America's Civil War
3 Million Fought and 600,000 Died
I'm still fascinated by the civil war of 1861-1865 but don't consider it the only war fought on American soil as it is so often described. My people had been making war against each other for decades, not to mention having to face a new enemy with greater firepower - the United States military, which I've come to revere in present time. I am impressed American Indians held their own for as long as they did while greatly outnumbered and having fewer resources. However, while my people fought soldiers - soldiers, unfortunately, fought each other, which began on April 12, 1861 when Fort Sumter in Charleston South Carolina was attacked by Confederates under the command of General Pierre Beauregard. And so began an exhausting and bloody war, which waged from 1861 until April 9, 1865 when General Robert E. Lee surrendered to General Ulysses S. Grant in Virginia. Five days later Republican President Abraham Lincoln was assassinated and his dream of freedom for all men came to fruition when the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, passed by Congress on January 31, 1865, was approved and the evil of slavery abolished.
It astounds me that a Country in her youth would rise up against one another but such is the reality of war when some don't respect the sovereignty of others. When talking fails, what happens next? Do you choose appeasement, violence or force?
Do you confront a threat or do you twiddle your thumbs and hope for peace all the while getting kicked in the rear? Eventually anyone would attempt to defend themselves, which is why war will remain with us so long as two human beings exist. People, with their differences and clashes of ideas, have a hard time getting along.
Does anyone see a way the civil war could have been prevented?
The loss of life was staggering and overwhelming, but was it in vain? I think not...
Published by Donna H. Davey
- Visiting the Civil War Sites of Lexington, VirginiaLexington, Virginia, is a can't-miss location for those interested in the Civil War. From the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) to the graves of both Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, there is much to see in the to...
- Glory (1989) Movie Review of This Epic Historical Civil War Movie About the First...Movie review for Glory (1989) with plot summary, academy awards, ratings, and suggestion for potential use in lesson plans teaching the Civil War, African-American History, and racism in America.
Best Civil War MoviesHere are five Civil War movies I think everyone should watch and collectors should have in their DVD library.- The Wasteland of the Great United States of AmericaA creative piece supporting the separation of Florida from the United States. It may provide a laugh, or even possibly provoke some thought! Take from it what you want.
- Unique, Strange, and Weird Foods in the United StatesAre your taste buds in the mood for something different? Try some of these unique foods found in different parts of the United States.
- Civil War Sites in the Fayetteville, North Carolina Area
- Top Ten Gift Ideas for Civil War Buffs
- An Analysis of Post Civil War Attitudes in the South: The Lost Cause
- Life as a Soldier During the Civil War
- America's Sesquicentennial Anniversary of the Civil War
- Amazing Tales of Heroism by Women During America's Civil War
- Top 5 Civil War Sites in America
- The Civil War Home Page
- Was the Civil War fought in vain?
- People refuse to get along, thus the reality of war.
- Do you confront a threat, defend what's yours or neither?
9 Comments
Post a CommentContinuation of post: Yes the Fed could have prevented it.
Donna, to answer your question: Could the Civil War have been prevented. One needs to go back to the very roots of the conflict, which go all the way back to Philadelphia and ratification of "The Declaration of Independence." The southern colonies initially refused to vote for it because Jefferson originally included a clause implying that slavery was immoral and illegal. Jefferson was forced to remove the clause or American independence would have died there in Philadelphia. Thereafter, the southern colonies entered the Revolutionary war only because they were afraid to be without the protection of the other colonies. Afterwards, the newly formed southern states joined the union for the same reasons, under the precept that the states would remain sovereign, under the protection of the feds. It was when the Fed slowly, over the years, violated that precept, and imposed themselves on the states beyond the limits of the constitution the Civil War resulted. Yes, the Fed could have pr
Martina is right about changing alliances. This is human and political nature, and a very basic survival instinct. Have you never heard the old adage: The enemy of my enemy is my friend? BeBesides, it was Bin Laden who broke alliance from the USA, not the other way around. After we assisted him and Mujah Hadin in routing the Soviets from Afghanistan, Bin Laden turned his sights on America.
This quote has merit here as well!
"The open-minded see the truth in different things: the narrow-minded see only the differences."
Someone call the Hardy Boys. We've got a case of mysteriously disappearing comments! Who could be behind such a vile attempt to cover truth. Methinks it is a conservative, trying to allow for only one point of view, as always. Pathetic. Once again, Donna Schoenrock proves herself unable to have an open discussion of the issues, and would rather simply tell the "other side" to go away. Well, we're not going away. We're right here. And as soon as you grow up enough to have an honest, open debate about the real issues in this case - ie: not what a Senator from MA said in a speech that may or may not have been a bad joke - we will be waiting. I won't be holding my breath.
How insightful, Martina. Democrats are bad for America because of changing opinions, but taking a hard line against "Terrorism" - while letting the Osama bin Laden go free - is the right way to go. Brilliant deduction. "My point is, people change, nations change and allies change." Yet, changing your mind about what's best for the country you lead based on NEW INFORMATION (ie: Iraq NOT having WMDs, Saddamn having NOTHING to do with 9/11, etc.) is a terrible thing. Please find a clue.
Quoting you: such is the reality of war when some don't respect the sovereignty of others. When talking fails, what happens next? Do you choose appeasement, violence or force?" Perhaps we should respect the sovereignity of others.
Martina, working diplomacy is not turning the other cheek. If it's the clinton administration's fault that terrorist grew, can you say which administration befriended Saddam in his prime? Which administration trained Bin Laden so he could fight russians? Try googling "rumsfeld and saddam" in images and see what you get. Clinton's group had Bin Laden caught in Sudan but the UN kept them from holding him. Getting caught with your pants down is actually saying "mission accomplished"...and 4 years later, still fighting.
if you liked this article you may also like this content:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/76410/historical_importance_of_todays_alternative.html