150th Anniversary of the Civil War

LOL ! No I just like busting his chops much like he likes busting mine, no Uncivil Wars here.

Its civil war.

I think the Civil War and the aftermath are the most fascinating period of US History. I love reading about/watching documentaries of US History, and this period in history is simply remarkable. I mean we've all lived through civil wars of other countries. The thought that that could happen and did happen here once is simply remarkable.

It's somewhat fitting I suppose that on the 150th anniversary of the Civil War, our country is being led by its first African-American President ever. In fact I heard, and not sure how true this is, that there has been some pushback/concern in some town about Obama being part of their 150th anniversary celebrations of the war.

So there were donuts and honey buns this morning at work and i asked why, someone said jokingly that its because todays the anniversy to the START of the Civil War. The thing is people do celebrate the start….. I had no idea this went on. I get celebrating the civil war over all and absolutely get celebrating the end of the war, but had no idea people actually celebrated the start to it. Crazy

YouTube - Glory Trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XuUGD7aa3E)

One of the best movies Glory.

So there were donuts and honey buns this morning at work and i asked why, someone said jokingly that its because todays the anniversy to the START of the Civil War. The thing is people do celebrate the start….. I had no idea this went on. I get celebrating the civil war over all and absolutely get celebrating the end of the war, but had no idea people actually celebrated the start to it. Crazy

Crazy. Though it might have been more accurate for me to say "Commemorate" not "Celebrate"

My great great grandfather's 2 older brothers died in the war, one in Sulfolk Va another taken prisoner at Gettysburg and died in a POW camp at Point Lookout Md. after spending time at Fort Delaware prison camp.

Most interesting time our history, and im a little of an amature buff myself. The evil of Slavery no doubt was the cause of the war, but I think if you asked the average southern soldier back then, when the yanks sent an armed invasion force cross the Mason-Dixon line, that was the reason men took up arms, and enlistment then sky-rocketed. Why did they fight, well cause there were armed men in his backyard.

You gotta tip your hat to Lincoln, most important President of all time because he did end up preserving the union.

Slavery was certainly a main issue, but there was so much more to it-expansion, economics, states vs. federal rights. It was such a turning point in our history. But if it happened today, I wonder what kind of response Lincoln's actions would take today. One of the knocks against his predecessors-Buchanan and Pierce-was that they didn't take any action. But their argument was basically that their hands were tied constitutionally, if I recall correctly.

My great great grandfather's 2 older brothers died in the war, one in Sulfolk Va another taken prisoner at Gettysburg and died in a POW camp at Point Lookout Md. after spending time at Fort Delaware prison camp.

That's remarkable

Slavery was certainly a main issue, but there was so much more to it-expansion, economics, states vs. federal rights.

Agreed. I doubt, however, anyone was going to war over tarriffs - all the economic aspects of St. v. Fed rights could have eventually been worked out through the political system in existence at the time. As to slavery, on the other hand, and as one writer recently put it, each side was convinced with religious fervor of the moral correctness of their side on the issue [Slave owners placed heavy reliance on the "Natural Order" and quoted the Bible liberally in support of the institution of slavery.]

It was such a turning point in our history. But if it happened today, I wonder what kind of response Lincoln's actions would take today. One of the knocks against his predecessors-Buchanan and Pierce-was that they didn't take any action. But their argument was basically that their hands were tied constitutionally, if I recall correctly.

For all his brilliance (and he was stunningly brilliant with insane political instincts - think Clinton/Reagan but exponentially better then both combined), Lincoln was all about the Union and broadly interpreted the Constitution to achieve his ends.

As an example, there was never a "declared war" between North and South b/c, if the Congress had ever issued a formal declaration of war, the CSA would have been entitled to all sorts of benefits due a belligerent under international law and would have probablly received recognition from both France & Britain. Despite the lack of a declaration of war, Lincoln interpreted the Constitution in a way that allowed him broad powers that had previously been reserved for use only during formally declared wars. Including, most famously, the suspending of the Writ Habeus Corpus to imprison prominent American citizens who were southern sympathizers (Think of the Gitmo prisoners but applied to Martin O'Malley). Not until the Korean/Vietnamese Wars did Presidents again so blatantly assume the Commander-In-Chief role without actual declared wars. Now, it is almost a given that the President can order troops into danger prior to receiving Congressional approval.

Despite vastly expanding the powers of the Presidency and Federal Govt. & changing their role forever in the US, Lincoln always sought and provided a Constitutional basis for his actions. Sometimes those basis were more tenuous than others.

Well that's basically my point. Lincoln was basically a loose constructionist who took certain liberties, I guess you could say, with his power. I just wonder what kind of reaction some of his actions would take today

How ironic: Last president to own a slave?

... Ulysses S. Grant (http://home.nas.com/lopresti/ps.htm)