haul would have still pushed the power elite of the south too try and split away from the north --in a bid to control their own fiscal future-- and of course the north having "politic control" would not just give up the " tax cash cow" that the south was --they (the northern politicians )were in control and by god the south had to stay in the union and like it no matter what .

And when the northern controlled congress passed the export laws forbidding cotton shipments from being shipped to other countries from any ports except Philadelphia, New York, and Boston, the south had to ship the cotton by river or via the intra-coastal waterways up to those northern ports. There, the port authorities found ways to prevent the shipments from being cleared to go out to those other countries and, therefore, divert the shipments to the northern buyers' warehouses.

As for being a "Civil War", that is a misnomer used by historians. By definition, a civil war is the result of 2 or more factions fighting for control of a single country. The southern states LAWFULLY seceded from the United States' union and formed a separate and sovereign country with their own president, v-president, and legislature. The Confederate States of America's capital was designated in Richmond, Virginia, within easy travelling distance to the capital of the United States for convenient political associations. Lincoln orchastrated the invasion of a sovereign country and forced the U.S.'s ownership back upon people who didn't want it.

Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was all just eyewash. The President did not have Constitutional authority to free ANYONE by changing a law. That would have required Congressional action followed by the President's signature to make LAW. If you read the EP (it's only one short page) you'll see that Lincoln "freed" the slaves in ONLY the "secessionist" states with the exception of 2 unnamed parishes in south Louisiana.

One more point. The Constitution of the Confederate States of America made slavery illegal with an initial ARTICLE. The U.S. Constitution finally made slavery illegal a year or 2 AFTER the war with an Amendment.

 

[ivan salis]

most folks THINK they know what Lincoln did * freeing the slaves via the EP -- but they have never actually READ it .--if one but honestly reads it --it becomes very clear that it the EP was meant to disrupt the souths use of slaves as manpower on the farms * --and to cause the south to have to divert army man power to "keep" slaves on the farm and working --thus weaking the souths army as well as providing the north with new raw "man power" for their army via runaway slaves from the "states currently in rebellion" *--- please note not a word was said about slaves in northern "pro union" states being "freed" --- until the EP was declared - quite frankly slaves had no reason to "runaway" -as slaves they were property to be "returned" -- but once they could stay free via the EP --well now they had a reason to run away and a reason to care who won the war --north or south.

"'freed" slaves were rapidly put into the union army , at first mostly as laborers which freed up white troops to be used on the fronts , later on they were used as front line troops --by wars end --the number of "freed" slaves" in the union army --out numbered the entire confederate army in the feild --the use of "former slaves as soldiers" and the lack of soldier exchanges, along with ripping up the rail lines --thus crippling the souths ability to rapidly shift troops to the areas where they were needed as battles formed up tipped the tide of war rapidly in the norths favor. --the long term effects of the blockade actions of the north also slowly strangled the souths war material and supplies --the US navy / and most of the shipping company's were basically controlled by NORTHERN interest * --

 

[joecoin]

...
As for being a "Civil War", that is a misnomer used by historians. By definition, a civil war is the result of 2 or more factions fighting for control of a single country. The southern states LAWFULLY seceded from the United States' union and formed a separate and sovereign country with their own president, v-president, and legislature. ...

... Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was all just eyewash. The President did not have Constitutional authority to free ANYONE by changing a law. That would have required Congressional action followed by the President's signature to make LAW. If you read the EP (it's only one short page) you'll see that Lincoln "freed" the slaves in ONLY the "secessionist" states with the exception of 2 unnamed parishes in south Louisiana. ...

Seems to me if the CSA was "a separate and sovereign country" then Lincoln could certainly declare all slaves in that "separate and sovereign country" free without needing any Constitutional authority whatsoever, since such a proclamation had no bearing on that other "separate and sovereign country" known as the USA. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[truckinbutch]

...
As for being a "Civil War", that is a misnomer used by historians. By definition, a civil war is the result of 2 or more factions fighting for control of a single country. The southern states LAWFULLY seceded from the United States' union and formed a separate and sovereign country with their own president, v-president, and legislature. ...

... Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was all just eyewash. The President did not have Constitutional authority to free ANYONE by changing a law. That would have required Congressional action followed by the President's signature to make LAW. If you read the EP (it's only one short page) you'll see that Lincoln "freed" the slaves in ONLY the "secessionist" states with the exception of 2 unnamed parishes in south Louisiana. ...

Seems to me if the CSA was "a separate and sovereign country" then Lincoln could certainly declare all slaves in that "separate and sovereign country" free without needing any Constitutional authority whatsoever, since such a proclamation had no bearing on that other "separate and sovereign country" known as the USA. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

I can't figure that logic . Would it be valid today for a sitting President to declare all women in Muslem countries emancipated ?

 

[joecoin]

...
As for being a "Civil War", that is a misnomer used by historians. By definition, a civil war is the result of 2 or more factions fighting for control of a single country. The southern states LAWFULLY seceded from the United States' union and formed a separate and sovereign country with their own president, v-president, and legislature. ...

... Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was all just eyewash. The President did not have Constitutional authority to free ANYONE by changing a law. That would have required Congressional action followed by the President's signature to make LAW. If you read the EP (it's only one short page) you'll see that Lincoln "freed" the slaves in ONLY the "secessionist" states with the exception of 2 unnamed parishes in south Louisiana. ...

Seems to me if the CSA was "a separate and sovereign country" then Lincoln could certainly declare all slaves in that "separate and sovereign country" free without needing any Constitutional authority whatsoever, since such a proclamation had no bearing on that other "separate and sovereign country" known as the USA. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

I can't figure that logic . Would it be valid today for a sitting President to declare all women in Muslem countries emancipated ?

You got it. There is nothing legally stopping him from doing so. Does it mean they would be emancipated?