War between the States

[Buftex]

I'm not an expert on the Civil War, but wasn't Lincoln still calling for the preservation of slavery (just not its expansion) when the war started? If the war was about slavery, why did he wait till 1863 to free them?

 

 

He was waiting for John Adams to help him!

[Rob's House]

Ooh, good one Rob's House!

 

I never can tell if you are serious...aren't you the one who said psychology is all a bunch of hogwash, becasue you know somebody who said they were depressed, but rebounded from it? You took some psych classes in college and decided from your narrow perspective, it was all just bull ****?

 

Talk about poorly articulated arguments...you are slamming someone because they are just using the argument that "someone else says it"? Isn't that what you, and everyone here does? Were you around for the Civil War? Now it is all a liberal conspiracy? The more I get to hear people (like yourself) who proudly identify themselves as part of the Tea Party movement (appropriate) the more I realize there is nothing to it...a movement to make intellect a bad thing...pee-ew!

Actually, I said that "clinical depression" is WAY overdiagnosed, and offered a few anecdotes to support my opinion. I did not suggest that those anecdotes were proof positive that I was right, and I also explained the logic. Birddog offerend no argument other than some pointy headed intellectual said so, so you better listen to him. That's not intellectual, it's hiding behind credentials. There is a subtle difference.

 

As to the "conspiracy", it's pretty well known that the victors write the history books, and "the war to end slavery" sells a lot better than "the war to control a people that wanted to be free from us." Just sayin.

Edited April 14, 2011 by Rob's House

[DC Tom]

I'm not an expert on the Civil War, but wasn't Lincoln still calling for the preservation of slavery (just not its expansion) when the war started? If the war was about slavery, why did he wait till 1863 to free them?

 

Because Europe was on the verge of recognizing the Confederacy (particularly England, which, despite their rabidly anti-slavery bent, cared more about their textile industry than blacks), and he needed to be in a more secure political position w/r/t that situation to issue the Emancipation Proclamation...which he finally got after the first Southern invasion of the North was repulsed at Antietam.

 

And don't kid yourself - the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free anyone. Empty words, that almost destroyed the Union Army and lost the war.

[Buftex]

Actually, I said that "clinical depression" is WAY overdiagnosed, and offered a few anecdotes to support my opinion. I did not suggest that those anecdotes were proof positive that I was right, and I also explained the logic. Birddog offerend no argument other than some pointy headed intellectual said so, so you better listen to him. That's not intellectual, it's hiding behind credentials. There is a subtle difference.

 

As to the "conspiracy", it's pretty well known that the victors write the history books, and "the war to end slavery" sells a lot better than "the war to control a people that wanted to be free from us." Just sayin.

 

Sorry...

 

It just seems that all of the things mentioned as "the reason" for the Civil War are possibly accurate...it is just foolish to think that slavery wasn't one of the issues...

[Rob's House]

Sorry...

 

It just seems that all of the things mentioned as "the reason" for the Civil War are possibly accurate...it is just foolish to think that slavery wasn't one of the issues...

I don't think anyone has made the assertion that slavery wasn't a contributing issue. It's the assertion that it was THE issue which is so infuriatingly simple.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Don't have time to type a lot, but in short, yes. Most of the southern states agreed to the Constitution based on the understanding that state governments would have control of their states with very little interference from the federal government. I know VA, and possible NC but I can't remember for sure, specifically stated that the only way they would ratify was with the understanding that if the federal government tried to instill too much power over them they would secede.

 

So basically you are all for what would have been the "Balkanization of America."

 

I don't think anyone has made the assertion that slavery wasn't a contributing issue. It's the assertion that it was THE issue which is so infuriatingly simple.

 

Yeah... You may be right... Just too simple. :rolleyes:

 

How could we have lived with it (slavery) still on the continent if the South had its way? The answer is: We coudn't have. So, in the end... It was the only reason for what happened.

[Rob's House]

So basically you are all for what would have been the "Balkanization of America."

 

 

 

Yeah... You may be right... Just too simple. :rolleyes:

 

How could we have lived with it (slavery) still on the continent if the South had its way? The answer is: We coudn't have. So, in the end... It was the only reason for what happened.

I hope you're joking. You must be. Otherwise, and correct me if I'm wrong, but your logic flows as follows:

 

Slavery (which dissappeared from the rest of the civilized world without a war) isn't conceivable in our society, and because abolition was more popular in the North than the South (wonder why?) in the mid 1800s, not only was a war required to end it, but that was the only reason for the war.

 

Are you also asserting that millions of white northerners went to fight for the freedom of black slaves because they were so moved by the morality of the issue?

 

Please clarify, I've gotta know. I mean, I thought you guys were supposed to be the crowd that got nuance and complexity.

[CosmicBills]

Because Europe was on the verge of recognizing the Confederacy (particularly England, which, despite their rabidly anti-slavery bent, cared more about their textile industry than blacks), and he needed to be in a more secure political position w/r/t that situation to issue the Emancipation Proclamation...which he finally got after the first Southern invasion of the North was repulsed at Antietam.

 

And don't kid yourself - the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free anyone. Empty words, that almost destroyed the Union Army and lost the war.

1000% correct and well stated.

 

Though I would argue they weren't empty words. Those words were part of a bigger political reality. The genius of the Emancipation Proclamation is that it didn't free anyone at all. But it gave Lincoln the support he needed from the very powerful abolitionist movement as well as allowed him to toe the line with the border states ...

[CosmicBills]

I hope you're joking. You must be. Otherwise, and correct me if I'm wrong, but your logic flows as follows:

 

Slavery (which dissappeared from the rest of the civilized world without a war) isn't conceivable in our society, and because abolition was more popular in the North than the South (wonder why?) in the mid 1800s, not only was a war required to end it, but that was the only reason for the war.

 

Are you also asserting that millions of white northerners went to fight for the freedom of black slaves because they were so moved by the morality of the issue?

 

Please clarify, I've gotta know. I mean, I thought you guys were supposed to be the crowd that got nuance and complexity.

?

 

Slavery did NOT disappear from the rest of the civilized world without a war. In fact, slavery still exists TODAY -- in some very civilized portions of the world as well. Slavery has existed since the beginning of time. Every race and creed that was ever existed has been enslaved at some point.

 

But make no mistake about it. Slavery in the Americas was a vastly different beast than anything that came before it. It was a most cruel, demeaning and brutal institution. One unlike the world has ever seen. The slaves used were not won on the battle field. They weren't indentured servants. They were taken from their homes and transported thousands of miles and treated not as human beings, but as chattel. Slavery in the Americas was so brutal and extreme it wiped out nearly an entire race of indigenous people (the Caribs) before switching to use African slaves.

 

Also there were plenty of white northern soldiers who enlisted to fight a moral fight. More than you are giving credit to. The abolitionist movement was a sophisticated, highly financed grass roots movement that built up a legion of followers over DECADES. The southern counter points to the abolitionist movement was equally as powerful and compelling (and something that isn't discussed much at all in schools other than universities); creating a two very divisive groups that were ready to tee off on one another by the mid 1800s.

 

As much as you want to, you cannot separate slavery from the civil war. It was not a war fought just for slavery, but slavery was the primary battle ground and rallying call to arms for both sides of the coin. It was THE polarizing issue of the day and representative of the larger issues of state's rights.

Edited April 14, 2011 by tgreg99

[Rob's House]

?

 

Slavery did NOT disappear from the rest of the civilized world without a war. In fact, slavery still exists TODAY -- in some very civilized portions of the world as well. Slavery has existed since the beginning of time. Every race and creed that was ever existed has been enslaved at some point.

Developed western world then, if you want to split hairs.

 

As much as you want to, you cannot separate slavery from the civil war. It was not a war fought just for slavery, but slavery was the primary battle ground and rallying call to arms for both sides of the coin. It was THE polarizing issue of the day and representative of the larger issues of state's rights.

I think you don't read good, because no one separated it. I simply said the connection is way overblown, and a lot of major dividing issues of the day are brushed aside and historical accuracy sacrificed for a feel-good fairy tale.

 

And for the record, there was no civil war. A civil war is when two factions are fighting for central control over a state. The south seceded, thus seeking independence from, not control over, the union.

[CosmicBills]

Developed western world then, if you want to split hairs.

 

 

I think you don't read good, because no one separated it. I simply said the connection is way overblown, and a lot of major dividing issues of the day are brushed aside and historical accuracy sacrificed for a feel-good fairy tale.

 

And for the record, there was no civil war. A civil war is when two factions are fighting for central control over a state. The south seceded, thus seeking independence from, not control over, the union.

Slavery still exists in the western world. It exists in the United States. Human Trafficking is a very lucrative and growth industry.

 

It's not the same type of slavery, it's mainly prostitution and sexual in nature, but it still exists.

 

As for not reading good (ha!), you can't over blow the connection. Slavery was at the forefront of the war. It was the rallying call, it was the political issue of the day on both sides of the war. It wasn't the only reason for the war -- not by a long shot -- but it was the most visible.

[Rob's House]

Slavery still exists in the western world. It exists in the United States. Human Trafficking is a very lucrative and growth industry.

 

It's not the same type of slavery, it's mainly prostitution and sexual in nature, but it still exists.

 

As for not reading good (ha!), you can't over blow the connection. Slavery was at the forefront of the war. It was the rallying call, it was the political issue of the day on both sides of the war. It wasn't the only reason for the war -- not by a long shot -- but it was the most visible.

 

If we agree it was not the lone issue, we're just arguing degree of influence, and with neither of us having been there at the time, we're just talking past each other.

 

What I was initially addressing is the absurd notion that the war was all about slavery, which is about the equivalent of saying we invaded Iraq to free the iraqi people. It makes for good PR, and while technically, yes, we did go to free the Iraqis, we all know we had our own reasons for that besides altruism. And if you think Lincoln and millions of white northerners went to war out of a sense of justice for black slaves, I've got some real estate deals I think we should discuss.

[Adam]

I wish more people would take the time to learn about the war. I am so sick of idiots just taking the stance that it was slave owners vs. freedom.

 

I was in Appomattox a few weeks ago for a few days - although, I did not get to see anything, I have spent time reading about the entire event for the first time in a while. About 5 miles away from my house General Lee met up with Jefferson Davis and spent the night trying to plan out some strategies. We still have the trees that were used to hang people, buildings that served as slave quarters, etc.

 

If anyone thinks that slave quarters looked that bad then they need to go look at the average home from that area. I am having a home we own taken down that is from 1820 and it is extremely plain, extremely simple, and nothing spectacular like those paintings show.

 

 

Really? Nothing to do with the North wanting to impose taxes on the cotton or other crops? The North wanted to tax their way to prosperity taking advantage of the Southern farmers, poor simple folk who did not enjoy the lifestyles of those up North.

 

Also, before you sound like an idiot again Andrew Jackson had slaves, Grant had slaves. Both presidents after "Lincoln freed the slaves" and after the war...but nice try. Way to pay attention in school.

I know it is a side point, but school doesn't accurately depict history. I was taught that Richard Nixon was the first US President to be impeached!

[CosmicBills]

If we agree it was not the lone issue, we're just arguing degree of influence, and with neither of us having been there at the time, we're just talking past each other.

 

What I was initially addressing is the absurd notion that the war was all about slavery, which is about the equivalent of saying we invaded Iraq to free the iraqi people. It makes for good PR, and while technically, yes, we did go to free the Iraqis, we all know we had our own reasons for that besides altruism. And if you think Lincoln and millions of white northerners went to war out of a sense of justice for black slaves, I've got some real estate deals I think we should discuss.

 

Hundreds of thousands of union soldiers went to war for that reason. The primary source material from the day bear that out. Read the journals, the letters home, the newspapers of the day. They believed in what they were fighting for even if they didn't understand the full nuances of the conflict. We have the benefit of 150 years of distance.

[Rob's House]

Hundreds of thousands of union soldiers went to war for that reason. The primary source material from the day bear that out. Read the journals, the letters home, the newspapers of the day. They believed in what they were fighting for even if they didn't understand the full nuances of the conflict. We have the benefit of 150 years of distance.

I doubt hundreds of thousands, but I'm sure some did. Just as I'm sure some soldiers in Iraq believe they're fighting to free Iraqis from oppression, or any other myriad of reasons that I'm equally sure you don't yourself believe. And you can find countless journals, newspapers, and letters home that support those beliefs as well.

 

Political issues, especially those resulting in war, are always complex, always shrowded in PR, and always have been. That 150 years of distance removes us from the reality of the day and enables us to believe in the Disney version.

[CosmicBills]

I doubt hundreds of thousands, but I'm sure some did. Just as I'm sure some soldiers in Iraq believe they're fighting to free Iraqis from oppression, or any other myriad of reasons that I'm equally sure you don't yourself believe. And you can find countless journals, newspapers, and letters home that support those beliefs as well.

 

Political issues, especially those resulting in war, are always complex, always shrowded in PR, and always have been. That 150 years of distance removes us from the reality of the day and enables us to believe in the Disney version.

What's the Disney version?

[Rob's House]

What's the Disney version?

The one they teach in school.

[CosmicBills]

The one they teach in school.

... I'm not trying to be difficult at all so forgive me. I just don't know what you classify as the Disney version. Specifically.

 

Admittedly what I was taught in school was different than most I'm sure, but I was never taught that slavery was the one and only reason for the war. Like everything, it's more complicated and sophisticated than that. But that doesn't mean it didn't play any role. In fact it played a huge role and was the most visible and identifiable issue for both sides to rally around.

 

Put it another way, if slavery never existed in the colonies, there most likely would have still been a conflict at some point -- but probably not close to the scale and carnage that actually occurred. The issue of state's rights is still an issue that's fought over in politics today. It's the nature of the republic. However slavery was more than just an issue of state's rights. It was a question of morality. It was an incredibly charged political and social issue. One where moralists in the north (and south) refused to sit by and watch this stain on the fabric of the nation continue to go unchecked. Once someone takes a moral position in a political debate, it's a slippery slope. However, slavery as an institution was never going to continue forever in the United States. The founding fathers knew as much when they sat down to debate the constitution.

 

Slavery existed in New York as late as 1827, but look back to the revolution. Slavery was such a hot button topic that the framers of the constitution refused to address it. There was no way the southern colonies were going to sign the constitution if slavery was prohibited -- despite the best efforts of the (at the time) grass roots abolitionist movement, the issue of slavery was left up to future generations to decide. It wasn't until 1808 that the importation of slaves was banned by the federal government. There wasn't a single founding father that didn't address the issue of slavery in their personal documents and journals during the lead up ... it was a very divisive issue even back then when slavery still existed in some, if not most, of the northern states as well. The flames only grew as the years passed and the abolitionist movement became stronger.

 

At its heart, the issue of slavery was deemed to be a state's right issue by the confederacy. But for the abolitionists it never was an issue of state's rights, it was a moral issue. There simply was no way for both cultures to co-exist on the same continent, let alone in the same union, with such a huge moral issue in play. The southern intellectuals did their best to justify slavery (some of their justifications were brilliant in fact) by using the Bible (the abolitionists own weapon) against the north. Others took a more fundamental economic approach to attempt to stem the tide. When that failed, the wealthy upper class of the south (who were the only ones who actually owned slaves) used the issue of state's rights to rile up the lower classes in the south and turn the issue from a moral one into a fundamental fight for their personal freedoms.

 

The vast majority of southerners did not own slaves. Slaves were expensive. Too expensive for the common man to afford. The intellectuals in the south knew they couldn't sell the war on slavery alone (because the majority didn't own slaves), they had to twist it into something bigger: state's rights. Which, make no mistake, certainly were a factor. But the existence of slavery, above all else, in the southern colonies led to the civil war, which in many ways was just an extension of the revolutionary war as it finally settled the one issue the founding fathers couldn't tackle in the late 1700s.

[birdog1960]

... I'm not trying to be difficult at all so forgive me. I just don't know what you classify as the Disney version. Specifically.

 

Admittedly what I was taught in school was different than most I'm sure, but I was never taught that slavery was the one and only reason for the war. Like everything, it's more complicated and sophisticated than that. But that doesn't mean it didn't play any role. In fact it played a huge role and was the most visible and identifiable issue for both sides to rally around.

 

Put it another way, if slavery never existed in the colonies, there most likely would have still been a conflict at some point -- but probably not close to the scale and carnage that actually occurred. The issue of state's rights is still an issue that's fought over in politics today. It's the nature of the republic. However slavery was more than just an issue of state's rights. It was a question of morality. It was an incredibly charged political and social issue. One where moralists in the north (and south) refused to sit by and watch this stain on the fabric of the nation continue to go unchecked. Once someone takes a moral position in a political debate, it's a slippery slope. However, slavery as an institution was never going to continue forever in the United States. The founding fathers knew as much when they sat down to debate the constitution.

 

Slavery existed in New York as late as 1827, but look back to the revolution. Slavery was such a hot button topic that the framers of the constitution refused to address it. There was no way the southern colonies were going to sign the constitution if slavery was prohibited -- despite the best efforts of the (at the time) grass roots abolitionist movement, the issue of slavery was left up to future generations to decide. It wasn't until 1808 that the importation of slaves was banned by the federal government. There wasn't a single founding father that didn't address the issue of slavery in their personal documents and journals during the lead up ... it was a very divisive issue even back then when slavery still existed in some, if not most, of the northern states as well. The flames only grew as the years passed and the abolitionist movement became stronger.

 

At its heart, the issue of slavery was deemed to be a state's right issue by the confederacy. But for the abolitionists it never was an issue of state's rights, it was a moral issue. There simply was no way for both cultures to co-exist on the same continent, let alone in the same union, with such a huge moral issue in play. The southern intellectuals did their best to justify slavery (some of their justifications were brilliant in fact) by using the Bible (the abolitionists own weapon) against the north. Others took a more fundamental economic approach to attempt to stem the tide. When that failed, the wealthy upper class of the south (who were the only ones who actually owned slaves) used the issue of state's rights to rile up the lower classes in the south and turn the issue from a moral one into a fundamental fight for their personal freedoms.

 

The vast majority of southerners did not own slaves. Slaves were expensive. Too expensive for the common man to afford. The intellectuals in the south knew they couldn't sell the war on slavery alone (because the majority didn't own slaves), they had to twist it into something bigger: state's rights. Which, make no mistake, certainly were a factor. But the existence of slavery, above all else, in the southern colonies led to the civil war, which in many ways was just an extension of the revolutionary war as it finally settled the one issue the founding fathers couldn't tackle in the late 1700s.

but unfortunately, likely a futile attempt to change opinions here. it just doesn't fit with some posters global "vision" and thus will be rejected out of hand.

 

and there were southern abolitionists as well. very brave and very unpopular.

 

your explanation of the ability to motivate those without direct interest in the war reminds me of a most recent American war and a Hermann Goering quote: "Naturally the common people don't want war...and it's always a simple matter to bring the people along...Voice or no voice the people can be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifist for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country".

Goering prefaced this statement with this question: " Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to return to his farm in one piece?" quite an appropriate question in the context of the civil war.

Edited April 14, 2011 by birdog1960

[Rob's House]

... I'm not trying to be difficult at all so forgive me. I just don't know what you classify as the Disney version. Specifically.

 

Admittedly what I was taught in school was different than most I'm sure, but I was never taught that slavery was the one and only reason for the war. Like everything, it's more complicated and sophisticated than that. But that doesn't mean it didn't play any role. In fact it played a huge role and was the most visible and identifiable issue for both sides to rally around.

 

Put it another way, if slavery never existed in the colonies, there most likely would have still been a conflict at some point -- but probably not close to the scale and carnage that actually occurred. The issue of state's rights is still an issue that's fought over in politics today. It's the nature of the republic. However slavery was more than just an issue of state's rights. It was a question of morality. It was an incredibly charged political and social issue. One where moralists in the north (and south) refused to sit by and watch this stain on the fabric of the nation continue to go unchecked. Once someone takes a moral position in a political debate, it's a slippery slope. However, slavery as an institution was never going to continue forever in the United States. The founding fathers knew as much when they sat down to debate the constitution.

 

Slavery existed in New York as late as 1827, but look back to the revolution. Slavery was such a hot button topic that the framers of the constitution refused to address it. There was no way the southern colonies were going to sign the constitution if slavery was prohibited -- despite the best efforts of the (at the time) grass roots abolitionist movement, the issue of slavery was left up to future generations to decide. It wasn't until 1808 that the importation of slaves was banned by the federal government. There wasn't a single founding father that didn't address the issue of slavery in their personal documents and journals during the lead up ... it was a very divisive issue even back then when slavery still existed in some, if not most, of the northern states as well. The flames only grew as the years passed and the abolitionist movement became stronger.

 

At its heart, the issue of slavery was deemed to be a state's right issue by the confederacy. But for the abolitionists it never was an issue of state's rights, it was a moral issue. There simply was no way for both cultures to co-exist on the same continent, let alone in the same union, with such a huge moral issue in play. The southern intellectuals did their best to justify slavery (some of their justifications were brilliant in fact) by using the Bible (the abolitionists own weapon) against the north. Others took a more fundamental economic approach to attempt to stem the tide. When that failed, the wealthy upper class of the south (who were the only ones who actually owned slaves) used the issue of state's rights to rile up the lower classes in the south and turn the issue from a moral one into a fundamental fight for their personal freedoms.

 

The vast majority of southerners did not own slaves. Slaves were expensive. Too expensive for the common man to afford. The intellectuals in the south knew they couldn't sell the war on slavery alone (because the majority didn't own slaves), they had to twist it into something bigger: state's rights. Which, make no mistake, certainly were a factor. But the existence of slavery, above all else, in the southern colonies led to the civil war, which in many ways was just an extension of the revolutionary war as it finally settled the one issue the founding fathers couldn't tackle in the late 1700s.

We're not as far apart on this as you may think. But there are many other issues, many of which have been addressed in this thread, many that have not, and not the least of which is the simple fact that the industrialized north and agricultural south had very different interests that were both to be represented by a central government, and slavery was certainly one of those issues. I take issue with it being simplified (not necessarily saying by you) to a war over slavery. As you stated yourself, even without that issue, a conflict was going to come to a head.

[Pilsner]

... I'm not trying to be difficult at all so forgive me. I just don't know what you classify as the Disney version. Specifically.

 

Admittedly what I was taught in school was different than most I'm sure, but I was never taught that slavery was the one and only reason for the war. Like everything, it's more complicated and sophisticated than that. But that doesn't mean it didn't play any role. In fact it played a huge role and was the most visible and identifiable issue for both sides to rally around.

 

Put it another way, if slavery never existed in the colonies, there most likely would have still been a conflict at some point -- but probably not close to the scale and carnage that actually occurred. The issue of state's rights is still an issue that's fought over in politics today. It's the nature of the republic. However slavery was more than just an issue of state's rights. It was a question of morality. It was an incredibly charged political and social issue. One where moralists in the north (and south) refused to sit by and watch this stain on the fabric of the nation continue to go unchecked. Once someone takes a moral position in a political debate, it's a slippery slope. However, slavery as an institution was never going to continue forever in the United States. The founding fathers knew as much when they sat down to debate the constitution.

 

Slavery existed in New York as late as 1827, but look back to the revolution. Slavery was such a hot button topic that the framers of the constitution refused to address it. There was no way the southern colonies were going to sign the constitution if slavery was prohibited -- despite the best efforts of the (at the time) grass roots abolitionist movement, the issue of slavery was left up to future generations to decide. It wasn't until 1808 that the importation of slaves was banned by the federal government. There wasn't a single founding father that didn't address the issue of slavery in their personal documents and journals during the lead up ... it was a very divisive issue even back then when slavery still existed in some, if not most, of the northern states as well. The flames only grew as the years passed and the abolitionist movement became stronger.

 

At its heart, the issue of slavery was deemed to be a state's right issue by the confederacy. But for the abolitionists it never was an issue of state's rights, it was a moral issue. There simply was no way for both cultures to co-exist on the same continent, let alone in the same union, with such a huge moral issue in play. The southern intellectuals did their best to justify slavery (some of their justifications were brilliant in fact) by using the Bible (the abolitionists own weapon) against the north. Others took a more fundamental economic approach to attempt to stem the tide. When that failed, the wealthy upper class of the south (who were the only ones who actually owned slaves) used the issue of state's rights to rile up the lower classes in the south and turn the issue from a moral one into a fundamental fight for their personal freedoms.

 

The vast majority of southerners did not own slaves. Slaves were expensive. Too expensive for the common man to afford. The intellectuals in the south knew they couldn't sell the war on slavery alone (because the majority didn't own slaves), they had to twist it into something bigger: state's rights. Which, make no mistake, certainly were a factor. But the existence of slavery, above all else, in the southern colonies led to the civil war, which in many ways was just an extension of the revolutionary war as it finally settled the one issue the founding fathers couldn't tackle in the late 1700s.

 

It took me a while to realize what we read in history classes was a lot of bs. I got my fair share of shellacking from history teachers for not agreeing to what they tried shoving down our throats on various historical accounts. After reading and doing my due diligence I became more aware of things. I began to think that it must've been more than just about slavery. Slavery was part of the issue but not the whole issue. State's rights had a part in it. European countries about to recognize the South as a sovereign state came into account during the war. Tgreg, your post put a lot of things into perspective for me and I will continue to read about the era and verify things for myself. But with an open mind as to the ideas you posted. It makes sense. Slavery wasn't the only issue and it wasn't a non-issue. It was a part of the issue. I think no one here refutes this. People here just don't agree as to the degree of the issue it was. So as one poster said, we're all not that far apart on this. Just to the degree.

Edited April 16, 2011 by Pilsner

[DC Tom]

Hundreds of thousands of union soldiers went to war for that reason. The primary source material from the day bear that out. Read the journals, the letters home, the newspapers of the day. They believed in what they were fighting for even if they didn't understand the full nuances of the conflict. We have the benefit of 150 years of distance.

 

Actually, that's untrue. Not only were the majority of soldiers not fighting against slavery, but the Emancipation Proclamation caused a crisis in the Union Army, as the majority of Union soldiers did NOT want to fight for slaves' rights (roughly a third of the Union Army had service contracts ending in mid-'63; the primary source material indicates that the vast majority of those soldiers were NOT planning on reenlisting specifically because they did not and were not fighting for Emancipation.)

[boyst]

Actually, that's untrue. Not only were the majority of soldiers not fighting against slavery, but the Emancipation Proclamation caused a crisis in the Union Army, as the majority of Union soldiers did NOT want to fight for slaves' rights (roughly a third of the Union Army had service contracts ending in mid-'63; the primary source material indicates that the vast majority of those soldiers were NOT planning on reenlisting specifically because they did not and were not fighting for Emancipation.)

Will you please help me and many others understand this predominant theory that over 100 years later the civil rights movement wasn't just fought in Alabama and in the South?

 

Also, why not bring up that whole misconception that the Southern army was weaker then the Northern army; that the South was not as advanced, motivated or educated?

[CosmicBills]

Actually, that's untrue. Not only were the majority of soldiers not fighting against slavery, but the Emancipation Proclamation caused a crisis in the Union Army, as the majority of Union soldiers did NOT want to fight for slaves' rights (roughly a third of the Union Army had service contracts ending in mid-'63; the primary source material indicates that the vast majority of those soldiers were NOT planning on reenlisting specifically because they did not and were not fighting for Emancipation.)

Sure, I'm not arguing that at all. I never claimed that the majority of Union troops fought for slavery. I'm not drunk enough to argue that. But of the over 2 million Union soldiers there were plenty of soldiers who fought exactly for that reason.

 

As you stated before, the Emancipation Proclamation did not free any slaves as it only applied to states currently in secession. That was the brilliance (and the weakness) of the statement. It appeased the abolitionist (which Lincoln needed to do), while also keeping the boarder states in tow as well as, if not more importantly, keeping France and England from siding with the Confederacy since both nations were strongly anti-slavery at the time.

 

There were certainly large numbers of Union troops who could care less about slavery (they were drafting immigrants fresh off the boat from Ireland, amongst other places, into the army the moment they stepped onto US Soil). There were certainly large numbers of troops (mainly officers and the over 200,000 African American troops enlisted in the Union army) who believed they were fighting a moral war against slavery. And there were plenty who didn't bother to get involved in the political minutia of the war itself.

 

Will you please help me and many others understand this predominant theory that over 100 years later the civil rights movement wasn't just fought in Alabama and in the South?

What do you mean?

 

Also, why not bring up that whole misconception that the Southern army was weaker then the Northern army; that the South was not as advanced, motivated or educated?

No serious scholar has ever suggested that the Confederate forces were weaker in terms of tactics, weaponry or education. The Union had many advantages that the Confederacy did not have; including sheer numbers and industrial might to create the weapons of war that the agrarian south lacked. But Johnny Reb was not an unsophisticated soldier.

 

In fact, they dominated the early portions of the war. But, as was said above, they were fighting a losing effort from the top. Their way of life, their society was not as equipped for a prolonged war of attrition as the Union forces. That's not to say the Confederacy was weaker or less sophisticated -- they were just smaller in numbers and lacked the industrial capacity to keep pace.

Edited April 17, 2011 by tgreg99

[boyst]

What do you mean?

Too many people think that the South is full of black oppression and the history has been litered with cases of this to back it up...but it is an issue across the country and has always been.

 

No serious scholar has ever suggested that the Confederate forces were weaker in terms of tactics, weaponry or education. The Union had many advantages that the Confederacy did not have; including sheer numbers and industrial might to create the weapons of war that the agrarian south lacked. But Johnny Reb was not an unsophisticated soldier.

 

In fact, they dominated the early portions of the war. But, as was said above, they were fighting a losing effort from the top. Their way of life, their society was not as equipped for a prolonged war of attrition as the Union forces. That's not to say the Confederacy was weaker or less sophisticated -- they were just smaller in numbers and lacked the industrial capacity to keep pace.

The major thought is that the North had all the industry, money, and education. If the war would have lasted another 6 months the South would have been bolstered with imported goods from Europe and the falling numbers in Yankee troops.

[CosmicBills]

Too many people think that the South is full of black oppression and the history has been litered with cases of this to back it up...but it is an issue across the country and has always been.

Racism is not limited to the south. Boston, a city I lived in for years and this bastion of liberalism, is probably one of the most racist cities I've ever experienced.

 

The major thought is that the North had all the industry, money, and education. If the war would have lasted another 6 months the South would have been bolstered with imported goods from Europe and the falling numbers in Yankee troops.

I am by no means a Civil War expert and do not mean to come off as one. It was an area of study for sure, but my concentration in undergrad was Slavery in the Americas -- pre-colonial through the Civil War.

 

The Confederacy had advantages the North did not (fighting on its own turf being one ... as well as simultaneously a disadvantage). But the North did enjoy a vastly more sophisticated and uniform rail network (the South had plenty of railroads, just different gauge tracks which made transport difficult) and industry. I'm not sure where you're getting the falling numbers of Yankee troops (and please correct me or point me in the direction if I'm wrong), but the most the Confederates could ever muster (roughly) was around 1 million to 1.5. The Union had numbers well into the 2 million. The population was far denser in the North thanks to urbanization and I'm fairly certain that part of the South's problem was its inability to match the sheer volume of troops the Union army could produce.

 

Heck, Grant's MO was to just send wave after wave of troops (especially in Vicksburg before settling into a siege mentality). Time was not on the Confederacy's side. Their best hope was to win the war early -- not because they had lesser generals or were some how inferior intellectually. But because they just didn't have the numbers.

[Simon]

Thought of this thread when reading this article during lunch today.

[birdog1960]

Thought of this thread when reading this article during lunch today.

sounds vaguely familiar... damn those biased historians with an axe to grind and that mainstream media liberal time magazine

[K-9]

Thought of this thread when reading this article during lunch today.

 

Excellent read, Simon. Thanks for posting.

 

I'm always amazed at the prescience of the founders. Madison nailed it.

 

I'm also amazed at our collective mistake to judge history through the prism of modern day societal norms.

[DC Tom]

Excellent read, Simon. Thanks for posting.

 

I'm always amazed at the prescience of the founders. Madison nailed it.

 

I'm also amazed at our collective mistake to judge history through the prism of modern day societal norms.

 

Except in as much as Madison didn't. Several states and territories that in his time were "slave states" were no longer by 1861 (e.g. Delaware, Maryland, the terroritory that would become Kentucky.)

 

Slavery was, in fact, a dying institution by 1860...a fact that all but the most radical slave-owners and abolitionists failed to recognize, which itself was a significant cause of the Civil War, and a lesson of what happenes when you let the extremists define the debate.

 

The major thought is that the North had all the industry, money, and education. If the war would have lasted another 6 months the South would have been bolstered with imported goods from Europe and the falling numbers in Yankee troops.

 

That's just weird. By 1864, the South had a serious manpower and cash crunch that precluded fielding large, effective armies AND imports from Europe - particularly the latter, given that by that late date the European textile industry (the main interest the Europeans had in the Civil War - the start of the war was an economic disaster for Manchester and Liverpool; by 1865, they were well on their way to replacing American cotton with other sources, thus the Southern political-economic position w/r/t Europe was very much weaker late in the war than it was even in 1862 - when the Europeans still didn't recognize the South.

[TheMadCap]

Except in as much as Madison didn't. Several states and territories that in his time were "slave states" were no longer by 1861 (e.g. Delaware, Maryland, the terroritory that would become Kentucky.)

 

Slavery was, in fact, a dying institution by 1860...a fact that all but the most radical slave-owners and abolitionists failed to recognize, which itself was a significant cause of the Civil War, and a lesson of what happenes when you let the extremists define the debate.

 

 

 

That's just weird. By 1864, the South had a serious manpower and cash crunch that precluded fielding large, effective armies AND imports from Europe - particularly the latter, given that by that late date the European textile industry (the main interest the Europeans had in the Civil War - the start of the war was an economic disaster for Manchester and Liverpool; by 1865, they were well on their way to replacing American cotton with other sources, thus the Southern political-economic position w/r/t Europe was very much weaker late in the war than it was even in 1862 - when the Europeans still didn't recognize the South.

 

not to mention that the Federal Navy had essentially stopped all import/exports with their blockade, and the nearly complete destruction of major railways throughout the south by 1865, it would seem HIGHLY unlikely that any help from Europe was coming...

[birdog1960]

Except in as much as Madison didn't. Several states and territories that in his time were "slave states" were no longer by 1861 (e.g. Delaware, Maryland, the terroritory that would become Kentucky.)

 

Slavery was, in fact, a dying institution by 1860...a fact that all but the most radical slave-owners and abolitionists failed to recognize, which itself was a significant cause of the Civil War, and a lesson of what happenes when you let the extremists define the debate

"in the decade before the war, per capita wealth grew twice as fast in the south as it did in the north and the prices of slaves and land both rose by some 70%". do you refute this?

 

"...the modern version (of the lost cause) comes from a clique of liberterians who view the union as a ferocious example of authoritarian central govt crushing individual dissent. slave owners make odd liberterian heroes..."

[K-9]

Except in as much as Madison didn't. Several states and territories that in his time were "slave states" were no longer by 1861 (e.g. Delaware, Maryland, the terroritory that would become Kentucky.)

 

Slavery was, in fact, a dying institution by 1860...a fact that all but the most radical slave-owners and abolitionists failed to recognize, which itself was a significant cause of the Civil War, and a lesson of what happenes when you let the extremists define the debate.

 

I disagree, Tom. In the 80 some years between the time Madison made the comment to the time slavery was dying out as you say, it was a continually hot, divisive issue politically, economically, socially. While some states abolished it, there were major debates, if not outright fatal hostilities, over whether or not slavery would be allowed in the new territories.

 

I do agree with your point about extremists framing the debate. And I appreciate the founders' foresight in that regard as well.

[tennesseeboy]

Slavery has more implications than you might think.

The Southern economy was based on cotton, which relied on slavery, and repealing slavery would call for a fundamental shift and lowering of the (white) south's economic position.

Expanding slavery was a commitment to this economic basis to new states, which the North resisted.

The Civil War, like most modern war,has its base on a threat to a significant economic interests. The initial aggression took place at Fort Sumter, by the South.

 

We really ought to get over it.

[Chef Jim]

This thread got me to start reading Killer Angels again. In the book there's a scene where some Union soldiers have captured some Rebels. One of the Union soldiers comes back laughing saying I asked them why they were fighting. They told him they were fighting for "rats". Rats? What do you mean "rats?" He finally figured out they were saying "rights" but with the heavy southern accent it came our sounding like "rats."

[birdog1960]

This thread got me to start reading Killer Angels again. In the book there's a scene where some Union soldiers have captured some Rebels. One of the Union soldiers comes back laughing saying I asked them why they were fighting. They told him they were fighting for "rats". Rats? What do you mean "rats?" He finally figured out they were saying "rights" but with the heavy southern accent it came our sounding like "rats."

don't know the book but as the Time article points out, pop culture played a big part in propagating civil war myths. those slaves in "gone with the wind" were so darn happy!

[Chef Jim]

don't know the book but as the Time article points out, pop culture played a big part in propagating civil war myths. those slaves in "gone with the wind" were so darn happy!

 

That book is about the battle at Gettysburg and according to the author he based it as much on factual information of those four days of the battle. It's very good and the movie Gettysburg was based on that book.

[shrader]

That book is about the battle at Gettysburg and according to the author he based it as much on factual information of those four days of the battle. It's very good and the movie Gettysburg was based on that book.

 

I was wondering why the name sounded so familiar. That explains it.

[DC Tom]

The Civil War, like most modern war,has its base on a threat to a significant economic interests. The initial aggression took place at Fort Sumter, by the South.

 

We really ought to get over it.

 

Unless you're a South Carolian, in which case the initial aggression was the federal refusal to vacate Fort Sumter.

 

Or if you REALLY wanted to, one could make the argument it started with John Brown's idiocy at Harper's Ferry.

[Chef Jim]

Unless you're a South Carolian, in which case the initial aggression was the federal refusal to vacate Fort Sumter.

 

Or if you REALLY wanted to, one could make the argument it started with John Brown's idiocy at Harper's Ferry.

 

Well I think it's safe to say there are very few wars whose start could be tied to one thing. That's like saying WWII was because of Adolf Hitler or WWI was because of the Assassination of the Austrian Archduke (forgot his name) etc, etc.