That is probably the biggest of all contreversies when it comes to the Civil War. What most people don't realize is that both sides had excellant points. Let me point out a few I have thought of over the past while (meaning 3 points each side). Let us start with the South.
South:
1. The Founding Fathers had been for the right that man has to speak up against things they feel threatening from the government. Whether they meant rebillion when the North had not yet really taken away rights is questionable.
2. The Constitution did not condemn seccesion.
3. There had not been a true definition given over the power the state level governments had compared to the central government.
North:
1. The nation had been made centralized for the purpose of perserving democracy and defnding the common man from tyrany. Had the South succedded in breaking away, democracy would have failed and the common man would lose his rights, especially since power hungry nations would have gobbled up the remnants of the United States.
2. The Constitution did not support seccesion.
3. Many in the South were leaving to keep thier slaves. That was not a legit reason to leave the Union, and the North had the right to treat the South as traitors, since they were techinically that.
Conclusion: I think overall the North was right, but, the South sticking up for themselves allowed the Nation to define what was what and what would become of the new Union created.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Friday, March 27, 2009
I Corps Commander
Mad Minute Games, when they were making an OOB (Order of Battle) for all members of thier site for the game, Take Command 2, they asked all members to put what they would like to command. I love the game and decided to try my luck at getting a command.
I asked if I could be the commander of the I Corps of the Army of the Potomac, and it was amazing when I played it for the first time and saw myself leading troops into combat.
They reorganized it over the past year, and since I've been unable to play it, promoted another man in my stead. But, they promised me a command when I am able to return to playing; hopefully my old command.
I asked if I could be the commander of the I Corps of the Army of the Potomac, and it was amazing when I played it for the first time and saw myself leading troops into combat.
They reorganized it over the past year, and since I've been unable to play it, promoted another man in my stead. But, they promised me a command when I am able to return to playing; hopefully my old command.
Was Hooker Drunk at Chancellorsville
Now, it is common knowledge that Joseph Hooker was a drinker. But, new information is of the opinion that Hooker was not drunk at Chancellorsville. Unearthed in recent years is some things that point to Hooker not being drunk.
1. Hooker swore off liquor arely days before his Chancellorsville Campaign. This would explain his 'losing nerve' which migh have been withdrawls!
2. Hooker did not make clear choices and this is a sign of most alcholics going off the booze. They can't think clearly.
3. Before Chancellorsville, he was known as a stout fighter.
4. Hooker threw up violently during the battle of Chancellorsville, something that happens to addicts going off booze.
4. After Chancellorsville, during Chattanoga, he was again fighting like he once did.
5. Hooker's own reason why he lost gives us a clue to he was going through withdrawls: "I was not hurt by a shell and I was not drunk. For once I lost confidence in Hooker, and that is all there is to it." What man leaving his booze has faith in himself? He goes crazy because he is trying not to drink, and his body is going crazy on him because it has no liquor.
6. The War Committe itself asked if he was drunk, and one good Reverand Henry Ward Beecher stated that Hooker had abstained from alchol, and the only known treatment for his wond was a tiny bit of whiskey.
7. Colonel Sharpe of the Secret Service said that any man who said Hooker was drunk "lies through his teeth."
8. The ultimate testimonial: Darius Coach in his After Action Report, himself says that it was this very reason he lost: he wasn't drunk!
As such: Hooker was not drunk. He just tried to swear it off at the wrong time.
1. Hooker swore off liquor arely days before his Chancellorsville Campaign. This would explain his 'losing nerve' which migh have been withdrawls!
2. Hooker did not make clear choices and this is a sign of most alcholics going off the booze. They can't think clearly.
3. Before Chancellorsville, he was known as a stout fighter.
4. Hooker threw up violently during the battle of Chancellorsville, something that happens to addicts going off booze.
4. After Chancellorsville, during Chattanoga, he was again fighting like he once did.
5. Hooker's own reason why he lost gives us a clue to he was going through withdrawls: "I was not hurt by a shell and I was not drunk. For once I lost confidence in Hooker, and that is all there is to it." What man leaving his booze has faith in himself? He goes crazy because he is trying not to drink, and his body is going crazy on him because it has no liquor.
6. The War Committe itself asked if he was drunk, and one good Reverand Henry Ward Beecher stated that Hooker had abstained from alchol, and the only known treatment for his wond was a tiny bit of whiskey.
7. Colonel Sharpe of the Secret Service said that any man who said Hooker was drunk "lies through his teeth."
8. The ultimate testimonial: Darius Coach in his After Action Report, himself says that it was this very reason he lost: he wasn't drunk!
As such: Hooker was not drunk. He just tried to swear it off at the wrong time.
New name
To give the blog an uplift, I've done few twicks, which should give this a better feel and a cooler look. I've also changed my name to my alias on another site, "Youn' Fighting Joe Hooker".
Monday, March 23, 2009
Which Side Washington Would Have Been On
There has been some debate on which side our friend Mr. Washington would have been on if he was alive at the time of the Civil War. It was and is the opinion of many that Washington would have been with ths South, seeing as he owned slaves.
He would have joined them as soon as he would have joined the British in 1812. In other words, that's chrap!
He stated on several occassions that those who sought to tear down the United States would be condemned by the Almighty, and he pitied them for their foolishness.
Many still would claim he was for the South due to the Revolution. He, however, le troops against the Whiskey Rebillion. To believe he woud be against the Union is wrong. He would have defended it to the death.
According to many from the Confederate side during the attack on Little Round Top, many, hundreds claimed seeing George Washington's spirit during Chamberlains' Charge. Was the general there? No one knows. But, it is sure to be understood and clear as mud that he would have perserved the Union.
He would have joined them as soon as he would have joined the British in 1812. In other words, that's chrap!
He stated on several occassions that those who sought to tear down the United States would be condemned by the Almighty, and he pitied them for their foolishness.
Many still would claim he was for the South due to the Revolution. He, however, le troops against the Whiskey Rebillion. To believe he woud be against the Union is wrong. He would have defended it to the death.
According to many from the Confederate side during the attack on Little Round Top, many, hundreds claimed seeing George Washington's spirit during Chamberlains' Charge. Was the general there? No one knows. But, it is sure to be understood and clear as mud that he would have perserved the Union.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
