Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Civil War Question [View all]ieoeja
(9,748 posts)30. "Low" commitment to public education doesn't even come close. One state even outlawed public ed.
Not a single northern state was without public education.
Not a single southern state *had* public education.
The old South was dominated by descendants of Norman aristocrats who managed to politically rule the United States prior to 1860 despite being outnumbered. The ascendancy of Anglo-Saxons for the first time sent them scurrying for the exits as much as the desire to extend slavery. During the Civil War two proposals were put forth in the South to replace African slaves with Anglo-Saxon slaves.
Poll taxes and literacy tests existed prior to the Civil War and was intended to keep the Celtic underclass where they were: under the dominion of their Norman overlords. The old South opposed public education for the same reason. They also opposed the expansion of railroads and canals as these provided infrastructure for new industry which challenged their feudal style dominance by land owners.
Slaves and plantations were a modern adaptation of peasants and baronies.
Southern Colonies:
The Virgin(ia) Queen
Queen Mary(land)
King Charles I and II or King Carolus(ina) in Latin
King Georg(ia)
Rhode (Island and Plantation)
Northern Colonies:
Massachusettes, Delaware and Connecticut native names
New Jersey, New York, New Hampshire (for the home they left behind)
William Penn(sylvania) for a populus politician who often fought the Crown
The North was founded by people seeking to flee the British Empire. The South was founded by those seeking to expand the British Empire. They conquered Tejas. They conquered Baja California, then lost it. They conquered Guatemala, then lost it. They invaded Cuba ... twice.
South Carolina had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the American Revolutionary War. They surrendered to the British months into the war and ordered the Continentals to stay out. Their first call for secession was several decades prior to the Civil War.
Their confidence at the onset of the Civil War was based on their belief in racial superiority over the hated Anglo-Saxon. Their early superiority in cavalry was due to their keeping a form of the old knighthood alive.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
65 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
"Low" commitment to public education doesn't even come close. One state even outlawed public ed.
ieoeja
Nov 2012
#30
The British ruling class DID NOT detest slavery, but the British industrial working class sure as
coalition_unwilling
Nov 2012
#43
Funny. Was it Lincoln didn't have decent generals, or a decent leader of generals.
bluestate10
Nov 2012
#25
The single biggest mistake of the Civil War can be summed up in a single name
RomneyLies
Nov 2012
#29
6-1 against Lee. Retreated 6 times anyway. And stopped at the Virginia border with Lee routed.
ieoeja
Nov 2012
#33
Its military could hardly have fought a guerilla non-conventional war in any
coalition_unwilling
Nov 2012
#38
Before Washington fell to the Army of Northern Virginia, chances are that the North would
coalition_unwilling
Nov 2012
#35
I Could Be Wrong But I Thought I Remember It From The PBS Special By Ken Burns In 1990
DemocratSinceBirth
Nov 2012
#9
Shelby Foote was the historian interviewed who said that the North had one hand behind its back
JVS
Nov 2012
#12
Foote is the better writer, imo, but McPherson is the better historian (and
coalition_unwilling
Nov 2012
#42
South was doomed, only lasted as long as it did because South had better generals at first.
yellowcanine
Nov 2012
#13
Um, excuse me, what battles did Grant lose? I can't think of any offhand. He
coalition_unwilling
Nov 2012
#39
"Loss" is a loaded term to describe the outcome of either battle, as Grant was pursuing
coalition_unwilling
Nov 2012
#52
The general strategy was established very early on by General Winfield Scott. His
coalition_unwilling
Nov 2012
#64
Another factor which i've never seen discussed in this context is that the South was
hedgehog
Nov 2012
#22
Yes. If Grant had been the North's primary general from the start, the war never would have lasted
aaaaaa5a
Nov 2012
#31
Oh, please. I can bash McClellan with the best of them, but the Army of the Potomac
coalition_unwilling
Nov 2012
#41
I must take issue with the first statement of your second paragraph. I know of no historian
coalition_unwilling
Nov 2012
#51
Certainly they were. OTOH there is a very good argument made that it would have been
Egalitarian Thug
Nov 2012
#48
That is a specious argument (no offense) and does not give credit to the quasi-mystical
coalition_unwilling
Nov 2012
#57
"Given British and French demand for Southern cotton," the South was exhausing its land.
AnotherMcIntosh
Nov 2012
#58
Well, your argument is belied by the fact of Lincoln's re-election in 1864 and by morale
coalition_unwilling
Nov 2012
#55
You might want to review your history a little bit, specifically the
coalition_unwilling
Nov 2012
#54
At Chancellorsville, Stonewall Jackson successfully attacked Hooker's exposed
coalition_unwilling
Nov 2012
#59