M14 Forum

Blown46 · February 10th, 2012, 11:10 AM

some pretty cool pictures from the Civil War. Thought you guys would like to see sorry if already posted

Hamstrosity · February 10th, 2012, 11:30 AM

Those are some great pictures! I liked them all, but for some reason the one with the capitol building being built stood out to me..

tmcfalls · February 10th, 2012, 11:40 AM

Stacking cannon balls (picture 13) seems like the 1860s equivalent of "Hold this bucket of sand and stand over there out of the way".

tmcfalls · February 10th, 2012, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hamstrosity

Those are some great pictures! I liked them all, but for some reason the one with the capitol building being built stood out to me..

Me too. I had visions of Washington be much further and better developed by the 1860s than what is shown in those pictures.

IC2(SS)19Z50C5 · February 10th, 2012, 12:12 PM

The proper description of that conflict is better described as the WNA (War of Northern Aggression), or WSI (War of Southern Independence), but for sure is best described as The War Between the States.

Chromebolt · February 10th, 2012, 01:13 PM

Civil War. The south lost.

Sweets · February 10th, 2012, 01:28 PM

How about "The Civil War of Northern Aggression?"

OK I'll shut up.

Chromebolt · February 10th, 2012, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sweets

How about "The Civil War of Northern Aggression?"

OK I'll shut up.

From slide 2:

Fort Sumter, South Carolina, April, 1861, under the Confederate flag. The first shots of the Civil War took place here, on April 12, 1861, as Confederate batteries opened fire on the Union fort, bombarding it for 34 straight hours. On April 13, Union forces surrendered and evacuated the fort. Union forces made many attempts to retake the fort throughout the war, but only took possession on February 22, 1865, after Confederate forces had evacuated Charleston. (NARA) #

And yea, I'll shut up too.

CAVman · February 10th, 2012, 02:02 PM

Viewing them all, it's interesting that because no doubt the Photographer Hollered: "I'm going to take a photograph now, Nobody Move!" ...There's not much 'action' in the photos...
In #35, you can see a 'ghost'...because somebody moved!
But in the rest of them, except the dead of course...it's interesting to think that all those troops just Stopped what they were doing, in place, and didn't move for what, half a minute?...just to help the photographer take their picture and record them as being part of History!
It certainly was a different time and place...

CAVman in WYoming

Charlene32 · February 10th, 2012, 02:12 PM

Quote:

How about "The Civil War of Northern Aggression?"

this is true, as it was not a civil war. a civil war is when two armies are fighting over the same government. the south seceded legally under the constitution and then was invaded by a foreign power. but the victors write the history books and that is that. you can say what you want about the morals and politics of the war, but that does not change the fact that that is what happened. over 600,000 americans were sent to the grave because the industrial tyrants in the north would rather whoop the a$$ of an archaic agriculturalist economy than provide diplomatic business solutions.

ok....now it's my turn to shut up.

OP, thanks for the great pics.

washington · February 10th, 2012, 04:07 PM

Their eyes tell a story as well.

dwight55 · February 10th, 2012, 07:04 PM

For those interested, . . . there is a huge number of civil war pictures on a gov't web site. I got on it several years ago, . . . spent 2 or 3 evenings looking through them, . . . lots of interesting stuff there.

I took one, . . . photoshopped myself into it, . . . had a ball with it at work.

Some of them have names of all in the pictures, . . . that's what I was looking at, . . . geneology of my Webb family.

May God bless,
Dwight

IC2(SS)19Z50C5 · February 10th, 2012, 09:34 PM

HAHAHAHA!!!!... I knew that I would liven up the thread up with my earlier comments.
Yes the South lost!!.. Exactly… And in the long term it was better that the Union was restored. But you must realize some of today’s societal problems in America stem from the punitive actions of the U.S. Federal Government against the former Southern States. And racial prejudice was rampant in the north just as it was in the south for years afterwards.

And I stick by words and I agree with Charlene32's comments. What was said is true. But that aside, the pictures shown are great. Some I have seen before, some were totally new to me.

You know, I have done some WNA reenactment and IWP cavalry reenactment in my past. And as a result all of those pictures make me think of what were the smells like, (the stench of death had to be overpowering), the sounds and the verbal lexicon of our predecessor’s voices of how they communicated with each other back then, etc, etc.

But it also disturbed me to see the PC adaptation of "African Americans" imposed on what was being done by what were black slaves at the time. Call it what it was back then. A historical fact, no more no less. I’m in no way saying it was right, but it was exactly that, Black slaves performing slave labor. Those poor Black folks were slaves at the time, period, a historical fact…..

Charlene32 · February 10th, 2012, 10:14 PM

IC2(SS)19Z50C5:

i too did WNA reenacting. i was part of the 8th TX cavalry (Terry's Texas Rangers). i am very compelled by that time in history. a very paradoxical time as there was darkness on both sides of the war, as well as goodness. i feel that the issues of that war are still topical in today's politics. we must not loose sight that this country was founded on strong state governments. there are those who want everything to be controlled by federal law which would mean that everything would just be in the best interest of Washington.

that period is by far the darkest time in our nations history......and i think we are still learning from it.

DukeRustfield · February 11th, 2012, 02:11 AM

First off, awesome pictures. I've been to a lot of those battlefields. Well, in MD and VA. It's also funny to see Washington DC surrounded by...nothing. When they dreamed up the capital they really did want it to be grand and impressive. (Putting aside whatever present-day problems you're going to blab about.) Just look at the wooden shacks and boring rectangles that make up the buildings in every other photo.

Also, sad as it is, those pictures have so...little in them. The country was empty. Yet we still managed to create two huge armies that murdered the hell out of each other and built tremendous structures in a very short span of time. There's a picture of guys working with shovels and you just see a line stretching out with a few feet in between them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlene32

the south seceded legally under the constitution

Nowhere in the constitution does it state a state can secede. Nowhere. Ratification is not conditional. It states in fact Congress may

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"

New York and Virginia tried to make their ratification of the Constitution conditional.

Quote:

In New York's convention, for instance, on July 24, 1788, Antifederalist John Lansing Jr. moved that a resolution be adopted giving New York the right to secede from the Union if certain amendments were not adopted within a certain number of years. Alexander Hamilton, who had anticipated such a proposal, had written to James Madison several days earlier and posed the question to him. Madison, in his capacity as a Congressman, had replied, indicating that Congress would not consider a conditional ratification to be valid. Hamilton read the letter to the convention, and Lansing's motion was defeated on the 25th by a vote of 31 to 28.[6]

So the right of secession claimed by Virginia and New York cannot be seen as "conditions" or amendments to the Constitutional proposal. If they were, those states' ratifications would have been rejected, as per Madison's letter. The other conditions listed as presumed in the preamble to the Virginia ratification -- the inability of the federal government to interfere in free exercise of religion and the press -- were agreed by all, federalists included, to be beyond the power of the federal government.

If states or localities could simply remove themselves from the conditional Constitution at will, it would be rather worthless. It could be held hostage at every turn by wealthy states or states with sudden "rushes" (oil, gold, natural gas, silver, etc.

The Articles of Confederation gave the states tremendously more influence and power of its internal affairs. And was such an abysmal failure we chucked it after about a decade. People always forget the US Constitution is version 2.0.

But anyway, there's no, "we don't like the laws the majority voted so we're leaving" clause in the Constitution. If there was, there would be no red states and blue states, there'd be red countries and blue countries.