Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Atlantic)   The 50 most powerful images from the Civil War   (theatlantic.com) divider line 130
    More: Interesting, Frederick Douglass  
•       •       •

21382 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Feb 2012 at 9:37 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



130 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-02-07 08:56:18 AM  
I'm somewhat surprised Andersonville (new window) wasn't represented.

I know there are strong opinions regarding how this part of our history is remembered, but at least that constant debate keeps it alive in our thoughts. I would hate to see it forgotten and perhaps repeated.

Count me in with the southerners that are glad the Union beat the confederacy.
 
2012-02-07 09:22:11 AM  
The "most powerful" images? Like beauty, most powerful is in the eye of the beholder.
 
2012-02-07 09:41:20 AM  
No Antietam?
 
2012-02-07 09:41:37 AM  
 
mhd
2012-02-07 09:44:53 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-02-07 09:46:01 AM  
isviral.com
 
2012-02-07 09:47:05 AM  
 
2012-02-07 09:47:21 AM  
No "I freed the what?!?"
 
2012-02-07 09:47:24 AM  
Uh... how about "50 mostly boring images from roughly around the time of the Civil War"
 
2012-02-07 09:47:54 AM  
Surprised not to see this one.

www.mikelynaugh.com

Yeah, it's partly faked, but even so.

/The photo's location is marked at Devil's Den. You see tourists lying down there for photos all the time.
 
2012-02-07 09:49:15 AM  

Jake Havechek: No Antietam?


The stereograph of Dunker Church is in there.

I also noticed they used Wilmer McClean's somewhat inaccurate lithograph of the surrender in his house. As told to me by an ACH park ranger several years ago, this is probably the most accurate re-creation of the surrender:

kindreda.edublogs.org
 
2012-02-07 09:51:05 AM  
Stupid Javascript. This is the only semi-informative pic I got from that page and I'm not too sure that it took place during the Civil War. Maybe the Cold War?

cdn.theatlantic.com
 
2012-02-07 09:51:06 AM  

Click Click D'oh: Uh... how about "50 mostly boring images from roughly around the time of the Civil War"


Yeah, this. I was expecting to see a little more battlefield photography, not posters advertising for a fugitive slave's return. Interesting, but poorly titled nonetheless.
 
2012-02-07 09:52:01 AM  
i.dailymail.co.uk

i.dailymail.co.uk

They're real
 
2012-02-07 09:53:58 AM  
Mayhap not "most powerful" as others typed above, but definitely Interesting.
Made fairly intensive study of That Conflict when quite young, a lifetime ago. All the books I bought on it are now in storage.
 
2012-02-07 09:54:42 AM  

laulaja: Mayhap not "most powerful" as others typed above, but definitely Interesting.


Basically this.
 
2012-02-07 09:54:52 AM  
Wow, what a complete disappointment. More like "50 random images in some way related to the Civil War, kind of." Mark Twain late in life? The Tuskegee Institute? How can the photo of Lincoln at Gettysburg, in which he's barely visible, be more powerful than the many well-known Brady portraits that show his careworn face?
 
2012-02-07 09:55:03 AM  

Red Shirt Blues: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 306x423]

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 306x543]

They're real


man nicohlas cage was in the war? amazing
 
2012-02-07 09:55:49 AM  
Can anyone tell the reason for the Civil War?

Difficulty; do not mention slavery.
 
2012-02-07 09:56:51 AM  

Freakin Rican: Red Shirt Blues: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 306x423]

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 306x543]

They're real

man nicohlas cage was in the war? amazing


Cage and Travolta.....theory is they're vampires.
 
2012-02-07 09:57:04 AM  
Funny, I didn't see anything related to states rights.
 
2012-02-07 09:57:12 AM  

Red Shirt Blues: They're real


Travolta looked better back then.
 
2012-02-07 09:58:37 AM  
No images of thousands of KIAs scattered across the fields?
No Andersonville or Camp Douglas?
No amputees?
No field hospitals?
 
2012-02-07 09:59:16 AM  

Ficoce: Can anyone tell the reason for the Civil War?

Difficulty; do not mention slavery.


They shot John Lennon
 
2012-02-07 09:59:42 AM  

Red Shirt Blues: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 306x423]

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 306x543]

They're real


They are post-mortem photographs. 19th C people took loads of photos of their dead as memorials. Posing & painted eyes were common.
 
2012-02-07 10:00:16 AM  
The 50 Most Powerful Images From the Civil War We Could Find on Short Notice to Write This Pointless FA
 
2012-02-07 10:00:28 AM  
Most Powerful?

Sheesh.

These are lame compared to what it was like.
 
2012-02-07 10:01:19 AM  
Link fails without
upload.wikimedia.org

\\hot like the 54th
 
2012-02-07 10:03:24 AM  
This is more like "Black History Month Images" rather than "Civil War Images".
 
2012-02-07 10:04:39 AM  

Schubert'sCell: Link fails without
[upload.wikimedia.org image 640x478]

\\hot like the 54th


Wow.....you can see Ferris Bueller and Red so clearly.
 
2012-02-07 10:04:40 AM  

Red Shirt Blues: Freakin Rican: Red Shirt Blues: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 306x423]

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 306x543]

They're real

man nicohlas cage was in the war? amazing

Cage and Travolta.....theory is they're vampires.


i thought that was pitt and cruise and that lil spider man girl?
 
2012-02-07 10:05:18 AM  
Hotlinked. Hopefully it won't post as a full sized picture of a tranny with his dick hanging out.

i.somethingawful.com
 
2012-02-07 10:06:20 AM  
Wouldn't the most powerful images be of, I dunno, fallen soldiers or something? Widespread disease and destruction? Maybe it's just me.
 
2012-02-07 10:09:21 AM  
Khazar-Khum: This is more like "Black History Month Images" rather than "Civil War Images".

Aye. But then again it is black history month.
 
2012-02-07 10:12:06 AM  

Ficoce: Can anyone tell the reason for the Civil War?

Difficulty; do not mention slavery.


Is this like challenging someone to write a book without using the letter "e"?
 
2012-02-07 10:12:33 AM  
i3.photobucket.com

Link to larger version.
 
2012-02-07 10:14:47 AM  
Wow, did not realize how much Longfellow looked like Donald Sutherland.

I agree that this collection is rather...odd. Many having nothing to do with the war at all. Certainly not "the most powerful," both in terms of their influence at the time and how they resonate with us today. And that is a real disappointment, because4 the American Civil War was one of the first that produced battlefield photographs that brought the horror of war into the public awareness as never before.

I would say only the first image of the escaped slave's back was truly "influential" at the time.
 
2012-02-07 10:15:54 AM  

Ficoce: Can anyone tell the reason for the Civil War?

Difficulty; do not mention slavery.


States Rights!

...to own slaves.
 
2012-02-07 10:16:51 AM  

Ficoce: Can anyone tell the reason for the Civil War?

Difficulty; do not mention slavery.


Slavery.

Oops.
 
2012-02-07 10:17:21 AM  
img854.imageshack.us

My new porn star name.
 
2012-02-07 10:18:10 AM  

austerity101: Wouldn't the most powerful images be of, I dunno, fallen soldiers or something? Widespread disease and destruction? Maybe it's just me.


austerity101: Wouldn't the most powerful images be of, I dunno, fallen soldiers or something? Widespread disease and destruction? Maybe it's just me.


I agree. Battlefield pics and some pics from the prison camps at Fort Delaware, Elmira prison, and Andersonville.
 
2012-02-07 10:18:43 AM  
Wow, there were only a few pictures in there that I would say were "powerful". The rest, eh....
 
2012-02-07 10:20:21 AM  
Porous Horace
Stupid Javascript. This is the only semi-informative pic I got from that page


Sneak preview:

img687.imageshack.us
img88.imageshack.us
 
2012-02-07 10:22:08 AM  
Link (new window)

I would lie about where I caught him, and get more $$$ from the owner. I do have to wonder, if the owner is from Missouri, hwy his he think the slave will escape to Mississippi? If you are an escaped slave, wouldn't you go north not into the deep south?
 
2012-02-07 10:23:18 AM  

Red Shirt Blues: Freakin Rican: Red Shirt Blues: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 306x423]

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 306x543]

They're real

man nicohlas cage was in the war? amazing

Cage and Travolta.....theory is they're vampires.


Then how did they show up on film...errr collodion plates?
 
2012-02-07 10:23:44 AM  
Missing:

i292.photobucket.com

Last Words (new window)
 
2012-02-07 10:25:44 AM  

austerity101: Wouldn't the most powerful images be of, I dunno, fallen soldiers or something? Widespread disease and destruction? Maybe it's just me.


How does one photograph "widespread disease"?
 
2012-02-07 10:25:54 AM  

Ficoce: Can anyone tell the reason for the Civil War?

Difficulty; do not mention slavery.



Can anyone tell the reason for the recent economic collapse?

Difficulty: do not mention financial institutions.
 
2012-02-07 10:26:42 AM  
Robert Smalls deserves more than a group photo.

www.africawithin.com

He was a slave in Charleston, and during the war he managed to steal a ship, sailing "The Planter" right out of the harbor.
Lincoln met with him personally, and Smalls went on to become the first black Captain in the US Navy.
He came back to Charleston after the war, and was elected Republican Congressman for the area, serving five terms.
When he retired, he moved to Beaufort, and bought the house of his former master to live in.
 
2012-02-07 10:27:39 AM  

Captain_Ballbeard: austerity101: Wouldn't the most powerful images be of, I dunno, fallen soldiers or something? Widespread disease and destruction? Maybe it's just me.

How does one photograph "widespread disease"?


Well I did a GIS and found pictures of your mom.
 
2012-02-07 10:29:31 AM  

The Voice of Doom: Porous Horace
Stupid Javascript. This is the only semi-informative pic I got from that page

Sneak preview:

[img687.imageshack.us image 638x1098]
[img88.imageshack.us image 638x940]


Thank you!
That wasn't necessary, I could've always opened the page in firefox, but thanks anyway for the nice gesture. And have a pleasant day.
 
2012-02-07 10:30:03 AM  

Broom: Ficoce: Can anyone tell the reason for the Civil War?

Difficulty; do not mention slavery.


Can anyone tell the reason for the recent economic collapse?

Difficulty: do not mention financial institutions.


Barney Frank?
 
2012-02-07 10:30:12 AM  
I thought the photos were rather poignant. The paintings and such are subject to the artist's rendition.
Just recently read "Uncle Tom's Cabin" and was amazed at the (probably accurate at the time) stereotypes of both fair and dark skinned people.
I also flinched automatically at the casual use of the N-word. It's a significant read, but uncomfortable (as was intended.)
 
2012-02-07 10:38:01 AM  

UNC_Samurai: WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE THESE ALL ON ONE PAGE? (new window)


Thank you.
 
2012-02-07 10:39:14 AM  
FTA: "...the president visited the battlefield to press General George McClellan (seen here facing the president) on his failure to pursue the retreating enemy."

McClellan doesn't like the Confederate cavalry, but they sure like singing about him. (^)
 
2012-02-07 10:40:50 AM  

UNC_Samurai: WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE THESE ALL ON ONE PAGE? (new window)


Wow, that deslide kajigger is awesome.
 
2012-02-07 10:41:59 AM  

Godscrack: [pic of Henry Wadsworth Longfellow]

My new porn star name.


"A single conversation across the table with a wise man is better than ten years mere study of books." - himself.

That being said, it probably wouldn't hurt you to study a few more books, if you've never heard of him before.
 
2012-02-07 10:42:00 AM  

Kraftwerk Orange: Robert Smalls deserves more than a group photo.



He was a slave in Charleston, and during the war he managed to steal a ship, sailing "The Planter" right out of the harbor.
Lincoln met with him personally, and Smalls went on to become the first black Captain in the US Navy.
He came back to Charleston after the war, and was elected Republican Congressman for the area, serving five terms.
When he retired, he moved to Beaufort, and bought the house of his former master to live in.


Like a boss! Excellent story.
 
2012-02-07 10:45:51 AM  
"In a rare image of President Lincoln at Gettysburg, he is shown hatless at the center of a crowd on the orators' platform"

The President is hatless. I repeat...hatless!
 
2012-02-07 10:47:10 AM  

Ficoce: Can anyone tell the reason for the Civil War?

Difficulty; do not mention slavery.


Nice try, but no one's gonna start that flamewar today. The problem is that while States' Rights, self-determination and the North pissing off the South by slowly solidifying their power through industrial might are definitely true answers, you can't disassociate the desire of having all these from the fact that many of the people who wanted it owned slaves, and that it was their system. Not to mention the whole Appalachian mentality of being pro-Union solely because they were tired of the states they lived in being run by slaveowners who shut them out of everything.

The other big problem is that while we won the war to free the slaves, we didn't ever actually confront the issue that the South will always be a class-driven place, or that the Appalachians will always be contrarian, or that the North will always be a bunch of self-important pricks who want to make the world a better place.

\American Nations by Colin Woodard is a great primer on why the US will always be farked when it comes to the fact that it's really about seven or eight different national mentalities in one
 
2012-02-07 10:49:14 AM  
cdn.gs.uproxx.com
 
2012-02-07 10:49:41 AM  

Broom: Ficoce: Can anyone tell the reason for the Civil War?

Difficulty; do not mention slavery.


Can anyone tell the reason for the recent economic collapse?

Difficulty: do not mention financial institutions.


Good answer! The North had double the population of the South, yet the South controlled 70% of the nations exports - follow the money. Lincoln set the slaves "free", but the Native Americans might have a different story about his ethics.

Then there's that Nationalist thing.
 
2012-02-07 10:50:58 AM  
Robert Smalls deserves more than a group photo.

His great-great-great-great-grandson would become a famous rapper.
 
2012-02-07 11:02:05 AM  
Yeah except that not every American everywhere for the entirety of time was 1 billion percent consumed with racism as this attempts to portray.
 
2012-02-07 11:04:34 AM  

Click Click D'oh: Uh... how about "50 mostly boring images from roughly around the time of the Civil War"


Hell, the first 13 weren't of the Civil War at all. You'd think an article extolling photos about a war would...you know...be about the war. Pictures of paintings and handbills and photos preceeding the war don't count I should think. But then again, the headline was designed to draw the casual viewer and not accurately describe the contents therein.

www.nps.gov
Stone wall at Fredricksburg (before Marye's Heights)

rlv.zcache.com
Contraband burial party at Cold Harbor

0.tqn.com
The Stone Bridge at Antietam where AP Hill's division pushed 3 divisions of Burnside's IX corp back and saved the Confederate army from defeat in detail.

Coulda picked these instead of pictures of Mark Twain...as though he qualifies as a powerful image from the Civil War.
 
2012-02-07 11:05:22 AM  

Ficoce: Can anyone tell the reason for the Civil War?

Difficulty; do not mention slavery.


The south is full of weird retards so we killed a bunch of em.
 
2012-02-07 11:07:19 AM  

orange storm: Link (new window)

I would lie about where I caught him, and get more $$$ from the owner. I do have to wonder, if the owner is from Missouri, hwy his he think the slave will escape to Mississippi? If you are an escaped slave, wouldn't you go north not into the deep south?


Not if he tagged along as a contraband longshoreman on the Mississippi. Depending on when the event happened some escaped slaves tried to make for the Union hold at New Orleans.
 
2012-02-07 11:11:08 AM  

Mistymtnhop: Kraftwerk Orange: Robert Smalls deserves more than a group photo.



He was a slave in Charleston, and during the war he managed to steal a ship, sailing "The Planter" right out of the harbor.
Lincoln met with him personally, and Smalls went on to become the first black Captain in the US Navy.
He came back to Charleston after the war, and was elected Republican Congressman for the area, serving five terms.
When he retired, he moved to Beaufort, and bought the house of his former master to live in.

Like a boss! Excellent story.


Yea it was. I just read the Wiki version. He was a hell of a man and leader.
 
2012-02-07 11:11:19 AM  

Broom: Ficoce: Can anyone tell the reason for the Civil War?

Difficulty; do not mention slavery.


Can anyone tell the reason for the recent economic collapse?

Difficulty: do not mention financial institutions.


Can anyone tell me why I can't walk?

Difficulty: do not mention the double leg amputation.
 
2012-02-07 11:12:22 AM  
Ficoce
Can anyone tell the reason for the Civil War?

Difficulty; do not mention slavery.


Sure, I'll give it a whirl. Pretty much it was started over a fight for political power and economic profits. Northern states had more representation in Congress because they refused to recognize blacks when it came to the population census since they were not entitled to the same rights. The South was not happy about this and thus began the political struggles. Later on as a way to punish Northern states, Southern states began to export their textiles overseas to Europeans who were willing to pay more. Hilarity ensued with export tariffs and the like, and thus succession began.

Now if you do mention slavery, it's because you have to in order to debunk the belief that it was a cause of the war.

Although politically Northern newspapers were pushing the Abolition/Religious aspect pretty hard, Slavery was never a determining issue with the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln while rightly so was against slavery, he himself had said that emancipation was never a priority with the War itself. Robert E. Lee was himself against it, and while he was also against interracial marriages, did say that Blacks needed to be helped by the U.S. Government to acclimate to free life so that they could gain education and truly be equal.

The biggest thing of course too was that for most planation and shipping owners, slaves were just too expensive to upkeep. Slavery isn't a easy life, but owners did still need to provide medical attention for them as well as food and shelter. There are quite a few instances, even as far back as when the French had colonized New Orleans that slaves had to be freed in order to fend for themselves because their owners just didn't have enough food and couldn't let them starve to death (hence the relationships with the Indians). Likewise while the Irish Potato Famine had fueled the U.S.' supply of fresh recruits for the Civil War, before and after the conflict the South was fueled with cheap Irish labor. Collectively Irish labor was far cheaper than slave when you figured how plantation owners no longer had to pay for their care and feeding. Just give them a paycheck, and send them away. Likewise just as it's apprehensible to unnecessarily abuse your livestock, so did this attitude prevail when it came to slaves who were regarded in the same way. However with the Irish, if they got hurt or killed it was cool. They had entered into labor agreements as free men and the responsibilities of health and safety were placed upon them instead. Plus you didn't have to breed and raise the Irish like you did slaves. There was an endless supply of grown, able-bodied men to take the jobs of the fallen.
 
2012-02-07 11:12:57 AM  

Ficoce: Broom: Ficoce: Can anyone tell the reason for the Civil War?

Difficulty; do not mention slavery.


Can anyone tell the reason for the recent economic collapse?

Difficulty: do not mention financial institutions.

Good answer! The North had double the population of the South, yet the South controlled 70% of the nations exports - follow the money. Lincoln set the slaves "free", but the Native Americans might have a different story about his ethics.

Then there's that Nationalist thing.


A shorter answer, and maybe more to the point: the South (or its sympathizers) was losing control of the federal government for the first time since the Van Buren administration.
 
2012-02-07 11:17:47 AM  

Speaker2Animals: Can anyone tell me why I can't walk?


It's better if you think of it as your legs are up in Heaven, holding your place in line.

Although there's no way to hold your pants up, so they're probably just shuffling around up there with a pair of pants around their ankles.
 
2012-02-07 11:19:57 AM  

Claude Ballse: Ficoce
Can anyone tell the reason for the Civil War?

Difficulty; do not mention slavery.

Sure, I'll give it a whirl. Pretty much it was started over a fight for political power and economic profits. Northern states had more representation in Congress because they refused to recognize blacks when it came to the population census since they were not entitled to the same rights. The South was not happy about this and thus began the political struggles. Later on as a way to punish Northern states, Southern states began to export their textiles overseas to Europeans who were willing to pay more. Hilarity ensued with export tariffs and the like, and thus succession began.

Now if you do mention slavery, it's because you have to in order to debunk the belief that it was a cause of the war.

Although politically Northern newspapers were pushing the Abolition/Religious aspect pretty hard, Slavery was never a determining issue with the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln while rightly so was against slavery, he himself had said that emancipation was never a priority with the War itself. Robert E. Lee was himself against it, and while he was also against interracial marriages, did say that Blacks needed to be helped by the U.S. Government to acclimate to free life so that they could gain education and truly be equal.

The biggest thing of course too was that for most planation and shipping owners, slaves were just too expensive to upkeep. Slavery isn't a easy life, but owners did still need to provide medical attention for them as well as food and shelter. There are quite a few instances, even as far back as when the French had colonized New Orleans that slaves had to be freed in order to fend for themselves because their owners just didn't have enough food and couldn't let them starve to death (hence the relationships with the Indians). Likewise while the Irish Potato Famine had fueled the U.S.' supply of fresh recruits for the Civil War, before and after the conflict the South was ...


Thank you for that....now, class, this demonstrates two terms that are crucial to understanding many interpretations of the American Civil War - "Revisionist" and "Unreconstructed".
 
2012-02-07 11:30:18 AM  

Broom: That being said, it probably wouldn't hurt you to study a few more books, if you've never heard of him before.


[welcometofark.jpg]
 
2012-02-07 11:33:29 AM  

Speaker2Animals: Broom: Ficoce: Can anyone tell the reason for the Civil War?

Difficulty; do not mention slavery.


Can anyone tell the reason for the recent economic collapse?

Difficulty: do not mention financial institutions.

Can anyone tell me why I can't walk?

Difficulty: do not mention the double leg amputation.


Lack of faith in God?

/2x bk myself :*)
 
2012-02-07 11:34:31 AM  
The photo 'Black Troops' showing two black soldiers supposedly fighting at Dutch Gap was almost certainly staged. The equipment needed to take photos then and the time it took to take a shot meant actual combat photos are just about nonexistent.
 
2012-02-07 11:35:55 AM  

Ficoce: Broom: Ficoce: Can anyone tell the reason for the Civil War?

Difficulty; do not mention slavery.


Can anyone tell the reason for the recent economic collapse?

Difficulty: do not mention financial institutions.

Good answer! The North had double the population of the South, yet the South controlled 70% of the nations exports - follow the money. Lincoln set the slaves "free", but the Native Americans might have a different story about his ethics.

Then there's that Nationalist thing.


And the fact that every single state seceding from the Union mentioned preserving slavery as a cause within the first few paragraphs.

I'm not saying the North's economic hold on the South wasn't a factor. I'm saying even the South admitted slavery was a major reason, at the time. It's only since then that the South's message has been revised to be more palatably about "economic inequities."
 
2012-02-07 11:37:22 AM  
th01.deviantart.net
 
2012-02-07 11:41:00 AM  

Porous Horace: Stupid Javascript. This is the only semi-informative pic I got from that page and I'm not too sure that it took place during the Civil War. Maybe the Cold War?

[cdn.theatlantic.com image 300x195]


No, that's the Civil War alright.
 
2012-02-07 11:44:02 AM  

Claude Ballse: Ficoce
Can anyone tell the reason for the Civil War?

Difficulty; do not mention slavery.

Sure, I'll give it a whirl. Pretty much it was started over a fight for political power and economic profits. Northern states had more representation in Congress because they refused to recognize blacks when it came to the population census since they were not entitled to the same rights. The South was not happy about this and thus began the political struggles. Later on as a way to punish Northern states, Southern states began to export their textiles overseas to Europeans who were willing to pay more. Hilarity ensued with export tariffs and the like, and thus succession began.

Now if you do mention slavery, it's because you have to in order to debunk the belief that it was a cause of the war...


Well that was revisionist.
You might want to read up on the politics leading to the war. Start here.
 
2012-02-07 11:45:59 AM  

DreamSnipers: The photo 'Black Troops' showing two black soldiers supposedly fighting at Dutch Gap was almost certainly staged. The equipment needed to take photos then and the time it took to take a shot meant actual combat photos are just about nonexistent.


of course it was staged. What is your point?
 
2012-02-07 11:50:52 AM  
i39.tinypic.com
The horror... the horror...
 
2012-02-07 11:54:40 AM  

Claude Ballse: Slavery was never a determining issue with the Civil War.


"Years ago I was convinced that the Southern States would be compelled either to separate from the North, by dissolving the Federal Government, or they would be compelled to abolish the institution of African Slavery." - E.S. Dargan, Secession Convention of Alabama, January 11, 1861

"In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world." - Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union

"For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery." - The people of Georgia ... present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation

The rights of slaveowners over their slaves are asserted 10 times in the Confederate Constitution. Probably just an oversight; the Secession wasn't about slavery, as you have posited.
 
2012-02-07 12:05:52 PM  

chuckufarlie: DreamSnipers: The photo 'Black Troops' showing two black soldiers supposedly fighting at Dutch Gap was almost certainly staged. The equipment needed to take photos then and the time it took to take a shot meant actual combat photos are just about nonexistent.

of course it was staged. What is your point?


My point was this labeling of the photo "Soldiers fighting for the Union in November 1864 in Dutch Gap, Virginia" is misleading.
 
2012-02-07 12:08:12 PM  

Broom: Ficoce: Broom: Ficoce: Can anyone tell the reason for the Civil War?

Difficulty; do not mention slavery.


Can anyone tell the reason for the recent economic collapse?

Difficulty: do not mention financial institutions.

Good answer! The North had double the population of the South, yet the South controlled 70% of the nations exports - follow the money. Lincoln set the slaves "free", but the Native Americans might have a different story about his ethics.

Then there's that Nationalist thing.

And the fact that every single state seceding from the Union mentioned preserving slavery as a cause within the first few paragraphs.

I'm not saying the North's economic hold on the South wasn't a factor. I'm saying even the South admitted slavery was a major reason, at the time. It's only since then that the South's message has been revised to be more palatably about "economic inequities."


You might not want to say it, but I will. Nothing that the North did or was going to do had anything to do with the original southern states actions to secede. It was brought on by hubris and a certain amount of immaturity. The election of Lincoln to the White House was the first time in over thirty years that the south did not control the White House. That was more than they could stand. Once they were no longer in charge, they wanted out.

The people who initiated this should have been hanged.
 
2012-02-07 12:12:10 PM  

DreamSnipers: chuckufarlie: DreamSnipers: The photo 'Black Troops' showing two black soldiers supposedly fighting at Dutch Gap was almost certainly staged. The equipment needed to take photos then and the time it took to take a shot meant actual combat photos are just about nonexistent.

of course it was staged. What is your point?

My point was this labeling of the photo "Soldiers fighting for the Union in November 1864 in Dutch Gap, Virginia" is misleading.


How so??? The people of that time certainly knew that it was not possibly a real photo of combat. People today should know that it was not possible. Who is it misleading?? The people who are completely uninformed??

The photo was certainly staged and actual combat photos from that period are not just about nonexistent - they ARE non-existent.
 
2012-02-07 12:16:07 PM  

Claude Ballse: Ficoce
Can anyone tell the reason for the Civil War?

Difficulty; do not mention slavery.

Sure, I'll give it a whirl. Pretty much it was started over a fight for political power and economic profits. Northern states had more representation in Congress because they refused to recognize blacks when it came to the population census since they were not entitled to the same rights. The South was not happy about this and thus began the political struggles. Later on as a way to punish Northern states, Southern states began to export their textiles overseas to Europeans who were willing to pay more. Hilarity ensued with export tariffs and the like, and thus succession began.

Now if you do mention slavery, it's because you have to in order to debunk the belief that it was a cause of the war.

Although politically Northern newspapers were pushing the Abolition/Religious aspect pretty hard, Slavery was never a determining issue with the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln while rightly so was against slavery, he himself had said that emancipation was never a priority with the War itself. Robert E. Lee was himself against it, and while he was also against interracial marriages, did say that Blacks needed to be helped by the U.S. Government to acclimate to free life so that they could gain education and truly be equal.

The biggest thing of course too was that for most planation and shipping owners, slaves were just too expensive to upkeep. Slavery isn't a easy life, but owners did still need to provide medical attention for them as well as food and shelter. There are quite a few instances, even as far back as when the French had colonized New Orleans that slaves had to be freed in order to fend for themselves because their owners just didn't have enough food and couldn't let them starve to death (hence the relationships with the Indians). Likewise while the Irish Potato Famine had fueled the U.S.' supply of fresh recruits for the Civil War, before and after the conflict the South was ...


pure bullshiat - the one and only cause for the Civil War was SLAVERY. That is why the states attempted to secede and that is why they fired on Fort Sumter. All you need to do is read the Articles of Secession written by the deep south states and you will see the cause. Every one on them mentions slavery as their reason and nothing else.


Your ancestors were not embarrassed to tell the truth, it was only when they lost the war that they decided to lie about it.
 
2012-02-07 12:17:37 PM  

glassbottomboatcaptain: Ficoce: Can anyone tell the reason for the Civil War?

Difficulty; do not mention slavery.

The south is full of weird retards so we killed a bunch of em.


apparently - not enough.
 
2012-02-07 12:19:52 PM  

ButtonFace: "In a rare image of President Lincoln at Gettysburg, he is shown hatless at the center of a crowd on the orators' platform"

The President is hatless. I repeat...hatless!


It was just used to help people locate Lincoln in that photo. If people looked for a man in a stove pipe hate, they would have found nothing.

Not too bright, are you??!!!!!
 
2012-02-07 12:24:10 PM  

chuckufarlie: The people who initiated this should have been hanged.


1865 Republican Congress, is that you? Welcome back.

/But vengeance only begets vengeance. Reconciliation historically is the path to overcoming civil turmoil.
 
2012-02-07 12:28:12 PM  

Broom: chuckufarlie: The people who initiated this should have been hanged.

1865 Republican Congress, is that you? Welcome back.

/But vengeance only begets vengeance. Reconciliation historically is the path to overcoming civil turmoil.


Vengeance has nothing to do with it AND that Congress wanted to hang Jeff Davis, R. E. Lee and other political leaders. They are not the people who initiated the attempt to secede. I am talking about the imbeciles that were mostly in South Carolina. The people who stirred up the trouble in the first place.
 
2012-02-07 12:33:38 PM  
Here is a link to the Library of Congress digitized Civil War Glass Negatives & Related Prints website. Great searchable resource with thousands of photographs in high resolution.
 
2012-02-07 12:50:32 PM  

dukeblue219: Click Click D'oh: Uh... how about "50 mostly boring images from roughly around the time of the Civil War"

Yeah, this. I was expecting to see a little more battlefield photography, not posters advertising for a fugitive slave's return. Interesting, but poorly titled nonetheless.


... i understand the sentiment, but please rethink what you just wrote.
 
2012-02-07 01:07:04 PM  

chuckufarlie: DreamSnipers: chuckufarlie: DreamSnipers: The photo 'Black Troops' showing two black soldiers supposedly fighting at Dutch Gap was almost certainly staged. The equipment needed to take photos then and the time it took to take a shot meant actual combat photos are just about nonexistent.

of course it was staged. What is your point?

My point was this labeling of the photo "Soldiers fighting for the Union in November 1864 in Dutch Gap, Virginia" is misleading.

How so??? The people of that time certainly knew that it was not possibly a real photo of combat. People today should know that it was not possible. Who is it misleading?? The people who are completely uninformed??

The photo was certainly staged and actual combat photos from that period are not just about nonexistent - they ARE non-existent.


Why label it 'fighting' then? The same label could by that standard be applied to any photo of a Union soldier. I think you assume a lot if you think "People today should know that it was not possible."
I have seen one action photo from the Civil War that I can recall. It was a artillery battery in action. There may be a couple of others, certainly rare to the extreme.
 
2012-02-07 01:10:37 PM  

chuckufarlie: ButtonFace: "In a rare image of President Lincoln at Gettysburg, he is shown hatless at the center of a crowd on the orators' platform"

The President is hatless. I repeat...hatless!

It was just used to help people locate Lincoln in that photo. If people looked for a man in a stove pipe hate, they would have found nothing.

Not too bright, are you??!!!!!


Dude, chill. It's a Simpsons reference. Yeesh. You've seen those on Fark before, haven't you?
/Loves me some Lincoln in a stove pipe "hate"
 
2012-02-07 01:17:52 PM  
I have not located the action photo, best I could find at this point is this:

To add to the image of the Connecticut battery. I recently saw it in a book titled 'Brady's Civil War' (a compilation of his images, etc.), and it captions the image with the following:
"This is believed to be the first actual photograph of the US army in combat. It was made under fire by Matthew Brady at the battle of Frdericksburg, Virginia, in 1863. Toward the end of the four second exposure time, the cannon roared. causing Brady's camera stand to shake, such that blurring of the image occured, especially of the mounted officer on the right."
 
2012-02-07 01:22:36 PM  

chuckufarlie: ButtonFace: "In a rare image of President Lincoln at Gettysburg, he is shown hatless at the center of a crowd on the orators' platform"

The President is hatless. I repeat...hatless!

It was just used to help people locate Lincoln in that photo. If people looked for a man in a stove pipe hate, they would have found nothing.

Not too bright, are you??!!!!!


Suspect Is Hatless (new window)
 
2012-02-07 01:37:24 PM  

chuckufarlie: Broom: chuckufarlie: The people who initiated this should have been hanged.

1865 Republican Congress, is that you? Welcome back.

/But vengeance only begets vengeance. Reconciliation historically is the path to overcoming civil turmoil.

Vengeance has nothing to do with it AND that Congress wanted to hang Jeff Davis, R. E. Lee and other political leaders. They are not the people who initiated the attempt to secede. I am talking about the imbeciles that were mostly in South Carolina. The people who stirred up the trouble in the first place.


That would be the 1860 Democratic National Convention. Douglas didn't do very well trying to moderate his party's views regarding slavery.

www.wisconsinhistory.org

Interestingly, Charlestonians have never voted for a Republican Mayor - ever.
 
2012-02-07 01:52:10 PM  

Kraftwerk Orange: chuckufarlie: Broom: chuckufarlie: The people who initiated this should have been hanged.

1865 Republican Congress, is that you? Welcome back.

/But vengeance only begets vengeance. Reconciliation historically is the path to overcoming civil turmoil.

Vengeance has nothing to do with it AND that Congress wanted to hang Jeff Davis, R. E. Lee and other political leaders. They are not the people who initiated the attempt to secede. I am talking about the imbeciles that were mostly in South Carolina. The people who stirred up the trouble in the first place.

That would be the 1860 Democratic National Convention. Douglas didn't do very well trying to moderate his party's views regarding slavery.

[www.wisconsinhistory.org image 600x413]

Interestingly, Charlestonians have never voted for a Republican Mayor - ever.


No, that would not be the 1860 Democratic Convention. The decision was made prior to that.
 
2012-02-07 02:10:57 PM  

chuckufarlie: Kraftwerk Orange: chuckufarlie: Broom: chuckufarlie: The people who initiated this should have been hanged.

1865 Republican Congress, is that you? Welcome back.

/But vengeance only begets vengeance. Reconciliation historically is the path to overcoming civil turmoil.

Vengeance has nothing to do with it AND that Congress wanted to hang Jeff Davis, R. E. Lee and other political leaders. They are not the people who initiated the attempt to secede. I am talking about the imbeciles that were mostly in South Carolina. The people who stirred up the trouble in the first place.

That would be the 1860 Democratic National Convention. Douglas didn't do very well trying to moderate his party's views regarding slavery.

[www.wisconsinhistory.org image 600x413]

Interestingly, Charlestonians have never voted for a Republican Mayor - ever.

No, that would not be the 1860 Democratic Convention. The decision was made prior to that.


Tell me when Succession happened then? I thought it happened *after* the Dems lost the 1860 election, and Southern States were unhappy with Lincoln's Election. If the Democrats had fielded a more viable candidate than Douglas (who was splintering his own party), then there might have been a political solution other than succession on the table. The Republicans elected a man who was determined to hold the Union together.
 
2012-02-07 02:33:17 PM  

DreamSnipers: chuckufarlie: DreamSnipers: chuckufarlie: DreamSnipers: The photo 'Black Troops' showing two black soldiers supposedly fighting at Dutch Gap was almost certainly staged. The equipment needed to take photos then and the time it took to take a shot meant actual combat photos are just about nonexistent.

of course it was staged. What is your point?

My point was this labeling of the photo "Soldiers fighting for the Union in November 1864 in Dutch Gap, Virginia" is misleading.

How so??? The people of that time certainly knew that it was not possibly a real photo of combat. People today should know that it was not possible. Who is it misleading?? The people who are completely uninformed??

The photo was certainly staged and actual combat photos from that period are not just about nonexistent - they ARE non-existent.

Why label it 'fighting' then? The same label could by that standard be applied to any photo of a Union soldier. I think you assume a lot if you think "People today should know that it was not possible."
I have seen one action photo from the Civil War that I can recall. It was a artillery battery in action. There may be a couple of others, certainly rare to the extreme.


You know that it was not possible so does that mean that you are more intelligent than the average person?

As for that shot or the artillery battery in action - rest assured that it was not taken during actual combat.
 
2012-02-07 02:37:49 PM  
I think that I need to lay off of the video games for a while. I read the headline as "50 most powerful *mages*"
 
jvl
2012-02-07 02:38:34 PM  

Claude Ballse: Although politically Northern newspapers were pushing the Abolition/Religious aspect pretty hard, Slavery was never a determining issue with the Civil War.


You're either a moron or an awesome troll, and I'm leaning towards "awesome."
 
2012-02-07 02:45:20 PM  

Kraftwerk Orange: chuckufarlie: Kraftwerk Orange: chuckufarlie: Broom: chuckufarlie: The people who initiated this should have been hanged.

1865 Republican Congress, is that you? Welcome back.

/But vengeance only begets vengeance. Reconciliation historically is the path to overcoming civil turmoil.

Vengeance has nothing to do with it AND that Congress wanted to hang Jeff Davis, R. E. Lee and other political leaders. They are not the people who initiated the attempt to secede. I am talking about the imbeciles that were mostly in South Carolina. The people who stirred up the trouble in the first place.

That would be the 1860 Democratic National Convention. Douglas didn't do very well trying to moderate his party's views regarding slavery.

[www.wisconsinhistory.org image 600x413]

Interestingly, Charlestonians have never voted for a Republican Mayor - ever.

No, that would not be the 1860 Democratic Convention. The decision was made prior to that.

Tell me when Succession happened then? I thought it happened *after* the Dems lost the 1860 election, and Southern States were unhappy with Lincoln's Election. If the Democrats had fielded a more viable candidate than Douglas (who was splintering his own party), then there might have been a political solution other than succession on the table. The Republicans elected a man who was determined to hold the Union together.


My comments have nothing to do with WHEN SECESSION HAPPENED. I was talking about the decision to Secede, when that was made and by who. Maybe decision is the wrong word but there was a group of people in the south, mostly in South Carolina that had been pushing for secession for years. They started their "push" to agitate the south prior to the Democratic convention. The fact that many southerners went to that convention already pushing the idea of secession shows that the work had started before the convention.
 
2012-02-07 02:47:53 PM  

jvl: Claude Ballse: Although politically Northern newspapers were pushing the Abolition/Religious aspect pretty hard, Slavery was never a determining issue with the Civil War.

You're either a moron or an awesome troll, and I'm leaning towards "awesome."


Never under estimate the stupidity of a southerner (especial a Texan) when it comes to the origins of the Civil War. There are groups in the south that are dedicated to twisting the story into something easier to swallow for the average southerner.
 
2012-02-07 03:08:47 PM  
I'm surprised they don't have the one picture Shelby Foote mentioned on Ken Burns' Civil War. Its after the battle of Gettysburg and shows 3 Confederate POWs posing for the picture.
 
2012-02-07 03:11:40 PM  

chuckufarlie: Kraftwerk Orange: chuckufarlie: Kraftwerk Orange: chuckufarlie: Broom: chuckufarlie: The people who initiated this should have been hanged.

1865 Republican Congress, is that you? Welcome back.

/But vengeance only begets vengeance. Reconciliation historically is the path to overcoming civil turmoil.

Vengeance has nothing to do with it AND that Congress wanted to hang Jeff Davis, R. E. Lee and other political leaders. They are not the people who initiated the attempt to secede. I am talking about the imbeciles that were mostly in South Carolina. The people who stirred up the trouble in the first place.

That would be the 1860 Democratic National Convention. Douglas didn't do very well trying to moderate his party's views regarding slavery.

[www.wisconsinhistory.org image 600x413]

Interestingly, Charlestonians have never voted for a Republican Mayor - ever.

No, that would not be the 1860 Democratic Convention. The decision was made prior to that.

Tell me when Succession happened then? I thought it happened *after* the Dems lost the 1860 election, and Southern States were unhappy with Lincoln's Election. If the Democrats had fielded a more viable candidate than Douglas (who was splintering his own party), then there might have been a political solution other than succession on the table. The Republicans elected a man who was determined to hold the Union together.

My comments have nothing to do with WHEN SECESSION HAPPENED. I was talking about the decision to Secede, when that was made and by who. Maybe decision is the wrong word but there was a group of people in the south, mostly in South Carolina that had been pushing for secession for years. They started their "push" to agitate the south prior to the Democratic convention. The fact that many southerners went to that convention already pushing the idea of secession shows that the work had started before the convention.


You do know that succession had been brought up many times as a solution to national issues.

Specifically, New England considered sucession over slavery, in the 1840's. If you're going to blame successionists, I think it's only fair to refer to those who actually did something - like actually succede. Not those who talked about it, because EVERYBODY talked about it at some point or another.
 
2012-02-07 03:19:12 PM  
i succeeded in seceding from reality

g-g-gramps helped burn atlanta. burn baby burn.
 
2012-02-07 03:28:15 PM  

Kraftwerk Orange: Specifically, New England considered sucession over slavery, in the 1840's. If you're going to blame successionists, I think it's only fair to refer to those who actually did something - like actually succede. Not those who talked about it, because EVERYBODY talked about it at some point or another.


1840's? I thought their secession crisis occurred during the War of 1812.
 
2012-02-07 03:33:16 PM  

UNC_Samurai: Kraftwerk Orange: Specifically, New England considered sucession over slavery, in the 1840's. If you're going to blame successionists, I think it's only fair to refer to those who actually did something - like actually succede. Not those who talked about it, because EVERYBODY talked about it at some point or another.

1840's? I thought their secession crisis occurred during the War of 1812.


That was the Hartford Convention, another time when succession was threatened by New England. Abolitionists were agitating for secession during the 1830's.
 
2012-02-07 04:27:58 PM  

chuckufarlie: DreamSnipers: chuckufarlie: DreamSnipers: chuckufarlie: DreamSnipers: The photo 'Black Troops' showing two black soldiers supposedly fighting at Dutch Gap was almost certainly staged. The equipment needed to take photos then and the time it took to take a shot meant actual combat photos are just about nonexistent.

of course it was staged. What is your point?

My point was this labeling of the photo "Soldiers fighting for the Union in November 1864 in Dutch Gap, Virginia" is misleading.

How so??? The people of that time certainly knew that it was not possibly a real photo of combat. People today should know that it was not possible. Who is it misleading?? The people who are completely uninformed??

The photo was certainly staged and actual combat photos from that period are not just about nonexistent - they ARE non-existent.

Why label it 'fighting' then? The same label could by that standard be applied to any photo of a Union soldier. I think you assume a lot if you think "People today should know that it was not possible."
I have seen one action photo from the Civil War that I can recall. It was a artillery battery in action. There may be a couple of others, certainly rare to the extreme.

You know that it was not possible so does that mean that you are more intelligent than the average person?

As for that shot or the artillery battery in action - rest assured that it was not taken during actual combat.


I offered some documentation in my following post:
To add to the image of the Connecticut battery. I recently saw it in a book titled 'Brady's Civil War' (a compilation of his images, etc.), and it captions the image with the following:
"This is believed to be the first actual photograph of the US army in combat. It was made under fire by Matthew Brady at the battle of Frdericksburg, Virginia, in 1863. Toward the end of the four second exposure time, the cannon roared. causing Brady's camera stand to shake, such that blurring of the image occured, especially of the mounted officer on the right."
Link (new window) The post I cited is at the bottom.

I don't have a copy of that book and have not located the photo in question. But I suspect it is out there on line somewhere. If you would care to show something besides your own expertise that the photo in question was staged or fake I would be interested. But for now I am going to accept that there is at least one genuine action photo.
 
2012-02-07 04:30:05 PM  

Kraftwerk Orange: chuckufarlie: Kraftwerk Orange: chuckufarlie: Kraftwerk Orange: chuckufarlie: Broom: chuckufarlie: The people who initiated this should have been hanged.

1865 Republican Congress, is that you? Welcome back.

/But vengeance only begets vengeance. Reconciliation historically is the path to overcoming civil turmoil.

Vengeance has nothing to do with it AND that Congress wanted to hang Jeff Davis, R. E. Lee and other political leaders. They are not the people who initiated the attempt to secede. I am talking about the imbeciles that were mostly in South Carolina. The people who stirred up the trouble in the first place.

That would be the 1860 Democratic National Convention. Douglas didn't do very well trying to moderate his party's views regarding slavery.

[www.wisconsinhistory.org image 600x413]

Interestingly, Charlestonians have never voted for a Republican Mayor - ever.

No, that would not be the 1860 Democratic Convention. The decision was made prior to that.

Tell me when Succession happened then? I thought it happened *after* the Dems lost the 1860 election, and Southern States were unhappy with Lincoln's Election. If the Democrats had fielded a more viable candidate than Douglas (who was splintering his own party), then there might have been a political solution other than succession on the table. The Republicans elected a man who was determined to hold the Union together.

My comments have nothing to do with WHEN SECESSION HAPPENED. I was talking about the decision to Secede, when that was made and by who. Maybe decision is the wrong word but there was a group of people in the south, mostly in South Carolina that had been pushing for secession for years. They started their "push" to agitate the south prior to the Democratic convention. The fact that many southerners went to that convention already pushing the idea of secession shows that the work had started before the convention.

You do know that succession had been brought up many times as a s ...


SECESSION - if you want to talk about it, at least learn to spell it.

And yes, it had been brought up many times, but I am referring to the time when a bunch of dumbasses in South Carolina actually got people to take action. Those are the people that should have been hanged because their actions led directly to the Civil War.
 
2012-02-07 04:32:09 PM  

DreamSnipers: chuckufarlie: DreamSnipers: chuckufarlie: DreamSnipers: chuckufarlie: DreamSnipers: The photo 'Black Troops' showing two black soldiers supposedly fighting at Dutch Gap was almost certainly staged. The equipment needed to take photos then and the time it took to take a shot meant actual combat photos are just about nonexistent.

of course it was staged. What is your point?

My point was this labeling of the photo "Soldiers fighting for the Union in November 1864 in Dutch Gap, Virginia" is misleading.

How so??? The people of that time certainly knew that it was not possibly a real photo of combat. People today should know that it was not possible. Who is it misleading?? The people who are completely uninformed??

The photo was certainly staged and actual combat photos from that period are not just about nonexistent - they ARE non-existent.

Why label it 'fighting' then? The same label could by that standard be applied to any photo of a Union soldier. I think you assume a lot if you think "People today should know that it was not possible."
I have seen one action photo from the Civil War that I can recall. It was a artillery battery in action. There may be a couple of others, certainly rare to the extreme.

You know that it was not possible so does that mean that you are more intelligent than the average person?

As for that shot or the artillery battery in action - rest assured that it was not taken during actual combat.

I offered some documentation in my following post:
To add to the image of the Connecticut battery. I recently saw it in a book titled 'Brady's Civil War' (a compilation of his images, etc.), and it captions the image with the following:
"This is believed to be the first actual photograph of the US army in combat. It was made under fire by Matthew Brady at the battle of Frdericksburg, Virginia, in 1863. Toward the end of the four second exposure time, the cannon roared. causing Brady's camera stand to shake, such that blurring of the image occ ...


action photo OR a photo of an artillery unit engaged in actual combat?
 
2012-02-07 04:36:51 PM  

chuckufarlie:

Here is a link to the photo. Link (new window) Number five in the list.
If you read the caption from the Brady book I posted it says "This is believed to be the first actual photograph of the US army in combat. It was made under fire by Matthew Brady

Seems clear enough to me.

 
2012-02-07 04:38:09 PM  

UNC_Samurai: Nightsweat: Claude Ballse: Ficoce
Can anyone tell the reason for the Civil War?

Difficulty; do not mention slavery.

Sure, I'll give it a whirl. Pretty much it was started over a fight for political power and economic profits. Northern states had more representation in Congress because they refused to recognize blacks when it came to the population census since they were not entitled to the same rights. The South was not happy about this and thus began the political struggles. Later on as a way to punish Northern states, Southern states began to export their textiles overseas to Europeans who were willing to pay more. Hilarity ensued with export tariffs and the like, and thus succession began.

Now if you do mention slavery, it's because you have to in order to debunk the belief that it was a cause of the war...


Well that was revisionist.
You might want to read up on the politics leading to the war. Start here.

I also recommend this book:

[ia600805.us.archive.org image 330x500]

The annexation of Texas really was the catalyst that turned the sectional divide into an irrevocable dispute over how slavery would be handled as newer states were created. The South saw the Senate as their last bastion of political power where they could protect the institution of slavery and thus their economic engine. When it became apparent that free states would begin outnumbering slave states, that political power was threatened and people like Calhoun became impossible to satiate.


That is not at all accurate. Slavery was protected by the Constitution and nothing that the Senate did was going to change that, they could not even decide which states would be slave states and which states would be free states.

What the south really feared was the President's ability to appoint people to Federal Offices like the Post Office or a Federal Judge. The south did not want northerners taking those positions in the south because they could then overturn some standing traditions and laws in the south. For instance, mail was censored in the south to keep anti-slavery documents out of the south.

It goes deeper than that, but they were not worried about control of the Senate. 1860 was the first time in over 30 years when the south did not control the White House.
 
2012-02-07 04:41:09 PM  

DreamSnipers: chuckufarlie:

Here is a link to the photo. Link (new window) Number five in the list.
If you read the caption from the Brady book I posted it says "This is believed to be the first actual photograph of the US army in combat. It was made under fire by Matthew Brady

Seems clear enough to me.


"This is believed to be" Who is to say that it was in actual combat conditions? If it is actual combat, why have the guns not fired prior to this photo?
 
2012-02-07 04:47:59 PM  
missed one:

jurassicreich.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-02-07 04:48:34 PM  
Did I get the wrong pictures? Because 10 pictures of slave and slave life is not really civil war..
 
2012-02-07 05:05:02 PM  
The most powerful images that I've seen are the ones of my great-great uncle after he'd had his jaw shot away in Dallas, Georgia in 1864. They document the reconstruction of the lower part of his face over a five month period, all of the surgeries being done with anesthetic. Those photos don't make we long for the "good old days."
 
2012-02-07 05:13:36 PM  

chuckufarlie: DreamSnipers: chuckufarlie:

Here is a link to the photo. Link (new window) Number five in the list.
If you read the caption from the Brady book I posted it says "This is believed to be the first actual photograph of the US army in combat. It was made under fire by Matthew Brady

Seems clear enough to me.

"This is believed to be" Who is to say that it was in actual combat conditions? If it is actual combat, why have the guns not fired prior to this photo?


Not much point in talking to you is there?
Just a suggestion: It is OK to be wrong, and OK to say so. And in this case you don't even have to say you were wrong, just say "That is cool, I didn't know anything like that existed." You aren't looking knowledgeable or like an 'expert' just stubbornly trying to say "I am right despite the evidence."
 
2012-02-07 05:25:38 PM  
www.theoldphotoalbum.com
 
2012-02-07 05:28:21 PM  

DreamSnipers: chuckufarlie: DreamSnipers: chuckufarlie:

Here is a link to the photo. Link (new window) Number five in the list.
If you read the caption from the Brady book I posted it says "This is believed to be the first actual photograph of the US army in combat. It was made under fire by Matthew Brady

Seems clear enough to me.

"This is believed to be" Who is to say that it was in actual combat conditions? If it is actual combat, why have the guns not fired prior to this photo?

Not much point in talking to you is there?
Just a suggestion: It is OK to be wrong, and OK to say so. And in this case you don't even have to say you were wrong, just say "That is cool, I didn't know anything like that existed." You aren't looking knowledgeable or like an 'expert' just stubbornly trying to say "I am right despite the evidence."


"Believed to be" is hardly evidence, especially in the case of this photographer who was well known for staging photos, even of the dead. So when you come up with something better than "believed to be" you let me know.
 
2012-02-07 05:29:58 PM  

chuckufarlie: but I am referring to the time when a bunch of dumbasses in South Carolina actually got people to take action. Those are the people that should have been hanged because their actions led directly to the Civil War.


Which happened after the 1860 Democratic Convention, based on what happened during the convention.
Which is what I said all along, and then you wanted to say that secession happened before that.

Actual action, when something happens, not just when people say they're going to do something... Specifically, Seccession happened Dec. 20, 1860 - after the results of the Presidential election.
 
2012-02-07 06:00:07 PM  

glassbottomboatcaptain: It's better if you think of it as your legs are up in Heaven, holding your place in line.

Although there's no way to hold your pants up, so they're probably just shuffling around up there with a pair of pants around their ankles.


Quit putting silly visuals in my head.
 
2012-02-07 06:00:55 PM  

Kraftwerk Orange: chuckufarlie: but I am referring to the time when a bunch of dumbasses in South Carolina actually got people to take action. Those are the people that should have been hanged because their actions led directly to the Civil War.

Which happened after the 1860 Democratic Convention, based on what happened during the convention.
Which is what I said all along, and then you wanted to say that secession happened before that.

Actual action, when something happens, not just when people say they're going to do something... Specifically, Seccession happened Dec. 20, 1860 - after the results of the Presidential election.


My initial comment concerned hanging the people who agitated successfully to get the south to secede. Those men started long before the election unless you think it was a spur of the moment idea???!!!!
 
2012-02-07 06:24:17 PM  

Krymson Tyde: I'm somewhat surprised Andersonville (new window) wasn't represented.

I know there are strong opinions regarding how this part of our history is remembered, but at least that constant debate keeps it alive in our thoughts. I would hate to see it forgotten and perhaps repeated.

Count me in with the southerners that are glad the Union beat the confederacy.


I am originally from Michigan and have lived in the south on and off since I was 19(Army vet), and I have lived in Raleigh for almost 12, and I did not know your kind existed. Learn somethingt new everyday, this Damn Yankee is surprised.
 
2012-02-07 07:16:31 PM  

Onkel Buck: Krymson Tyde: I'm somewhat surprised Andersonville (new window) wasn't represented.

I know there are strong opinions regarding how this part of our history is remembered, but at least that constant debate keeps it alive in our thoughts. I would hate to see it forgotten and perhaps repeated.

Count me in with the southerners that are glad the Union beat the confederacy.

I am originally from Michigan and have lived in the south on and off since I was 19(Army vet), and I have lived in Raleigh for almost 12, and I did not know your kind existed. Learn somethingt new everyday, this Damn Yankee is surprised.


Onkel Buck
A lot of Southerns seem to have a mixed view. If you want to test this personally find a good red neck bar in the South, maybe even one with a Confederate flag over the bar. Wait until the bar is crowded and pull out an American flag and burn it.
 
2012-02-07 08:12:45 PM  
 
2012-02-07 09:30:34 PM  
"Just say 'slavery'"
"Slavery is it, sir"

/hot like, you know, the Civil War...
 
2012-02-08 12:23:06 PM  
I joined Fark just so I could post this picture in this thread;

i12.photobucket.com

Kanye is also a time traveling vampire.

Real civil war photo from the Civil War Reader, December issue. .
 
Displayed 130 of 130 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report