View single post by pender
 Posted: Sat Jun 18th, 2011 04:27 pm
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 
pender
Member


Joined: Wed Jun 8th, 2011
Location: North Carolina USA
Posts: 148
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Thank you Mark,for your response. I know what you mean about work. It has been pretty busy on my end too. I Would agree with you whole hearty that the southern men had a difficult time leaving the union. I have just read my favorite generals account of it William Dorsey Pender. As with Pender he went to many relatives and friends about the matter before he made his choice. But once the choice was made they fought with their whole heart. As for how most americans view the war. I would say the public school system has alot to do with it. As you know it is mostly learned in northern light. Or should I say a view that supports a unionist version. The reason I told right up front on these post I believed in the lost cause point of view. Is so the members of the board will know where I stand. If they agree or not. And we can discuss why we believe what we do. I view the war as a struggle for Independence. If I had to give the war a name I would entitle it Lincolns war. For if the north had not invaded the south,there would have been no war. The south would have peacefully left the union. I know that some would argue the firing on Fort Sumter, would be the reason for the invasion. But, I Would argue that Fort Sumter was Southern soil. The fedreal garrison could have left peacefully. Just as today we would not want a foreign power to occupy our borders or bases. So the south did not want a foreign power to occupy its soil. The main cause a southerner fought was to repel invasion.That is why, I would call it Lincolns war. Or Lincolns war of aggression. After the war southerners, wrote of their struggles, battles and causes. Which was quickly countered by the radicals. As you know history is wrote by the victors. As far as American Democracy. In the aftermath of the civil war(Lincolns War). I would argue that it was Dictatorship. Before the war it was a union of the consent, the union after the war is one of force. After the war, we where nothing more than a nothern province. Or you could say slaves, because we where held against our will. May be this will help you understand in a little more detail, my views of the war. Mark as this discussion board is a good way to learn of other peoples views. I would like to ask you? How your views on what I Have wrote would differ. Not for arguement, but I as you said I am interested in the other side of the coin. I would like to ask you and Texas Defender also on your thoughts on Grants memoirs. As I am sure you two have seen those post. I can see no pro union seniment in the paragraph. And believe Grant is indeed refering to the Confederacy,as would have became real and respected. As I told Hank, I am not arguing that Grant supported the lost cause in any shape or form. But that he did, write that about the Confederacy. I would like your thoughts,and also Texas Defenders thoughts on it. If indeed Grant means the southern nation. I would not like to know this for no reason, but if that is what Grant meant or not,the truth. Am I missing some thing in this memoir. If both of you would be so kind as to respond. Now me and my son shall declare war on the grass.

Pender

Last edited on Sat Jun 18th, 2011 06:22 pm by pender

 Close Window