New answers tagged

2

All these answer are right to some extent but there was one critical moment when IIRC General Preston, his artillery officer tried to convince him to take to guerrilla warfare. But Lee was already thinking far ahead. He, like Grant and Lincoln knew that the Union had to be healed back into a functioning whole. The best interest of the South and North now ...


1

Generals will order their soldiers to "fight to the death" only when there is a military or political advantage to be gained. This was not the case here. At the Alamo, some 174 Texans defended a fort to the death and inflicted several hundred casualties (a multiple of their own number) on the Mexicans. This weakened Santa Anna to the point where he could ...


11

To augment KorvinStarmast's excellent answer, it's worth looking at a map to understand just how over the war was. Source Perry-Castañeda Library Map Collection Since the beginning of the war, the South had been blockaded by sea cutting off cotton exports and arms imports. This left them with increasing financial problems, and fewer and fewer quality ...


17

The simple answer is that General Lee didn't want to see his men destroyed. There was correspondence between Generals Lee and Grant in the days before the actual surrender, as both recognized the disparity of position between Lee's Army and the larger, better supplied Union Army that kept pushing him west, away from Richmond and away from supply. Prelude ...


2

So my question is, was the Abolition of Slavery in the United States perceived and advertised as an effort to improve race relations or an improvement to labour laws? Others have given sociopolitical answers, let me give a brief economic one. The ultimate reason for slavery's actual abolition was, at least according to the economic history, an economic ...


2

Hardly! I can't put my hand on it now, but I wrote an undergraduate paper on the genesis of US slavery, where I referenced the first documented sale of "Negros" in the American colonies in, I think, 1690. It was fairly obvious from this that it was their difference (perceived as "barbarian", "childlike" and of course non-Christian etc) that made their ...


6

Neither. Reasons given for advocating the abolition of slavery usually were: 1) Slavery was a form of theft and totally wrong, unethical, evil and against the will of God. 2) slavery was bad for all white people except for the few actual slave owners. It enabled the slave owners to dominate, oppress, and impoverish the white southerners without their ...


1

Depends on how narrowly you define 'freedom'. Certainly many nations have fought to remove districts and states from other nation's rule. For example, the French intervention in the American Revolution helped the Colonists be "free" in their minds, even though they were not chattel slaves originally.



Top 50 recent answers are included