| Author |
 Topic  |
|
paro
stripovi.com suradnik
Croatia
8582 Posts
Member since 30/03/2005 |
 Posted - 16/07/2011 : 16:44:30
|
| A još uz to ako me pamcenje dobro služi Južnjaci su ti koji su vodili ofenzivnu politiku (neka me neko ispravi), što znaci da su trebali imat dosta veliku militaristicku prednost, zar ne? |
There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. A high-powered mutant of some kind never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die.
|
 |
|
|
lwood
Advanced Member
Colombia
47132 Posts
Member since 09/12/2005 |
Posted - 16/07/2011 : 16:54:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by paro
A još uz to ako me pamcenje dobro služi Južnjaci su ti koji su vodili ofenzivnu politiku (neka me neko ispravi), što znaci da su trebali imat dosta veliku militaristicku prednost, zar ne?
a jesi me nasmija  |
depresivni iskompleksirani primitivac i nadrkana budala kojeg financira stari i koji sa skoro 50 godina nema ni žene ni posla.Pa naravno da je ljut na sve, a narocito na one koji su uspješni.
Jbga Lwoode nisam ti ja kriv kaj nisi uspio u životu |
|
|
|
lwood
Advanced Member
Colombia
47132 Posts
Member since 09/12/2005 |
Posted - 16/07/2011 : 16:59:00
|
broj raspoloživh ljudi bia je otprilike 4,5:1 u korist Unije.
da ne spominjemo industrijske kapacitete i akumulirani kapital.
zašto su ljudi fascinirani Jugom? baš zbog toga šta gotovo nije ima nikakve šanse i šta se prvi suprostavia jenkijevskom imperijalizmu umisto da odabere ponižavanje i lagano umiranje u okrilju USA |
depresivni iskompleksirani primitivac i nadrkana budala kojeg financira stari i koji sa skoro 50 godina nema ni žene ni posla.Pa naravno da je ljut na sve, a narocito na one koji su uspješni.
Jbga Lwoode nisam ti ja kriv kaj nisi uspio u životu |
|
|
|
paro
stripovi.com suradnik
Croatia
8582 Posts
Member since 30/03/2005 |
Posted - 16/07/2011 : 17:09:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by lwood
a jesi me nasmija
A jbga, falia sam...kaže zec i side s ježa
Ako ništa drugo barem sam nešto novog naucio..
Evo naletio na neki clancic o razlozima južnjackog poraza.
A frequently, and sometimes hotly, discussed subject; the outcome of the American Civil War has fascinated historians for generations. Some argue that the North's economic advantages proved too much for the South, others that Southern strategy was faulty, offensive when it should have been defensive, and vice-versa. Internal division in the South is often referred to, and complaints made against Davis' somewhat makeshift, inexperienced, government. Doubts are sometimes raised over the commitment of Southerners to a cause many of them were half-hearted about. Many historians have argued that the South lost the will to fight long before defeat was an inevitability. However, many of these criticisms could easily be applied to the North, had the outcome been different, and a simple superiority in resources is an insufficient explanation, when one considers the many examples in history, not least the American War of Independence, when a weaker defender has kept a far stronger attacker at bay. James Mc Pherson offers an alternative view in his contingency theory, where he outlines four turning points in the war which led ultimately to Southern defeat. However, while a recital of the war's events and key points may explain how the South lost the Civil War, it fails to explain why they lost. Why did the Southern war effort fail at three key stages? While valid, McPherson's explanation seems little more than a more complex restatement of the question he attempts to answer.
The North's superiority in manpower and resources must not be omitted in any answer to this question. Lincoln had at his disposal a population of 22,000,000, compared with a Southern population of 9,000,000, which included 3,500,000 slaves whom they dared not arm. This provided a far larger base from which to draw troops, although it has been suggested that Southerners were keener to join up than their Union counterparts. Furthermore, in terms of resources, the Union advantage was huge: New York alone produced manufactures of a value four times greater that the total Southern output; the North had a virtual monopoly on heavy industries; coal, iron, woollens, armaments, shipyards, machine shops - all were plentiful in the North and scarce in the South. The Union infrastructure was far better, with twice the density of railroads, and several times the mileage of canals and well-surfaced roads. Most shipping was carried out in Northern vessels, and the South had few shipyards, and only one machine shop capable of building an engine for a respectable warship.
However, the ingenuity of many Southern officers compensated somewhat for her material disadvantages. Not once did a Southern army surrender for want of ammunition, and despite being in terrible disrepair, the Confederacy's railroads somehow fulfilled their task of transporting troops to battle on several notable occasions. Historian Edward Pollard commented that 'something more than numbers make armies', and Southern leader P G T Beauregard remarked that the outcome could not be explained by 'mere material contraints'. Furthermore, the South had several clear advantages at the start of the war. Firstly, fighting on home ground was easier since supply lines were shorter, natives friendlier, and knowledge of the climate and terrain better. The vast area of the Confederacy made occupation by an invader virtually impossible, and the coastline with its many inlets and bays made for difficult blockading. Secondly, most of the US Army's best leaders were Southerners, so, at the start at least, the Confederacy had superior leadership in battle. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, military historians reckon that attacking in this period required thrice the manpower that defending did, virtually wiping out the North's demographic advantages. It would seem, therefore, that although the North's superior resources undoubtedly helped, this alone does not fully account for the Southern defeat.
Another view is that the South lost through bad conduct of the war. These criticisms fall into two main categories, military and political. Richard Current, identifies four main shortcomings in the economic management which may have played a part in the South's defeat. Firstly, the Confederacy failed to make use of its main resource, cotton. The Union blockade did not take full effect for many months, allowing the Southerners time to export their cotton harvest, and reap the financial benefits. Alexander Stephens had a plan at the start of the war that he estimated would net around $800M for the Confederacy, thus providing a sound financial base for the war effort. Although somewhat optimistic, and beset by practical difficulties, it is fair to say that the cotton crop would have been far better exported than stockpiled or burnt. Secondly, the Confederate government displayed an unwillingness to tax her citizens, preferring instead to print money, and suffer the rampant inflation that resulted. The Union financed its war effort mainly from taxation and bonds, while 60% of Southern funds came from unbacked paper money. The problems associated with this are clear to see: prices rose 100-fold over the four years of war, wiping out southerners' savings, and devastating the economy. The government's reaction to this, and in Current's eyes, third mistake, was to impress public goods for military use. However, rather than curbing inflation, this merely acted as an disincentive to supply, making essential items increasingly scarce. This, coupled with the poor infrastructure and parochialism of some State governors, meant that the army went hungry in a nation with the capacity to produce plenty of food. Finally, it is argued that the Confederate government should have done more to improve infrastructure and manufacturing. However, this was easier said than done, given the lack of suitable labour, diminished value of private capital, and lack of the correct skills or machinery for such improvements. Current does not blame Southern Treasury Secretary Memminger, however, saying that he 'had to deal with problems in comparison with which those of the Union Treasury seemed like child's play'.
Some historians deem the very nature of the Confederacy doomed to defeat. Ideologically handicapped by the doctrine of States' Rights, the Southern war effort was frequently hampered by the parochial and inward-looking political culture which prevailed in many states. When Lee's army was fighting to defend Richmond during the last days of the war, desperate for rations, Governor Vance of North Carolina was congratulating himself on stockpiling 92,000 uniforms and 150,000lbs of bacon, to be used solely by North Carolinian troops. Doubt has also been cast over the determination of its leaders to the cause. Jefferson Davis was a reluctant secessionist, Stephens was heard to remark that Lincoln was 'not a bad man', and even fire-eating Robert Toombs voted against the firing on Fort Sumter. 'With such f-hearted secessionists, what could be expected', asked historian Arnold Whitridge. He also cites the delusion that cotton ruled the world as a major factor in the Confederacy's defeat. Although valid, much of the criticism of the Confederate government could be equally well applied to the Union. Peace Democrats north of the border harassed Lincoln; opposition was vociferous in many quarters following the suspension of habeas corpus, and it appeared for a while that Lincoln would not win the 1864 election. On balance, however, the government of the Union was more united, and more effective.
Most historians agree that Lincoln was a greater leader than Davis, although at the start of the war it appeared that the opposite was true. The more experienced Davis soon built up a sound army, commanded by excellent generals. However, while a good military man, Davis was no politician. His ego bruised easily, and some of his decisions appeared to have been motivated more by personal like or dislike of an individual than any strategic reason. His decision to retain Bragg and leave Beauregard and Johnston in the cold is one such example of this. Whitridge argues that Davis 'would never have practised the arts of the politician, even if he had understood them', having, 'learned to obey and command; but nothing in his experience had taught him how to persuade and conciliate'. Lincoln, on the other hand, was a masterful diplomat, prepared to overlook personal differences, for example with McClellan, for the good of the Union. He never once faltered in his determination to save the Union, and entertained no doubts as to the wisdom of his policy. It must be remembered though, that Davis was by no means a weak leader, and had a great deal to contend with in terms of belligerent State governors, supply shortages, and teething troubles which would affect any new government. Also, given the tragic circumstances surrounding Lincoln's death, and the worthiness of his cause, there has been a tendency to romanticise him and his achievements, which any historian must guard against.
Brian Holden Reid argued that the South lost the Civil War through 'insufficient will to seek and secure their independence'. He draws a comparison between the Confederates and the Boers, who kept the might of the British Empire at bay with a tiny fraction of their aggressor's manpower, resources, or expertise. Several historians cite the example of Paraguay, who sustained a war against Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay for six years, when outnumbered in population by thirty to one. This seems a somewhat untenable argument, for three main reasons. Firstly, merely because a bloodier and more devastating war has been fought is not to say that the situation in which many Southerner found themselves was not a desperate one. Sherman's raids devastated thousands of acres of land; inflation and shortages meant food was scarce and prohibitively expensive; men of working age were fighting, and therefore could not labour in the fields or factories. Men deserted to prevent their families from starving, and returned to battle afterwards; a question of necessity, not cowardice or lack of resolve. Rather than any loss of motivation, Bruce Collins argues that the 'combination of civilian depredations, loss of military manpower, and loss of territory wrecked the Confederate war effort'. Thirdly, as McPherson points out, the lack of morale argument is a somewhat circular one. Defeat and depredation reduce morale, which in turn promote defeat and further depredation. However, most would argue that the defeat came before the loss of will to fight, not afterwards. Furthermore, Northern morale was as fragile, if not more so. Before Antietam, many Northerners were ready to negotiate peace. One wonders how long the Union morale would have held out had it found itself in the same predicament as the Confederacy in 1864.
Reasons for Southern defeat are as numerous as they are diverse. Some argue that Lincoln's masterstroke was the Emancipation Proclamation. Ultimately, it gave the North 3.5M potential new soldiers, removed a substantial section of the Confederate workforce, and extinguished any realistic hope of foreign help for the Confederacy. However, the policy was a divisive one, many Northern generals had misgivings about black troops, and many slaves preferred to ride out the war in familiar surroundings. Gradey McWhinney suggests that strategic defects may have played a role, arguing that the South should have attacked when it defended, and defended when it attacked. Given the numerical advantage of Union armies, defending would have evened out the odds, it is claimed. However, military theory and practice two different things, and battles can always be fought far more effectively in retrospect.
The American Civil War was far from a foregone conclusion. The North's larger population and superior resources were balanced by the geographical and strategic advantages of fighting on Southern soil. Lincoln's greater ability can be negated by the Confederacy's plentiful supply of experienced and competent generals. Before Gettysburg and Vicksburg, the war could easily have gone either way. If forced to give one reason why the South lost, it seems that the gross inadequacy of the Confederate government must be it. Attempting to go from nothing to a large institution running a full-scale war is difficult enough, and would not be helped by an overly-libertarian vice-president, belligerent and unhelpful state governors, a President who was severely lacking in diplomatic or political skill, and an underlying doctrine (States' Rights) that was incompatible with full-scale warfare. 'Struggling with the incubus of John C Calhoun', the Confederacy effectively fought the Civil War with one hand tied behind its back, a disability that even the dashing and brave Southern troops could not overcome.
|
There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. A high-powered mutant of some kind never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die.
|
|
|
|
paro
stripovi.com suradnik
Croatia
8582 Posts
Member since 30/03/2005 |
Posted - 16/07/2011 : 17:10:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by lwood
broj raspoloživh ljudi bia je otprilike 4,5:1 u korist Unije.
da ne spominjemo industrijske kapacitete i akumulirani kapital.
zašto su ljudi fascinirani Jugom? baš zbog toga šta gotovo nije ima nikakve šanse i šta se prvi suprostavia jenkijevskom imperijalizmu umisto da odabere ponižavanje i lagano umiranje u okrilju USA
A dobro, šta robovlasništvo ovdje pada u drugi plan ili? |
There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. A high-powered mutant of some kind never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die.
|
|
|
|
Mairosu
Advanced Member
6689 Posts
Member since 03/07/2008 |
Posted - 16/07/2011 : 17:43:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by lwood
baš zbog toga šta gotovo nije ima nikakve šanse i šta se prvi suprostavia jenkijevskom imperijalizmu umisto da odabere ponižavanje i lagano umiranje u okrilju USA
Bogami, bas su lose prosli od 1865. naovamo, evo i danas umiru od gladi |
Ko igra za raju, i zanemaruje taktiku, zavrsit ce karijeru u nizerazrednom Vratniku.
Kakav ti je kupus, takva ti je sarma -- otac Tadej |
|
|
|
lwood
Advanced Member
Colombia
47132 Posts
Member since 09/12/2005 |
Posted - 16/07/2011 : 18:11:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by paro
quote:
Originally posted by lwood
broj raspoloživh ljudi bia je otprilike 4,5:1 u korist Unije.
da ne spominjemo industrijske kapacitete i akumulirani kapital.
zašto su ljudi fascinirani Jugom? baš zbog toga šta gotovo nije ima nikakve šanse i šta se prvi suprostavia jenkijevskom imperijalizmu umisto da odabere ponižavanje i lagano umiranje u okrilju USA
A dobro, šta robovlasništvo ovdje pada u drugi plan ili?
robovlasništvo je samo izlika za dušebrižnike.za zataškavanje istine.
uostalom vecina tih robova je imala bolje životne uvjete od radnika na Sjeveru.
nije li ti malo cudno da u 4 godine rata kad je vecina bilaca bila na fronti na tim plantažama prakticki nije bilo pobuna?
3,5 milijuna robova je ostalo lojalno svojim "gospodarima" umisto da pokolje "mrske robovlasnike" i spali im imanja ka šta su špekulantske jenkijevske budaletine maštale da ce se dogodit.
a od toga ništa! nije li ti to malo cudno ?
|
depresivni iskompleksirani primitivac i nadrkana budala kojeg financira stari i koji sa skoro 50 godina nema ni žene ni posla.Pa naravno da je ljut na sve, a narocito na one koji su uspješni.
Jbga Lwoode nisam ti ja kriv kaj nisi uspio u životu |
|
|
|
lwood
Advanced Member
Colombia
47132 Posts
Member since 09/12/2005 |
Posted - 16/07/2011 : 18:14:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mairosu
quote:
Originally posted by lwood
baš zbog toga šta gotovo nije ima nikakve šanse i šta se prvi suprostavia jenkijevskom imperijalizmu umisto da odabere ponižavanje i lagano umiranje u okrilju USA
Bogami, bas su lose prosli od 1865. naovamo, evo i danas umiru od gladi
do kraja 2.svj.rata gotovo citav Jug je bia u polukolonijalnom položaju
 |
depresivni iskompleksirani primitivac i nadrkana budala kojeg financira stari i koji sa skoro 50 godina nema ni žene ni posla.Pa naravno da je ljut na sve, a narocito na one koji su uspješni.
Jbga Lwoode nisam ti ja kriv kaj nisi uspio u životu |
|
|
|
lwood
Advanced Member
Colombia
47132 Posts
Member since 09/12/2005 |
Posted - 16/07/2011 : 18:26:26
|
evo Stephena sa bivšim robom koji je osta s njim cak nakon "oslobodenja"
slika je snimljena 1875. ,dakle 10 godina nakon rata . zašto je taj bivši rob osta s "mrskin bivšin robovlasnikon" i usto potpredsjednikom Konfederacije? Osobom kojoj su ukinuta politicka prava kao jednom od voda pobune protiv USA" ?
|
depresivni iskompleksirani primitivac i nadrkana budala kojeg financira stari i koji sa skoro 50 godina nema ni žene ni posla.Pa naravno da je ljut na sve, a narocito na one koji su uspješni.
Jbga Lwoode nisam ti ja kriv kaj nisi uspio u životu |
|
|
|
lwood
Advanced Member
Colombia
47132 Posts
Member since 09/12/2005 |
Posted - 16/07/2011 : 18:27:39
|
| zar je moguce da nije širokih ruku docekao "osloboditelje" sa sjevera???? |
depresivni iskompleksirani primitivac i nadrkana budala kojeg financira stari i koji sa skoro 50 godina nema ni žene ni posla.Pa naravno da je ljut na sve, a narocito na one koji su uspješni.
Jbga Lwoode nisam ti ja kriv kaj nisi uspio u životu |
|
|
|
paro
stripovi.com suradnik
Croatia
8582 Posts
Member since 30/03/2005 |
Posted - 16/07/2011 : 18:30:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by lwood
robovlasništvo je samo izlika za dušebrižnike.za zataškavanje istine.
uostalom vecina tih robova je imala bolje životne uvjete od radnika na Sjeveru.
nije li ti malo cudno da u 4 godine rata kad je vecina bilaca bila na fronti na tim plantažama prakticki nije bilo pobuna?
3,5 milijuna robova je ostalo lojalno svojim "gospodarima" umisto da pokolje "mrske robovlasnike" i spali im imanja ka šta su špekulantske jenkijevske budaletine maštale da ce se dogodit.
a od toga ništa! nije li ti to malo cudno ?
Gledao sam davno dokumentarac na Historyu u kojem su gostovali onaj mali kepec Spike Lee i Chuck D (bivši frontmen Public Enemya, a danas cini mi se predaje crnacku kulturu na nekom fakultetu).
I ne sjecam se trocno, ali baš je bila o tome tema, kako svijet krivo percipira neke dogadaje tog vremena. Tipa da je dobar dio crnaca bježao na sjever, al da na kraju od svih tih nekih parola i obecanja da im je Unija uglavnom nudila ulogu topovskog mesa.
A vecina njih koji su cak i htjeli napustit svoje gospodare i pobjec na sjever, ubrzo su se predomislili jer stanovništvo na sjeveru nije baš blagonaklono gledalo na ?garave? južnjacke izbjeglice.
A dobar dio njih nije htio otic jer su bili nepismeni, nisu ništa drugo znali radit nego brat pamuk i blablabla...tad prica malo odlazi u širinu.. |
There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. A high-powered mutant of some kind never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die.
|
|
|
|
lwood
Advanced Member
Colombia
47132 Posts
Member since 09/12/2005 |
Posted - 16/07/2011 : 18:31:28
|
ma jel se to meni cini ili je bivši rob elegantije obucen a usto i djeluje kulturnije od gomile poluizgladnjelih radnika koji žive i rade po prljavim tvornicama sjevera po 16 sati dnevno???
|
depresivni iskompleksirani primitivac i nadrkana budala kojeg financira stari i koji sa skoro 50 godina nema ni žene ni posla.Pa naravno da je ljut na sve, a narocito na one koji su uspješni.
Jbga Lwoode nisam ti ja kriv kaj nisi uspio u životu |
|
|
|
dsormaz1
Advanced Member
.jpg)
13147 Posts
Member since 28/04/2002 |
Posted - 17/07/2011 : 00:37:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by lwood
quote:
Originally posted by paro
quote:
Originally posted by lwood
broj raspoloživh ljudi bia je otprilike 4,5:1 u korist Unije.
da ne spominjemo industrijske kapacitete i akumulirani kapital.
zašto su ljudi fascinirani Jugom? baš zbog toga šta gotovo nije ima nikakve šanse i šta se prvi suprostavia jenkijevskom imperijalizmu umisto da odabere ponižavanje i lagano umiranje u okrilju USA
A dobro, šta robovlasništvo ovdje pada u drugi plan ili?
robovlasništvo je samo izlika za dušebrižnike.za zataškavanje istine.
uostalom vecina tih robova je imala bolje životne uvjete od radnika na Sjeveru.
nije li ti malo cudno da u 4 godine rata kad je vecina bilaca bila na fronti na tim plantažama prakticki nije bilo pobuna?
3,5 milijuna robova je ostalo lojalno svojim "gospodarima" umisto da pokolje "mrske robovlasnike" i spali im imanja ka šta su špekulantske jenkijevske budaletine maštale da ce se dogodit.
a od toga ništa! nije li ti to malo cudno ?
Zašto su mnogi robovi bježali s plantaža, prije i pogotovo za vrijeme rata, ako im je bilo tako dobro? Nemoguce da nisi cuo za to? Nakon rata oslobodenim robovima cesto je od strane njihovih bivših robovlasnika bilo nudeno da ostanu na plantažama i rade za nadnice, ali mnogi su se radije odlucivali za odlazak na Sjever. Zašto ako im je bilo tako dobro na plantažama sa svojim gospodarima?
Inace, sve pohvale za one slike i karte, neke od njih i ja imam i htio sam ih staviti ovdje, ali si me preduhitrio ;) |
|
|
|
dsormaz1
Advanced Member
13147 Posts
Member since 28/04/2002 |
|
|
dsormaz1
Advanced Member
13147 Posts
Member since 28/04/2002 |
Posted - 17/07/2011 : 00:57:51
|
Na ovim kartama može se vidjeti kako je Jug postupno gubio teritorij:
Do 1862. Sjever zauzima neke kljucne gradove na obali Konfederacije (New Orleans, Galveston, Jacksonville, Norfolk), kao i veci dio Tennesseeja.
1863. Konfederacija padom Vicksburga (zadnjeg južnjackog uporišta na Mississippiju) biva presjecena na 2 dijela.
Potkraj 1864. prodorom Shermanove vojske kroz Georgiju i zauzimanjem Savannaha Konfederacija je presjecena na 3 dijela. |
Edited by - dsormaz1 on 17/07/2011 01:07:27 |
|
|
|
pravedni
Advanced Member
Serbia
4057 Posts
Member since 03/12/2009 |
Posted - 17/07/2011 : 08:55:32
|
ŠERMANOV RUŠILACKI POHOD NA JUG - U prolece 1864.godine Vilijam T. Šerman je imenovan za komandanta vojnih snaga Zapada i tokom proleca i leta te godine uspeva da se probije preko planina,od Tenesija,u ravnice Džordžije,gde mu se vešto suprostavljao Džozef Džonston. Šerman je na kraju uspeo da zauzme Atlantu,u septembru 1864.g.,posle cega je armija Konfederacije,sada pod komandom Džona B. Huda, izvršila napad na njegove linije snabdevanja,nadajuci se da ce ga prinuditi na povlacenje. Ali u Tenesiju je bilo dosta trupa Unije, pod komandom generala Tomasa,koje su uspele da odbace Južnjake,pobedivši Huda u bici kod Nešvila.
U meduvremenu,umesto da se povuce,Šerman se smelo odvojio od svojih komunikacija i otpoceo svoj cuveni marš kroz Džordžiju,do mora. Pošto nije naišla na otpor nijedne armije Konfederacije,ova armija Unije snage 60.000 pešadinaca je zahvatila podrucje od 300.milja dužine i 60.milja širin,u kome je sistematski i divljacki uništila sve što bi moglo biti od pomoci Konfederaciji. Na ovaj okrutan nacin atlantske države su bile odsecene od država Meksickog zaliva,a civilnom stanopvništvu krajnjeg Juga je stavljeno do znanja šta znaci rat. |
|
|
|
paro
stripovi.com suradnik
Croatia
8582 Posts
Member since 30/03/2005 |
Posted - 17/07/2011 : 13:52:03
|
Evo upravo gledam Rivers&Life: Mississippi na National Geographic..
Sve se meni cini da su crnci pušili i na Sjeveru i na Jugu, tako svejedno. |
There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. A high-powered mutant of some kind never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die.
|
|
|
|
lwood
Advanced Member
Colombia
47132 Posts
Member since 09/12/2005 |
Posted - 17/07/2011 : 17:17:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by dsormaz1
quote:
Originally posted by lwood
quote:
Originally posted by paro
quote:
Originally posted by lwood
broj raspoloživh ljudi bia je otprilike 4,5:1 u korist Unije.
da ne spominjemo industrijske kapacitete i akumulirani kapital.
zašto su ljudi fascinirani Jugom? baš zbog toga šta gotovo nije ima nikakve šanse i šta se prvi suprostavia jenkijevskom imperijalizmu umisto da odabere ponižavanje i lagano umiranje u okrilju USA
A dobro, šta robovlasništvo ovdje pada u drugi plan ili?
robovlasništvo je samo izlika za dušebrižnike.za zataškavanje istine.
uostalom vecina tih robova je imala bolje životne uvjete od radnika na Sjeveru.
nije li ti malo cudno da u 4 godine rata kad je vecina bilaca bila na fronti na tim plantažama prakticki nije bilo pobuna?
3,5 milijuna robova je ostalo lojalno svojim "gospodarima" umisto da pokolje "mrske robovlasnike" i spali im imanja ka šta su špekulantske jenkijevske budaletine maštale da ce se dogodit.
a od toga ništa! nije li ti to malo cudno ?
Zašto su mnogi robovi bježali s plantaža, prije i pogotovo za vrijeme rata, ako im je bilo tako dobro? Nemoguce da nisi cuo za to? Nakon rata oslobodenim robovima cesto je od strane njihovih bivših robovlasnika bilo nudeno da ostanu na plantažama i rade za nadnice, ali mnogi su se radije odlucivali za odlazak na Sjever. Zašto ako im je bilo tako dobro na plantažama sa svojim gospodarima?
Inace, sve pohvale za one slike i karte, neke od njih i ja imam i htio sam ih staviti ovdje, ali si me preduhitrio ;)
mnogi robovi? to je razvikanije nego šta je cinjenica.
pobiglo je po procjeni 40 000-100 000. u nekoliko desetljeca.
znaci negdi svaki stoti.ako i toliko.
a i to je vrlo teško potvrdit.
uostalom s današnje perspektive lako je osudit ropstvo i triba ga osudit,to nije sporno.
sporno je to da ondašnji "moralisti" osuduju ropstvo dok istovremeno industrijski radnici rade i žive u daleko nehumanijim uvjetima nego robovi.
|
depresivni iskompleksirani primitivac i nadrkana budala kojeg financira stari i koji sa skoro 50 godina nema ni žene ni posla.Pa naravno da je ljut na sve, a narocito na one koji su uspješni.
Jbga Lwoode nisam ti ja kriv kaj nisi uspio u životu |
|
|
|
lwood
Advanced Member
Colombia
47132 Posts
Member since 09/12/2005 |
Posted - 17/07/2011 : 17:19:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by paro
Evo upravo gledam Rivers&Life: Mississippi na National Geographic..
Sve se meni cini da su crnci pušili i na Sjeveru i na Jugu, tako svejedno.
ma da.na sjeveru su ih super docekali.još i danas su getoizirani. a cetvrtina ih živi ispod granice siromaštva. u citavoj USA |
depresivni iskompleksirani primitivac i nadrkana budala kojeg financira stari i koji sa skoro 50 godina nema ni žene ni posla.Pa naravno da je ljut na sve, a narocito na one koji su uspješni.
Jbga Lwoode nisam ti ja kriv kaj nisi uspio u životu |
|
|
|
lwood
Advanced Member
Colombia
47132 Posts
Member since 09/12/2005 |
Posted - 17/07/2011 : 17:34:30
|
inace šta se tice samog ropstva ovde su prikazani datumi ukidanja od 1500-te naovamo.
i usput,danas je broj robova NAJVECI u povijesti. procjene su od 12-27 miliona.
1500–1700
1569 An English court case involving Cartwright who had bought a slave from Russia ruled that English law could not recognise slavery.
1588 The Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth abolishes slavery[9]
1595 A law is passed in Portugal banning the selling and buying of Chinese slaves.[10]
16th century Japan Toyotomi Hideyoshi outlaws export of Japanese as slaves by Portuguese traders[11]
1600 Last villein dies in England[citation needed]
February 19, 1624, The King of Portugal forbids the enslavement of Chinese of either sex.[12][13]
1652 Slavery abolished in Providence Plantations.
1683 The Spanish crown abolishes slavery in Chile[citation needed]
[edit]1700–1800
1701 The Lord Chief Justice rules that a slave became free as soon as he arrived in England.[14]
1723 Russia abolishes outright slavery but retains serfdom.[15]
1761, 12 February, Portugal abolishes slavery[16] in mainland Portugal and in Portuguese possessions in India through a decree by the Marquis of Pombal.
1772 The Somersett's case held that no slave could be forcibly removed from Britain. This case was generally taken at the time to have decided that the condition of slavery did not exist under English law in England and Wales, and emancipated the remaining ten to fourteen thousand slaves or possible slaves in England and Wales, who were mostly domestic servants.[17]
1777 Slavery abolished in Madeira, Portugal[18]
1777 Constitution of the Vermont Republic bans slavery.[18]
1780 Pennsylvania passes An Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery, freeing future children of slaves. Those born prior to the Act remain enslaved-for-life. The Act becomes a model for other Northern states.[19]
1783 Russia abolishes slavery in Crimean Khanate[20]
1783 Massachusetts rules slavery illegal based on 1780 constitution.[18] All slaves immediately freed.
1783 Bukovina: Joseph II, Holy Roman Emperor issued an order abolishing slavery on 19 June 1783 in Czernowitz[21]
1783 New Hampshire begins a gradual abolition of slavery, freeing future children of slaves, and all slaves in [year].
1784 Connecticut begins a gradual abolititon of slavery, freeing future children of slaves, and all slaves in [year].[22]
1784 Rhode Island begins a gradual abolition of slavery, freeing future children of slaves, and all slaves in [year].
1787 Sierra Leone founded by Britain as colony for emancipated slaves
1787 Society for the Abolition of the Slave Trade founded in Britain[18]
1788 Sir William Dolben's Act regulating the conditions on British slave ships enacted
1792 Denmark-Norway declares transatlantic slave trade illegal after 1803 (though slavery continues to 1848)[23]
1793 Upper Canada, abolishes import of slaves by Act Against Slavery
1794 French First Republic abolishes slavery[18][24]
1799 New York State passes gradual emancipation act freeing future children of slaves, and all slaves in 1827.[25]
1799 in Scotland, by an act of the Parliament of Great Britain—the 'Colliers (Scotland) Act 1799' (39 Geo III c. 56) ended the legal slavery of Scottish coal miners that had been established by the Parliament of Scotland in 1606.[26] The Colliers and Salters (Scotland) Act 1775 (15 Geo III c. 28) was originally intended to accomplish this, but it had been only partially effective.
[edit]1800–1849
1802 The First Consul Napoleon re-introduces slavery on French colonies growing sugarcane.[16]
1803 Denmark-Norway abolishes transatlantic slave trade on 1 January 1803
1803 Lower Canada abolishes slavery
1804 New Jersey begins a gradual abolition of slavery, freeing future children of slaves.[22] Those born prior to the Act remain enslaved-for-life; all the Northern states have now abolished slavery
1804 Haiti declares independence and abolishes slavery[18]
1805 Bill for Abolition passed in Commons, rejected in the House of Lords.
1807 25 March Abolition of the Slave Trade Act: slave trading abolished in British Empire. Captains fined £120 per slave transported.
1807 British begin patrols of African coast to arrest slaving vessels. West Africa Squadron (Royal Navy) established to suppress slave trading; by 1865, nearly 150,000 people freed by anti-slavery operations[27]
1807 Abolition of serfdom in Prussia through the Stein-Hardenberg Reforms.
1808 United States—import and export of slaves prohibited after 1 Jan.[28]
1810 Mexico: Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla declared slavery abolished, but it wasn't official until Independence War finished
1811 Slave trading made a felony in the British Empire punishable by transportation for British subjects and foreigners.
1811 Spain abolishes slavery at home and in all colonies except Cuba,[16] Puerto Rico, and Santo Domingo
1811 Chile: The First National Congress approves a proposal drafted by Manuel de Salas that declares the Freedom of wombs, which sets free the sons of slaves born on Chilean territory, no matter the conditions of the parents; it prohibited the slave trade and recognized as freedmen those who, passing in transit through Chilean territory, stayed there for six months.
1813 Argentina: the Law of Wombs was passed on February 2, by the Assembly of Year XIII. The law stated that those born after January 31, 1813 would be granted freedom when contracting matrimony, or on their 16th birthday for women and 20th for men, and upon their manumission would be given land and tools to work it. In 1853, slavery was completely abolished.
1814 Uruguay, before its independence, declares all those born of slaves in their territories are free from that day forward.
1814 Dutch outlaw slave trade.
1815 British pay Portugal £750,000 to cease their trade north of the Equator[29]
1815 Congress of Vienna. 8 Victorious powers declared their opposition to slavery
1816 Serfdom abolished in Estonia.
1817 Serfdom abolished in Courland.
1817 Spain paid £400,000 by British to cease trade to Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Santo Domingo
1817 New York State sets a date of July 4, 1827 to free all its slaves.
1818 Treaty between Britain and Spain to abolish slave trade
1818 Treaty between Britain and Portugal to abolish slave trade
1818 France and Netherlands abolish slave trading
1819 Treaty between Britain and Netherlands to abolish slave trade [31]
1819 Serfdom abolished in Livonia.
1820 Compromise of 1820 in U.S. prohibits slavery north of a line (36°30')
1821 Gran Colombia (Ecuador, Colombia, Venezuela, Panama) declares free the sons and daughters born to slave mothers, sets up program for compensated emancipation [32]
1822 Liberia founded by American Colonization Society (USA) as a colony for emancipated slaves.
1822 Greece abolishes slavery
1823 Chile abolishes slavery[18]
1824 The Federal Republic of Central America abolishes slavery.
1825 Uruguay declares independence from Brazil and prohibits the traffic of slaves from foreign countries.
1827 Treaty between Britain and Sweden to abolish slave trade [31]
1827 New York State abolishes slavery. Children born between 1799 and 1827 are indentured until age 25 (females) or age 28 (males).
1829 Mexico officially abolishes slavery
1830 The first Constitution of Uruguay declares the abolition of slavery.
1831 Bolivia abolishes slavery
1833 The British Slavery Abolition Act 1833 comes into force, abolishing slavery throughout most of the British Empire. The exceptions being territories controlled by the Honourable East India Company and Ceylon which were liberated in 1843 when they became part of the British Empire. Legally frees 700,000 in West Indies, 20,000 in Mauritius, 40,000 in South Africa.
1835 Treaty between Britain and France to abolish slave trade
1835 Treaty between Britain and Denmark to abolish slave trade
1836 Portugal abolishes transatlantic slave trade
1838 1 August – enslaved men, women and children in the British Empire finally became free after a period of forced apprenticeship following the passing of the Slavery Abolition Act in 1833
1839 British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society founded, now called Anti-Slavery International
1839 Indian indenture system made illegal (reversed in 1842)
1840 Treaty between Britain and Venezuela to abolish slave trade
1841 Quintuple Treaty is signed; Britain, France, Russia, Prussia, and Austria agree to suppress slave trade[
1842 Treaty between Britain and Portugal to extend the enforcement of the ban on slave trade to Portuguese ships sailing south of the Equator.
1843 Honourable East India Company becomes increasingly controlled by Britain and abolishes slavery in India by the Indian Slavery Act V. of 1843.
1843 Treaty between Britain and Uruguay to suppress slave trade [31]
1843 Treaty between Britain and Mexico to suppress slave trade
1843 Treaty between Britain and Chile to suppress slave trade
1843 Treaty between Britain and Bolivia to abolish slave trade
1845 36 British Royal Navy ships are assigned to the Anti-Slavery Squadron, making it one of the largest fleets in the world.
1846 Tunisia abolishes slavery
1847 Ottoman Empire abolishes slave trade from Africa.
1847 Sweden abolishes slavery
1847 Slavery ends in Pennsylvania. Those born before 1780 (fewer than 100 in 1840 Census) are freed.
1848 Denmark abolishes slavery
1848 Slavery abolished in all French and Danish colonies
1848 France founds Gabon for settlement of emancipated slaves.
1848 Treaty between Britain and Muscat to suppress slave trade
1849 Treaty between Britain and Persian Gulf states to suppress slave trade
[edit]1850–1899
1850 United States: Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 requires return of escaped slaves
1851 New Granada (Colombia) abolishes slavery[32]
1852 The Hawaiian Kingdom abolishes kauwa system of serfdom.
1853 Argentina abolishes slavery when promulgating the 1853 Constitution
1854 Peru abolishes slavery
1854 Venezuela abolishes slavery
1855 Moldavia partially abolishes slavery.
1856 Wallachia partially abolishes slavery.
1860 Indenture system abolished within British occupied India.
1861 Russia frees its serfs in the Emancipation reform of 1861.
1862 Treaty between United States and Britain for the suppression of the slave trade (African Slave Trade Treaty Act).
1862 Cuba abolishes slave trade[18]
1863 Slavery abolished in Dutch colonies.
1863 United States: Emancipation Proclamation declares those slaves in Confederate-controlled areas to be freed. Most slaves in "border states" are freed by state action; separate law frees the slaves in Washington, D.C.
1865 United States abolishes slavery with the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; about 40,000 remaining slaves are affected.
1869 Portugal abolishes slavery in the African colonies
1870 U.S. abolishes slavery in the Department of Alaska after purchasing it from Russia in 1867
1871 Brazil declares free the sons and daughters born to slave mothers after 28 September 1871.
1873 Slavery abolished in Puerto Rico
1873 Treaty between Britain and Zanzibar and Madagascar to suppress slave trade
1874 Britain abolishes slavery in the Gold Coast (now Ghana) following its annexation in 1874 (after Third Anglo-Asante War).
1879 Bulgaria abolishes slavery (note: the slavery was abolished with the first constitution of the renewed Bulgarian state)
1882 Ottoman firman abolishes all forms of slavery, white or black.
1885 Brazil passes Sexagenarian Law freeing all slaves over the age of 60.
1886 Slavery abolished in Cuba
1888 Brazil passes Golden Law, abolishing slavery without indemnities to slaveowners or aid to newly freed slaves.
1890 Brussels Act – Treaty granting anti-slavery powers the right to stop and search ships for slaves
1894 Korea abolishes slavery
1896 France abolishes slavery in Madagascar
1897 Zanzibar abolishes slavery following its becoming a British protectorate.
1900–today
1906 China formally abolishes slavery and the law became effective on 31 January 1910, when all adult slaves were converted into hired labourers and the young were freed upon reaching age 25.
1912 Siam (Thailand), formally abolishes all slavery. The act of selling a person into slavery was abolished in 1897 but slavery itself was not outlawed at that time.
1921 Nepal abolishes slavery
1923 Afghanistan abolishes slavery
1922 Morocco abolishes slavery
1924 Iraq abolishes slavery
1924 League of Nations Temporary Slavery Commission
1926 Slavery Convention. Bound all signatories to end slavery Convention to Suppress the Slave Trade and Slavery (25 September 1926)
1928 Iran abolishes slavery
1928 Domestic slavery practised by local African elites abolished in Sierra Leone (ironically established as a place for freed slaves). A study found practices of domestic slavery still widespread in rural areas in the 1970s.
1935 Italian General Emilio De Bono proclaims slavery to be abolished in the Ethiopian Empire
1936 Britain abolishes slavery in Northern Nigeria
1942 Ethiopian Empire abolishes slavery
1945 In the subsequent defeat of Nazi Germany and Japan, workcamps for slave labor (primarily Jewish encampments in Nazi Germany and colonists in Japanese-dominated lands) were gradually closed by the liberators.
1946 Fritz Sauckel, procurer of slave labor for Nazi Germany, convicted at the Nuremberg trials and executed as war criminal.
1948 UN Article 4 of the Declaration of Human Rights bans slavery globally
1952 Qatar abolishes slavery
1959 Slavery in Tibet is abolished by China after the Dalai Lama flees.
1960 Niger abolishes slavery
1962 Saudi Arabia abolishes slavery
1962 Yemen abolishes slavery
1963 United Arab Emirates abolishes slavery
1970 Oman abolishes slavery
1981 Mauritania abolishes slavery
While now illegal everywhere, slavery or practices akin to it continue today in many countries throughout the world. |
depresivni iskompleksirani primitivac i nadrkana budala kojeg financira stari i koji sa skoro 50 godina nema ni žene ni posla.Pa naravno da je ljut na sve, a narocito na one koji su uspješni.
Jbga Lwoode nisam ti ja kriv kaj nisi uspio u životu |
|
|
|
dsormaz1
Advanced Member
13147 Posts
Member since 28/04/2002 |
Posted - 17/07/2011 : 17:56:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by lwood
mnogi robovi? to je razvikanije nego šta je cinjenica.
pobiglo je po procjeni 40 000-100 000. u nekoliko desetljeca.
znaci negdi svaki stoti.ako i toliko.
a i to je vrlo teško potvrdit.
uostalom s današnje perspektive lako je osudit ropstvo i triba ga osudit,to nije sporno.
sporno je to da ondašnji "moralisti" osuduju ropstvo dok istovremeno industrijski radnici rade i žive u daleko nehumanijim uvjetima nego robovi.
Ipak, radnik na Sjeveru bio je slobodan, mogao je dati otkaz i otici drugdje raditi, dok rob to nije mogao. Možda je i bilo dobrih robovlasnika koji nisu maltretirali svoje robove, ali cesto se znalo desiti da bi nakon njihove smrti posjed prešao u ruke nekog lošeg, od cega su robovi takoder strahovali. A nisu imali nikakav izbor, morali su trpiti.
Da ne spomenem mnoge slucajeve kad bi im djecu prodali nekom drugom, nikad ih više ne bi vidjeli. Sigurno pri tom nisu pjevali i plesali od radosti :(
Ropstvo je nešto krajnje nakaradno.
Inace, mnogi tvoji argumenti vezani uz situaciju u SAD u to vrijeme, pravo Juga na odcijepljenje, prave motive Sjevera, za puno toga si u pravu.
Inace, da ne bi ispalo da sam nešto previše nabrijan protiv Juga, današnji konzervativni americki Jug puno mi je simpaticniji od Sjeveroistoka i Californije :)
Kad su prije par godina u Mississippiju održali referendum o izbacivanju amblema Konfederacije iz državne zastave bilo mi je drago što je vecina (oko 60%) to odbila.
Zastava države Mississippi.
|
|
|
|
dsormaz1
Advanced Member
13147 Posts
Member since 28/04/2002 |
|
|
lwood
Advanced Member
Colombia
47132 Posts
Member since 09/12/2005 |
Posted - 17/07/2011 : 18:16:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by dsormaz1
quote:
Originally posted by lwood
mnogi robovi? to je razvikanije nego šta je cinjenica.
pobiglo je po procjeni 40 000-100 000. u nekoliko desetljeca.
znaci negdi svaki stoti.ako i toliko.
a i to je vrlo teško potvrdit.
uostalom s današnje perspektive lako je osudit ropstvo i triba ga osudit,to nije sporno.
sporno je to da ondašnji "moralisti" osuduju ropstvo dok istovremeno industrijski radnici rade i žive u daleko nehumanijim uvjetima nego robovi.
Ipak, radnik na Sjeveru bio je slobodan, mogao je dati otkaz i otici drugdje raditi, dok rob to nije mogao. Možda je i bilo dobrih robovlasnika koji nisu maltretirali svoje robove, ali cesto se znalo desiti da bi nakon njihove smrti posjed prešao u ruke nekog lošeg, od cega su robovi takoder strahovali. A nisu imali nikakav izbor, morali su trpiti.
Da ne spomenem mnoge slucajeve kad bi im djecu prodali nekom drugom, nikad ih više ne bi vidjeli. Sigurno pri tom nisu pjevali i plesali od radosti :(
Ropstvo je nešto krajnje nakaradno.
Inace, mnogi tvoji argumenti vezani uz situaciju u SAD u to vrijeme, pravo Juga na odcijepljenje, prave motive Sjevera, za puno toga si u pravu.
Inace, da ne bi ispalo da sam nešto previše nabrijan protiv Juga, današnji konzervativni americki Jug puno mi je simpaticniji od Sjeveroistoka i Californije :)
Kad su prije par godina u Mississippiju održali referendum o izbacivanju amblema Konfederacije iz državne zastave bilo mi je drago što je vecina (oko 60%) to odbila.
Zastava države Mississippi.
cešce su oni dobijali otkaze nego šta su ih davali.a i di su mogli otic? krepat od gladi na ulici? Južnjacki plantežeri smatrali su taj rani kapitalizam gori od robovlasništva i nisu bili u krivu.
osim toga plantažeri su težili tome da robovi imaju široke obitelji baš zato da imaju stabilniju situaciju i da budu vezani .
cak su ih ludi abolicionisti optuživali da "uzgajaju crnce " na plantažama.
da je to bilo toliko nehumano dogodia bi im se isto šta i francuzima na Haitiju |
depresivni iskompleksirani primitivac i nadrkana budala kojeg financira stari i koji sa skoro 50 godina nema ni žene ni posla.Pa naravno da je ljut na sve, a narocito na one koji su uspješni.
Jbga Lwoode nisam ti ja kriv kaj nisi uspio u životu |
|
|
|
lwood
Advanced Member
Colombia
47132 Posts
Member since 09/12/2005 |
Posted - 17/07/2011 : 18:18:59
|
e kad si vec spomenia Mississippi ta je država zanimljiva jer je u njoj najveci postotak onih protiv gay brakova u USA (85% po anketi)
a s druge strane marihuana je dekriminalizirana 
a glede zastava ima i Georgia neku kombinaciju prve konfederacijske (prošla s dvi trecine glasova 2003.)
 |
depresivni iskompleksirani primitivac i nadrkana budala kojeg financira stari i koji sa skoro 50 godina nema ni žene ni posla.Pa naravno da je ljut na sve, a narocito na one koji su uspješni.
Jbga Lwoode nisam ti ja kriv kaj nisi uspio u životu |
|
|
|
dsormaz1
Advanced Member
13147 Posts
Member since 28/04/2002 |
Posted - 17/07/2011 : 18:25:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by lwood
e kad si vec spomenia Mississippi ta je država zanimljiva jer je u njoj najveci postotak onih protiv gay brakova u USA (85% po anketi)
a s druge strane marihuana je dekriminalizirana
Dekriminalizirana, ali nije legalizirana, dakle tretira se kao prekršaj, placa se globa ili tako nešto.
A na zastavi Georgije lijepo piše: "In God we trust."
No vratimo se na temu Americkog gradanskog rata...
Imam mnoštvo zanimljivih ilustracija i karata vezanih za to, pomalo cu ih stavljati ovdje.
Uskoro slijedi prikaz odora vojske Konfederacije... |
Edited by - dsormaz1 on 17/07/2011 18:27:43 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
