Confederate or Union?

ComputerFlake

August 21, 2003, 05:21 PM

Bogie, not really having it "certified" as having it approved by an authority but more along the lines of having it tested for flaws that might blow it up in my face. I have a replica 1860 Army revolver that I am itching to take out and shoot one weekend.

I'm in Nashville, TN.

Since someone mentioned slavery, I still don't see how everyone can make the Civil War into a huge issue of slavery. 90%+ of the people who fought for the South never owned a slave. About half of those never even saw a slave. And if you owned 20 slaves you were exempt from having to fight in the war. Not to mention that slaves were considered property (even in states outside of the Confederacy like Maryland). These 750,000 soliders who died in the war never fought for slave ownership. They fought for their families, states, God, and country. They felt like the North was an invader.

Slavery was wound into the Civil War. It wasn't started or fought because of it. Just my opinion. As I said, I hope this doesn't turn into an argument on slavery. I just wanted to see where gun owners stood on history, Civil War, and states rights versus central government. ;)

I'm glad to be here. Thanks for making me feel welcome.

Standing Wolf

August 21, 2003, 05:22 PM

In retrospect, I believe the Confederate States of America should legally and morally have been allowed to secede. Slavery would have failed in fairly short order, since it never offered an economic advantage. I believe the C.S.A. and the U.S.A. would have forged close ties in due time. Both governments would have remained much closer to the founding fathers' intent, and neither would have become so large and intrusive as the U.S.A. has become.

I've heard hindsight's always 20-20, but I have a doubt or two.

DigitalWarrior

August 21, 2003, 05:27 PM

I think that the wrong side won. It seems wrong to compel involvment in a voluntary contract (membership in the Union). At the same time slavery was loathsome and not permitted in the Union. Permitting the south to secede should have permitted a clean conscience in the north (slavery is never permitted in the union).

Since we are playing the what-if game. What if...
The Confederate states had succeeded in seceding. Then maybe the north would not have been effective in ww1. Maybe that would have prevented the depression, which would have prevented The rise of National Socialism in germany. So WW2 europe would not have happened. Maybe.

I hate the what if game. Lots of opinions, no facts. Cant be sure. Hindsight is never 20-20

Iain

August 21, 2003, 05:40 PM

For someone who hates the 'what if' game you play it well enough.

Can anyone suggest a really good book that summarises both the causes and the events of the American Civil War, a reputable history book? Ta. My Englishness shows through again - my total education about the American Civil War (I will call it that because we had one too and that is always my first thought) is that episode of South park where Cartman gets all the re-enactors drunk and proceeds to march the South to Washington. Recommend it.

Suggesting that American involvement in WWI may not have led to the Depression I cannot say anything about because this is not my field. However, had the terms of the Treaty of Versailles been the same (and American involvement made no difference here it was Britain and France that drew it up) then problems with Germany were pretty much inevitable (as inevitable as things can ever be in history)

Dilettante

August 21, 2003, 05:45 PM

(ComputerFlake)
Slavery was wound into the Civil War. It wasn't started or fought because of it. Just my opinion. As I said, I hope this doesn't turn into an argument on slavery.

I'd guess we all have the same opinion on slavery. If anyone wants to advocate it, things here could get really interesting. ;)

There are two common misonceptions about the Civil War:
(1) The Union fought from the beginning to free slaves. (You already know that is incorrect.)
(2) The Confederacy wasn't fighting to keep slaves. (That was the main reason for secession.)

Confusing, isn't it?
But if you look into the speeched and documents made by secessionist politicians around 1858-61, as opposed to the re-writing done later, it's very clear that slavery was the main reason for the original secession. (I don't know the whole mix of reasons for the states that seceded after Fort Sumter.)

(StJohn)
Can anyone suggest a really good book that summarises both the causes and the events of the American Civil War, a reputable history book?

A very nice one is The Battle Cry of Freedom by James McPherson. It's well-written and fun, but kind of long (about 900 pages). A good shorter book is by Ken Davis, Don't Know Much About The Civil War.

had the terms of the Treaty of Versailles been the same (and American involvement made no difference here it was Britain and France that drew it up) then problems with Germany were pretty much inevitable (as inevitable as things can ever be in history)

This was certainly the opinion of John Maynard Keynes, who resigned from the peace commission for exactly that reason.

Correia

August 21, 2003, 05:50 PM

I would have been in Deseret. :) (Utah's real name for those of you not paying attention in history class)

JPM70535

August 21, 2003, 05:51 PM

Since I didn't start this ball rolling, I am happy to see that I am not alone in believing that the Civil War (also called the war of Northern aggression) was not fought over slavery. Pure and simple. it was fought over" States Rights".

Slavery was an institution whose time was financially unprofitable and was rapidly giving way to the Share Cropper concept where the Plantation owner did not have to care for, feed and clothe from the cradle to the grave, as with a slave.

Share croppers had zero job security, "No work no eat". Slave quarters were less than 5 star quality, but for the slaves it was free, for the Share Cropper it was a rental property, "no work, no room". Medical care for Share Croppers? don't be ridiculous.

IMO, the only advantage the Share Cropper had going for him that the slave did not, was the ability to leave the employ of the "MASSA", if of course he had the financial wherewithall to do so.

All these factors were not lost on the Plantation owner, who was certainly not stupid, and has been stated here before, left alone, Slavery would have ceased to exist in short order. Lincoln needed a pretext to hang his war on and Slavery was it.

By the way, my ancestors never owned a slave and were a lot closer to being share croppers than plantation owners

Hkmp5sd

August 21, 2003, 05:59 PM

Slavery was only one of many issues that caused the Civil War and not really all that important to Lincoln. If he was concerned about slavery, he would have freed all slaves at the beginning of the war or even before it started.

The only slaves Lincoln did free, when he finally got around to it, were the slaves in the states that were part of the rebellion. Even then, he freed the slaves as part of a military strategy. He wanted the slaves to cause havoc in the south by either running for the north (denying the south manual laborers for the war effort) or to disrupt the south by violent means (aka terrorism).

He was not even concerned with the casualties the slaves may incur in accomplishing this.

El Tejon

August 21, 2003, 06:00 PM

During the War of Southern Treason, the South fought for slavery, pure and simple. The Southern states and politicians were explicitly clear that they commited to keep slavery and would go to war to keep it. Even today Southern states, e.g. Tejas, proudly display their announcements of leaving the Union, these announcements list slavery as the reason they attempted to leave the Union.

The right side won, but war has awful consequences.:(

cuchulainn

August 21, 2003, 06:06 PM

Sgt

August 21, 2003, 06:06 PM

Another vote here for the "States Rights" argument. Slavery was an issue, but not the main one. It, like any other politically correct scheme, was used and misused to sway public opinion and History. And today, in public schools....they teach our children what? History has been written and rewritten, again and again.......Those who have an agenda, demonize whoever they have to, in order to sway public opinion. Repeat it enough and people start to think of it as fact. They've demonized we gun owners for years and in addition they demonize guns, as if they had souls and could pull their own triggers. It's all spin, smoke and mirrors.....The truth is there, you just have to shovel all the Bull off the top of it.....

The wrong side won......

I'm American by birth and Southern by the Grace of God!!!

Semper Fi, Sgt

Felonious Monk

August 21, 2003, 06:27 PM

El Tejon--

The War of Northern Aggression was fought because Union forces decided they thought it a smart thing to come to the south and impose Northern sensibilities on Southern culture.

greyhound

August 21, 2003, 06:50 PM

St Johns (and others)-

If you're interested in how the Civil War still impacts American life today (especially in the South), try "Confederates in the Attic" by Tony Horwitz. The author travels the South, and gives a pretty balanced account of how the "Lost Cause" is still alive today. Anyone interested in reenacting should check it out too, as it gives a glimpse into that arena.

As for the original premise, I believe that the Founding Fathers definately meant that States trump the Feds. I attended a seminar about the what the Civil War meant in the county in which I grew up (Carroll County, MD), and it seems a lot of this particular border state would have gone Confederate if it hadn't been held down by the "despot's heel".:D

There is a Maryland monument at Gettysburg that shows two wounded soldiers, one North and one South, helping each other off the battlefield.
Very moving.

Kaylee

August 21, 2003, 06:58 PM

what cuchulainn said. :)

Had I lived then, I would have -- with no small amount of ambivalence -- chosen the Southern side. I believe they (we) were legally and morally in the right to secede from the Union, albeit for poor reasons.

I think it's an interesting reflection on the American character that hundreds of thousands of people can try to kill each other, BOTH sides insisting all the while that they're the ones fighting for freedom. So alike in ideals, so different in beliefs.

Sad time. :(
May we learn from our ancestors sacrfices.

-K

Sean Smith

August 21, 2003, 06:58 PM

The biggest fallacy of pro-South folk is to insist slavery was not an issue.

The biggest fallacy of pro-North folk is to insist slavery was the sole issue.

It's not a mutually exclusive question of either states rights or slavery.

(States don't have rights, BTW, people do. States have powers. Read the 10th Amendment carefully )

Bingo. And why is it that "State's Rights" always seems to be fighting for the wrong side... pro-slavery, pro-segregation, etc.? I don't like any tyranny, be it federal, state, or the local dog catcher.

I wonder when we are going to hear the lie about how the South owned fewer slaves than the North? (HINT: read the census data, it ain't even close).

And it is kind of hard to reconcile the "slavery didn't matter" line with the actual statements of the Southern politicians.

Message of Jefferson Davis to the Provisional Congress of the Confederate States of America, from J.D. Richardson, Messages and Papers of Jefferson Davis and the Confederacy, Including Diplomatic Correspondence, 1861-1865

Montgomery, April 29, 1861.

As soon, however, as the Northern States that prohibited African slavery within their limits had reached a number sufficient to give their representation a controlling voice in Congress, a persistent and organized system of hostile measures against the rights of the owners of slaves in the Southern States was inaugurated and gradually extended. A continuous series of measures was devised and prosecuted for the purpose of rendering insecure the tenure of property in slaves. Fanatical organizations, supplied with money by voluntary subscriptions, were assiduously engaged in exciting amongst the slaves a spirit of discontent and revolt; means were furnished for their escape from their owners, and agents secretly employed to entice them to abscond; the constitutional provisions for their rendition to their owners was first evaded, then openly denounced as a violation of conscientious obligation and religious duty; men were taught that it was a merit to elude, disobey, and violently oppose the execution of the laws enacted to secure the performance of the promise contained in the constitutional compact; owners of slaves were mobbed and even murdered in open day solely for applying to a magistrate for the arrest of a fugitive slave; the dogmas of these voluntary organizations soon obtained control of the Legislatures of many of the Northern States, and laws were passed providing for the punishment, by ruinous fines and long-continued imprisonment in jails and penitentiaries, of citizens of the Southern States who should dare to ask aid of the officers of the law for the recovery of their property. Emboldened by success, the theater of agitation and aggression against the clearly expressed constitutional rights of the Southern States was transferred to the Congress; Senators and Representatives were sent to the common councils of the nation, whose chief title to this distinction consisted in the display of a spirit of ultra fanaticism, and whose business was not "to promote the general welfare or insure domestic tranquillity," but to awaken the bitterest hatred against the citizens of sister States by violent denunciation of their institutions; the transaction of public affairs was impeded by repeated efforts to usurp powers not delegated by the Constitution, for the purpose of impairing the security of property in slaves, and reducing those States which held slaves to a condition of inferiority. Finally a great party was organized for the purpose of obtaining the administration of the Government, with the avowed object of using its power for the total exclusion of the slave States from all participation in the benefits of the public domain acquired by all the States in common, whether by conquest or purchase; of surrounding them entirely by States in which slavery should be prohibited; of thus rendering the property in slaves so insecure as to be comparatively worthless, and thereby annihilating in effect property worth thousands of millions of dollars. This party, thus organized, succeeded in the month of November last in the election of its candidate for the Presidency of the United States.

The protection of slavery seemed to be a paramout concern of Jefferson Davis. In total, he mentioned "slave," slaves," or "slavery" no fewer than 23 times in that speech (of which my quote is only a small part).

As another example among many, again citing the primary source material (as opposed to barmy revisionist "historians"), in The Address of the people of South Carolina, assembled in Convention, to the people of the Slaveholding States of the United States (one of two official pronouncements produced by South Carolina's Secession Convention), "slave" and its derivatives come up no less than 30 times. Its closing declaration is:

We ask you to join us in forming a confederacy of Slaveholding States.

That's an awful lot of talking about slavery for slavery to not matter to 'em. ;)

coldshot03/04

August 21, 2003, 07:01 PM

REBEL TO THE BONE!!!!!!

Joe Demko

August 21, 2003, 07:08 PM

You guys who want to keep chanting the mantra about "slavery was dying out" are hilarious. How long _exactly_ would you personally be willing to be a slave while waiting for that peculiar institution to die out on its own? How many years? How many generations? Look, people, slavery is evil whether it is for a moment or a millenium. No amount of blathering about "states rights" and "northern aggression" is going to cover up or excuse slavery.
I don't give a hoot why Abe Lincoln/ The Union prosecuted the war. I would have fought becuase I would have been/am an abolitionist.
Slavers, wherever they live, belong at the end of a rope. Put there, preferrably, by those who were formerly their property.

cuchulainn

August 21, 2003, 07:33 PM

I would have fought becuase I would have been ... an abolitionist. :) With all due respect, no, you probably would not have been. Most Americans in 1860 were not. I said just that (would have been an abolitionist) to my mom when I was a kid. She said, "Don't be so sure. You'd have been raised with different ideas back then."Slavers, wherever they live, belong at the end of a rope. Put there, preferrably, by those who were formerly their property. In 2003, I think the same thing about people who deny women the right to vote, but the odds are that I would not have been a suffragist in the 1800s :)

Freedspeak

August 21, 2003, 07:49 PM

At the same time slavery was loathsome and not permitted in the Union. Permitting the south to secede should have permitted a clean conscience in the north (slavery is never permitted in the union).

A popular misconception, there were 4 or 5 states on the Northern side that didn't end slavery practices till well after the conflict (about mid 1870's).

Personally I am a states rights/powers advocate, and prefer minimal federal government.

HBK

August 21, 2003, 08:02 PM

CSA all the way baby. In fact, the states might be a better place to be if we had an articles of confederation instead of a constitution. States rights barely exist anymore, if they do at all.

joshlm

August 21, 2003, 08:18 PM

interesting topic guys.While i am not an advicate(?) for slavery i believe i would have gone south. when you consider that the people of the era had all lost reletives fighting for the rights they had, it was only natural that the south would have rebelled when the north tried to push their values off on them. after all wasn't that what those ancesters died for. Also, correct me if i am wrong, but i believe i have read speaches that Mr. Lincoln wrote that said while he did not believe in slavery and wished it abolished, he believed that the races could never live in harmony and therefor all blacks, once freed, should be sent back to africa. If Mr. Lincoln had lived long enough to see this plan through how different would our country be?

telomerase

August 21, 2003, 08:19 PM

The South was fighting for 100% black slavery, and the North was fighting for percentage slavery for all (i.e. the tariff). Neither government clique was worth fighting for (ending slavery would have been, perhaps, but that wasn't one of the choices given at the beginning of the war). Most nations ended slavery without any sort of war, and doubtless the seceded South would have been forced to end slavery just like the other countries (um, except Sudan, Mauritania, North Korea.... OK, most other countries), especially without the North's militias helping to recapture escaped slaves.

Defenders of the South should note that they lost because the Confederate government was quite totalitarian in some ways. They blockaded THEMSELVES at the beginning of war, embargoing their own cotton (brainy!). They also had a GOSPLAN-style plan for the economy, with many factories directly run by the government.

All that said, the Confederacy should have been allowed to secede without killing 600,000 people and increasing the "percentage slavery" of everyone in the country. Most likely the US would have reunited after slavery ended, as it did everywhere else. Unless Southrons contain some sort of intrinsic evil that transcends economics :) ?

Waitone

August 21, 2003, 08:38 PM

The finest single volume history of the civil war

Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era by James M. McPherson. I believe he won a Pulitzer the volume.

His point? The civil war laid the ground work for what we are today. It had a profound effect on America and Americans.

An outstanding book.

Stoney

August 21, 2003, 08:48 PM

Forget the politics and who was right in the war. By the way i'm a
a long time Cival war buff. I shoot copies of the 1861 Springfield and
the 1853 three band Enfield and enjoy it greatly.

There is nothing like dropping the hammer on that big 58 cal minie bullet.
Though i'm having trouble with the Enfield right now I wouldn't trade the
experience for the world.

Chris Rhines

August 21, 2003, 09:22 PM

Interesting question, that comes up from time to time. My usual answer is, "I don't fight for governments." Particularly when both sides are so manifest in their evil.

I probably would have headed out west and kept my head down. Although the idea of running an underground railroad is interesting...

- Chris

Hkmp5sd

August 21, 2003, 11:00 PM

One enteresting thing about the Civil War was that soldiers in the north were fighting for the US government and the majority of soldiers in the south were fighting due to patriotism for their home state. That is why Lee turned down command of the northern forces. His loyalty was to his home state above the United States.

4v50 Gary

August 21, 2003, 11:15 PM

I believe that there is nothing in the Constitution to proscribe a state from seceding. At his inauguration, Lincoln offered the olive branch to the south. Here are some excerpts...

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

"In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in Heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to preserve, protect, and defend it..."

"We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may be strained, it must not break, our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, strecthing from eery battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone, all over this broad land, will yet sell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."

The South's mistake was firing on Fort Sumter (then again, it could have been Beauregard the pupil getting even with Anderson the instructor). BTW, if I lived back then, I'd head north and call myself a Canadian (the first coward).

In response to your second question, I have the Parker Hale 3 band and 2 band rifled musket. Also have a Colt 3 band musket.

Dilettante

August 21, 2003, 11:58 PM

Also, correct me if i am wrong, but i believe i have read speaches that Mr. Lincoln wrote that said while he did not believe in slavery and wished it abolished, he believed that the races could never live in harmony and therefor all blacks, once freed, should be sent back to africa. If Mr. Lincoln had lived long enough to see this plan through how different would our country be?

The plan was cancelled because of a meeting Lincoln had with several prominent blacks, including Douglass. He tried to sell the idea of migration to them--maybe somewhere in Central America--and they got mad and said that none of them wanted to leave the land where they were born. So that was the end of the migration plan.
Some of Lincoln's comments in his speeches--like the line saying that if one race had to be on top, he'd rather the whites were--are probably there as part of his political balancing act, not his deepest ideals for how the world ought to be.

I am impressed with this thread.

Khornet

August 22, 2003, 06:58 AM

of American histories of the Civil War could be summarized with two words:

Bruce Catton.

St Johns, Mr Catton was the preeminent in-depth Civil War historian, and his book are a lovely read as well. Choose any one....you'll be back for the others.

fallingblock

August 22, 2003, 07:49 AM

I'll second Khornet's recommendation of Bruce Catton. Catton's books are very readable and deliver a lot of information.

Chris Rhines: Exactly what Mark Twain did:D , and he warn't no idjit!

My paternal great-grandpa commanded the Fifth Indiana Volunteer Cavalry.

My maternal great-grandpa served through the war in the Tenth (Confederate) Kentucky Cavalry. He was part of Jeff Davis' attempted escape to Texas after the fall of Richmond. There's a 'bitter-ender' for you.

Both fighting on the same turf, but for different loyalities.

It was NOT slavery that motivated the common man to fight for the South. Jefferson Davis may have speechified about it and the plantation owners wielded their political muscle within the CSA government, but the vast, vast majority of the 240,000 or so Southrons who actually did the dying for the cause did not own slaves. My Kentucky great granddad's family owned no slaves. As mentioned above, multiple slave holders were exempt from military service in the Confederate forces.

Slavery was an evil institution, no doubt. Its time was nearly done in the western world, and could the war have been avoided (and the maniac abolitionists certainly contributed to urging a war:eek: ), it would have quietly passed away before the end of the 19th Century.

I have studied a great deal of history of the "War of Northern Aggression"
:D (my Confederate genes made me write that!)

And my sympathies are with the poor fellers on both sides, catchin' them Minie balls during a time when the concept of military surgery consisted of a saw and maybe some anesthetic:what:

The Confederacy remains to this day a glorious lost cause for some and an national embarrassment for others.

For me, the War Between the States marked the passing of a rural America of regional loyalty into an up-and-coming world industrial power. I would have liked to experienced the antebellum South...but not as a slave.

What would I have done?

Since I would likely have been trapped in a 'mind of the time',
(hindsight is not realistic in these 'what if' scenarios) my regional loyalties would probably have dictated which side to support.

I like Chris' and Sam Clemen's idea....go west and contribute to the nation in some other fashion than shootin' at your kinfolks and neighbors.
Sam tried soldierin' from June 15th '61 to around July 25th '61, as a Confederate Missouri State Guardsman, and it didn't suit him. He went with brother Orion to Nevada for the duration;) .

All summed-up? There was right and wrong on both sides:(

Byron

August 22, 2003, 08:31 AM

I am an AMERICAN. I am a native of Georgia and was drafted from Georgia in 1968 and fought in Veitnam in 68-69. I fought under THE AMERICAN FLAG. That FLAG covered the caskets of most of the men of my Infantry Company. Can we not get on with life without having to go back to 1860 and try to fiqure out who would would have fought for, if at all?
I am Thankful The UNION was preserved. We have The Greatest of Nations. Byron

WilderBill

August 22, 2003, 09:14 AM

It gets pretty hypothetical to ask which side you would support, when we all live in the present and cannot know first hand what it was like at the time.

I suppose I would support the region I was born in and knew. In my case that makes me definately southern.
I do support the idea that states should have the power to continue institutions that are popular in their own region.
I don't think there is any moral or monetary excuse for owning slaves.

As to the migration idea, Jefferson supported that way before the War of Northern Aggression and it made a lot more sense at the time. I think those slaves that either remembered Africa first hand, or had heard others speak of wanting to return, would have been willing to go back.
The modern nation of Liberia is a product of that migration idea, by the way.

Reading the speeches quoted by both Lincoln and Davis shows that polititions of that time came across as much more literate and thoughtful than most of our modern types.

I beleive that had the Confederacy survived, slavery would have ended within 10 years and any lingering animosity between North & South would have been erased by the Spanish American war.

IMHO

ComputerFlake

August 22, 2003, 10:20 AM

"During the War of Southern Treason, the South fought for slavery, pure and simple."

Wrong. No one in the South FOUGHT FOR slavery. They FOUGHT BECAUSE of slavery. Huge difference.

The guys who did the fighting didn't own slaves.

The best book to get a general understanding of how the Civil War started and get a honest 3rd party opinion is The Story of the Confederacy by Robert Selph Henry. You can take my word for it since I've been a self-proclaimed Civil War historian and collector for many years. This book will give you the background you might be missing.

Here's something else I want to throw into the discussion. It's easy to be a pro-secessionist today because not many people have faith in the government and states rights are being trampled left and right (see the Ten Commandments issue in Alabama for more info). But have the Democrats/beauracrats REALLY think about gun control laws and who owns the guns before they passed their legislation?

Gun control laws are only fought by those who believe the true power lies in the hands of the people. Big government thinks the power should lie in the government. The second amendment was authored because the founding fathers knew that the only way to have the power remain with the people was to have a way for the people to control the government. Not the other way around. So here's where this conversation gets interesting.

California, New York, etc (democratic states in general) have clamped down on gun control laws, therefore taking the power away from the people to control the government. Supposed another Civil War breaks out. It seems to me the power will lie in the Southern states who have been less strict with their gun control laws. "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns". That would make the Southern states rebels again but this time instead of the North having all of the guns and ability to use them, the South will have the power. And the biggest problem in the Civil War was lack of weaponry, lack of manpower, and lack of guns with bullets of the same caliber. These stumbling blocks are now gone. We have manpower, weaponry (several of the largest military bases are in the South), and who on here can honestly say they don't own at least one 9mm, .40, or .45?

Interesting huh? If the South DOES ever decide to rise again it'll be interesting to watch. And this time it wouldn't be started because of slavery. It'd be started because the people are tired of being told what to do instead of actually being given the freedom they were born with.

Comments?

Iain

August 22, 2003, 10:30 AM

I have a comment for you ComputerFlake - come over and instil some of that firebrand sentiment in my Cornish relations. A Cornish uprising against the English would be genuine fun, course with our gun laws then the best they can offer you is stale pasty's, but a week old pasty at 50fps can penetrate an Abrams.

I am confused by the nature of the sentiments expressed on this thread by some, the poster who makes most sense to me is Byron, it all happened quite a while ago and whilst history is interesting for its own sake it seems bizarre to get quite so heated about it.

Then again perhaps I need to read Catton's books (thanks for the recommendations guys - which one covers the most ground?)

Hkmp5sd

August 22, 2003, 11:27 AM

for its own sake it seems bizarre to get quite so heated about it.

The reason it gets heated is because there was a Civil War and for the most part, the issue has never ended.

Without the war, slavery would have eventually faded away and became a minor footnote in American history. It may have taken another 50 years, but it was on it's way out.

Once the war occured, those in the south that lost just became more stubborn about the issue of race. This gave us the Klan, civil rights marches, Martin Luther King, George Wallace and so on. Today, 140 years after the war, we still have Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, reparation demands, apology demands, affirmative action, reverse discrimination, etc. BTW, the north isn't innocent in this either. Segregation in the military didn't end until half way through the 20th century. They also had many racial rifts.

The subject was never able to fade away. It has stayed on the grill and keeps getting flipped over and heated again.

DaveB

August 22, 2003, 12:01 PM

St Johns, I will add two, no, three books to your reading list.

The Killer Angels - Michael Shaara: Gettysburgh (Fiction),
Confederates in the Attic, by Tony Horwitz: Why the South won't let go,
Landscape Turned Red - Stephen W. Sears: The Battle of Antietam

db

JohnBT

August 22, 2003, 12:36 PM

Virginian. On both sides back to at least 1750.

John

Byron Quick

August 22, 2003, 01:02 PM

I am confused by the nature of the sentiments expressed on this thread by some, the poster who makes most sense to me is Byron, it all happened quite a while ago and whilst history is interesting for its own sake it seems bizarre to get quite so heated about it.

It wasn't quite as far back as you seem to think. My grandparents helped raise me as their grandparents helped raise them. So I received a lot of intitial views on life from them. As in don't trust Yankee carpetbaggers:D Their grandparents fought in the Civil War. One link between me and eyewitnesses. My father knew elderly Confederate veterans well as a child. Reconstruction actually caused more of the lingering bitterness on Southerners' part than the war. That's quite a bit later. I've personally known and talked with a good many people who could remember New Year's Day, 1900.

A lot of people seem to think this is way, way in the past when in reality the events are just a scant few decades out of living memory. As a six year old, I had a relative who lived to one hundred. This was in 1960. He related how sad everyone was when news of Lee's surrender came.

Valkman

August 22, 2003, 01:55 PM

When it comes to CW books, there are way too many good ones to mention. I own about 180 CW books, and found myself at first buying general books about the causes and battles and then buying books about specific battles and people. The one that got me started was "The Killer Angels" by Shaara - after that I was obsessed with it! :)

I don't believe slavery had anything to do with the actual fighting of the war, except that the Emancipation Proclamation made sure that England or France would not step in and fight "for slavery". Most Northern soldiers had never even seen a slave - why would they fight for them? They didn't. They fought to keep the Union together. Then take Lee, Longstreet and Jackson - no slave owners there. They were fighting for their states, pure and simple. Lee knew they wouldn't get any foreign help and simply hoped to "wear out" the North and make the people tell Lincoln to settle with the South. He did a damn good job taking advantage of the buffoons that led the Northern armies - until Grant finally put him on the defensive for good.

As much as I admire the Confederate Army as one of the best fighting forces the US ever produced, my ancestors are from Pennslyvania so I would have fought and supported the North and keeping the Union together. :)

scotjute

August 22, 2003, 02:07 PM

If California decides to seccede, I'm not fighting to keep them in!

WilderBill

August 22, 2003, 03:14 PM

Hey Scot, do you suppose we could do anything to encourage them? :D

scotjute

August 22, 2003, 03:25 PM

wilderbill,

Perhaps if we let them know right up front that they can take Diane Feinstein with them that would be encouragement enough!

Dilettante

August 22, 2003, 03:26 PM

(DaveB)
The Killer Angels - Michael Shaara: Gettysburgh (Fiction),

The book is a novel, but the basic story of Josh Chamberlain, who inspired some near-deserters to get back in the battle and hold the line, is true (!) His understanding pep talk may have saved the Union.

[As an academic myself, I wonder if that was the last time that a professor did anything useful...:rolleyes:]

Joe Demko

August 22, 2003, 04:41 PM

Without the war, slavery would have eventually faded away and became a minor footnote in American history. It may have taken another 50 years, but it was on it's way out.

So you personally would have been willing to be enslaved for those 50 years?

Erik

August 22, 2003, 04:50 PM

(Circa the CW) Go North!

We are who we are, the greatest of nations, in no small part because of their actions.

Baba Louie

August 22, 2003, 10:02 PM

So you personally would have been willing to be enslaved for those 50 years?

Exactly!

With our 20th/21st Century mindset, most if not all of us would go on the record as saying legal slavery of one group of people (heck any group...but specifically one group here) is a bad thing. 18th/19th American mindset was different, depending on where you were raised.

I'm glad its gone, here.

As to the loss of the "States Rights" (snicker) compared to the New improved, lemon freshened Federal Power...

Without the war, slavery would have eventually faded away and became a minor footnote in American history. It may have taken another 50 years, but it was on it's way out. ...

Substitute "States Rights" for the word slavery in the above quote.

Always wanted a Civil War era long gun and revolver.

Adios

ComputerFlake

August 24, 2003, 10:29 AM

The South's mistake was firing on Fort Sumter

Also keep in mind that this was only done after Anderson of the US troops panicked, spiked the cannons of Fort Moultrie, and moved out into Sumter. He did so without orders. Amazing to think that all of those soldiers died because two soldiers made rash decisions without orders. What a fragile world.

4v50 Gary

August 24, 2003, 11:40 AM

Chamberlain's wayward men were not deserters. Rather, they had enlisted as replacements with a two year regiment (Second Maine Volunteer Infantry) that was being mustered out and believed that, along with the rest of the regiment, that there was a contractual right to go home. What they didn't realize when they signed their papers is that they had enlisted for three years or the war. When they tried to return home with "their" regiment, they didn't understand that they were not just enlisting into the unit but also for a duration of time. The 118th Pennsylvania "Corn Exchange" escorted them to Chamberlain with instructions for Chamberlain to "make them do duty, or shoot them down the moment they refused." Lesson: read the fine print.

KRAUTGUNNER

August 24, 2003, 11:46 AM

I'm a stout CSA stalwart!!! FOREVER!!!

The South will rise again! :)

Hkmp5sd

August 24, 2003, 11:51 AM

So you personally would have been willing to be enslaved for those 50 years? Nope. But slavery could have ended years prior to the Civil War had the north handled things a little better.

Forty years of agitation against slavery, growing more intolerant and impassioned year by year, had effectively killed the movement in the South for the gradual emancipation of slaves. During the first generation after the adoption of the Constitution this movement made much headway, and would, doubtless, have made more progress had it not been for the difficulties about what to do with the negroes after they were freed - diffictulties that meant little to the ardent and sincere abolitionist five hundred miles away, but were very real to the southern planter who had the responsibility of meeting the problem short hand.

These difficulties were not lessened, nor the movement for emancipation strengthened, by the sweeping and inconsiderate attacks of the more zealous abolitionists not only on the institution of slavery but also on the motives and character of the people who owned slaves. Men bitterly atacked will justify themselves with bitterness.

In their resentment at what they considered slanders of themselves and their states, those who regarded slavery as an evil inherited by the people of the Sounds and had sought to lessen it, began to defend the institution. Within a generation, many in the South, and especially the Lower South, convinced themselves that slavery was not an evil, tolerated only because it existed and there seemed no safe and practical way to do away with it, but was in itself a positive good for both races. The churches and ministers found not only justification but direct command for it in the Bible.

- The Story of the Confederacy by Robert Selph Henry

There was plenty of blame for slavery on both sides of the issue. When some attempt to portray the north as these great liberators of the slaves, they would be well to remember why there were few slaves in the north. There were two reasons slavery was never popular in much of the north. One was the moral sense that slavery was wrong, many in the North and South had this belief. But in the North, another thing helped do away with slavery, due to its unprofitableness under northern conditions.

If not for extremists on both sides of the issue, slavery could have been done away with far earlier, the war would never have occured, but we would also not be the nation we are today.

The Confederacy was a belated attempt to exercise the right of a state to withdraw from the United States of America.

With its failure the United States of America that we know was born. The South, they said, rebelled. To crush the "rebellion" the North wrought a revolution. The old union of states federated together for specific and limited purpose died, to be succeeded by a new nation in which states, North and South alike, have contently sunk from the sovereignty they so jealously maintained in 1787 to become little more than convenient administrative subdivisions of government.

- The Story of the Confederacy by Robert Selph Henry

Glock Glockler

August 24, 2003, 01:04 PM

So you personally would have been willing to be enslaved for those 50 years?

It depends, what is my standard of living and what are the consequences of provoking a war on my behalf? If my day-to-day life is ok and the entire region I inhabit will be laid to waste with the modern equivilant of millions being killed, I'd have to think about it quite a bit. If things for me were that bad I'd just take off and head to Canada or Mexico.

What I don't understand is how supporters of the North can convince themselves of moral superiority when their textile mills were only to happy to their hands on southern slave cotton. I guessed they missed the demand part of economics 101. It's also rather interesting that the ships that transported slaves were from Northern based businesses, which were bringing slaves to other countries than the US South (only a small fraction of the global slave market).

If the South had declared slavery illegal immediately after seceeding would you still have supported a war to "keep the union together"? Why is it that the North is to claim moral rightousness when slavery was completely legal under Federal law (Dred Scott anyone?) Remember Lincoln's speech about 'preserving the union, regardless of slavery's status'?

ComputerFlake

August 24, 2003, 02:17 PM

Everyone wants to blame the South for slavery but there are facts here that are being forgotten:

1) Slavery wasn't illegal federally. It was up to the individual states to decide for themselves right or wrong on slavery. Bottom line is the South never broke a single law when it came to slavery. Certain northern states just disagreed with the policy in the South.

2) Lincoln wasn't anti-slavery. He never was. He gave in to pressure from his cabinet when it came to anti-slavery issues. He didn't even enact the Emancipation Proclamation until Jan 1, 1863 (well after the war was raging and the South had won many battles). And the EP only freed slaves in slave/rebel states. It didn't officially list Tennessee for some reason so Tennessee didn't have to obey this proclamation until later in the 1860s. It certainly wasn't a perfect proclamation. (Officially in Tennessee, there is still several laws on the books that states blacks are only considered 3/5s of a person and if you drive a horse and wagon in a city area you are required to have a black man with a lantern walking a few feet in front of the buggy at night. How's that for freedom?)

3) Slavery made sense. You are welcome to feel about it as you wish. Blacks in Africa conquered tribes and they would generally kill the captured prisoners. Instead they found that they could sell them to planters in the colonies and make money. Owning a person is wrong. But however you choose to believe on slavery planters needed cheap labor and owning slaves made men rich and kept the country eating and clothed in cotton. It made sense on paper. And there were many slave owners who treated their slaves quite well and slaves that didn't want to be freed. They would have rather had a nice place to live and food to eat then be considered scum of the earth and live like rats. That was the condition the North left them in after the Civil War. Just turned them all loose and let them fend for themselves. Eventually there were schools and such but not at first. It was a hard time being black in the South after the War.

4) Since slaves were considered property (like a horse or wagon is property) and most of the Southern boys who fought in the Civil War never even SAW a slave. They certainly didn't go out into the field and lay down their lives for them anymore than you would stand in front of a cannon to defend your car or lawnmower. Southerners may have been involved in a war that was started in part upon the issue of slavery but they didn't fight the war because of it. They fought for their families and their states.

Same could be true today. If Ohio decided to invade Tennessee I'd grab my rifle and charge into battle to defend my state. I wouldn't charge into battle to defend my mailbox. I could always replace the mailbox.

(I certainly am not racist so don't take what I said to be racist. It's just a statement of fact.)

Leaky Waders

August 24, 2003, 11:07 PM

I'm from the South...so I would've followed Lee...

As for the cause of the war and the immorality of slavery and reparations....

My southern education teaches me that the war was fought for states rights - the right in question was slavery. It could've been gun control, wearing blue-jeans on sundays etc...but basically the governent was balancing new territories as either pro/anti slave - thus forming two camps in washington. Never really confronting the issue - just making two camps more divided.

If the North prosecuted the war to end slavery...I believe the Emancipation Procalmation would've been issued just after the first Bull Run. Instead I believe that Lincoln was indeed trying to preserve the union..and he did.

As for the immorality of slavery...as an institution in America slavery probably wasn't all that bad. This was not a war-time slavery like those imposed upon the Chinese or Europeans during WW2. This was a peacetime slavery like that of Greece. Slaves were entrusted to watch plantation kids and were sometimes treated as part of the family. Slaves were also used to toil the fields. I know injustices occured, but for the most part there was no massive slave uprising with either the begining or ending of the war. Plantation owners weren't burned alive or hanged. John Brown's vision of an uprising was so much northern propaganda. You would think that if so many slaves were treated so badly for so long that someone would have hell to pay....

It's easy to critique the morality of slavery now. It was a moral issue pretty much codified by man since like forever...slavery then is kind of like abortion now- is it right is it wrong? How do you know? 100 years from now computer geeks might be dictating to a screen stating how we were immoral for killing an unborn generation or how foolish we were for fighting over clusters of non-sentient cells.

As for slavery reparations - they've been paid by America in blood. If one seeks monetary compensation then I suggest they sue one of the dead civilizations that first started slavery...hittites, cananitites, egyptians, fellow africans? Try to collect that fine.

My two rebellious cents,

L.W.

chaim

August 25, 2003, 02:28 AM

I'd fight for the same side that just about every male relative between 15 and 50 fought for (since on my dad's side most were here during or before the Revolution there were hundreds of male relatives between 15 and 50). I do believe that I'd be inclined to do what I could to smash the treason that was secession. Being a Marylander I guess I would be in a Union Maryland unit, but I'd prefer to have been in one of the West Virginia or Pennsylvania militia and regular units that my ancestors were in.

Like I said, many served. Quote a few served from beginning to end. I had at least one relative at just about every major battle of the war (certainly all the eastern battles). One family (obviously not in my direct line but an uncle and cousins several generations back) lost all sons but one in various battles and the one son left and the father died of disease and starvation at Andersonville (the son died there during the war, the father died days after the end of the war from disease contracted at the prison camp). Many branches of my family served, many ancestors, cousins and a couple uncles a few generations removed, died. I would be honored to fight alongside those men to preserve the legal union that was established when the states approved the Constitution.

Those of you who claim it was a voluntary union, look carefully. US law provided for voluntary acceptance of the Constitution and joining of the US, if you look carefully there are no provisions for legal secession from that contract anywhere in either the Constitution or other US law. Thus, you can choose to join, but once you join you are in. That is of course a necessary provision for any country that wants to have some kind of stability. I would be proud to fight the traitors that were the CSA!

jungleman

August 25, 2003, 02:55 AM

1. I do not believe in slavery
2. The confederacy should have been allowed to seceede.
3. To the group of people who always bitch about slavery
where would you be now if you were not brought here
as slaves????????????
You would be over in Africa starving and dieing of aids,
Quit your compaining.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Glock Glockler

August 25, 2003, 07:02 AM

JohnBT

August 25, 2003, 08:25 AM

chaim - Traitors is it? That's a mighty bold statement from a smartmouth who obviously doesn't know much U.S. history...

Few history books have even bothered to mention that, in December of 1814, the New England states held a secession convention in Hartford, Connecticut (hardly the heart of Dixie). Although they did not end up formally seceding, the New England states never questioned their own right to do so. Professor DiLorenzo has noted that: "Pickering and Governor Strong of Massachusetts nevertheless predicted that the Union would not last. When the war (of 1812) ended, so did the Federalist Party's efforts to have New England secede from the Union. Throughout this whole ordeal no one ever made a principled argument against a state's right of secession." - Al Benson, Jr.

ComputerFlake

August 25, 2003, 11:13 AM

US law provided for voluntary acceptance of the Constitution and joining of the US, if you look carefully there are no provisions for legal secession from that contract anywhere in either the Constitution or other US law.

Well Glockler beat me to it but the fact of the matter is that there is no legal basis for declaring war on your countrymen neither. What Lincoln did was highly illegal and debatable.

I share your sympathies with family history and Civil War. I also had many family members who fought and died during the war. My family fought for the South. The point of this discussion is whether you would have fought for the Union or the Confederacy and I think we know your position. And I think your position is admirable. I find it interesting that you said you'd fight for the Union and didn't mention a single thing about slavery. So in part, you made my point for me. Most of the men who fought in the war fought and died for family and country. Not many, outside of the black units, could claim to have fought for freedom of slaves.

The second part of this post was the answer to "what would you do today if the same situation arose because of a different set of circumstances caused Southern states to once again suceed." For example, what if the situation in Alabama over the Ten Commandments because one of central government versus religious freedom and the military was called in to shoot down your fellow countrymen?

I'd find myself on the wrong side of the country at that point. I'd be more than willing to take up arms to defend the basis of the founding of this country and defend my right to religious freedom. I'd much rather face God with a clear conscience than have to face Him and admit I did nothing to defend His name. Would you find yourself on the side of the Union or the Confederacy at that point?

It's all in good fun. I'm glad to see that no one is letting their emotions get the better of them. It's very interesting reading.

Byron Quick

August 25, 2003, 11:32 AM

Sorry,

That is a simplistic rationale re seccession and the Constitution. All powers not specifically delegated to the federal government nor forbidden by the Constitution are reserved for the states or the people. That covers secession quite nicely.

By the way, if secession is unconstitutional, then West Virginia's government should be disbanded and the territory returned to Virginia.

You might be able to concoct a reasonable constitutional argument for secession or against secession. Concoct one that prevents the southern states from seceding...except when that secession benefits the Union.

Oh, yeah. Andersonville.

Item: compare death rates at Andersonville to Elmyra,NY.
Item: compare rations and access to medicine at Andersonville to a regular
CSA soldier's access to same during the same time period. Then make the same comparison between POW's at Elmyra and the Union soldier.
Item: The CSA tried continually, throughout the war, to exchange prisoners on a one for one basis.

Conclusion: When the CSA failed to provide adequate care to their POW's at Andersonville, it was also incapable of providing adequate care to its troops in the field. When the Union failed to provide adequate care to its POW's at Elmyra it was because the Union chose not to do so. The Union at that time had more supplies than it needed. The Union also possessed the capability throughout the existence of Andersonville to obtain the release of each and every person imprisoned there.

Leaky Waders

August 25, 2003, 01:32 PM

Just a small addition to my winded post above...

I would've fought for the South...because that's where I am from. If I were from the North, I would've been a yankee. If I were from england a redcoat, from a germany a reich's soldier. I wouldn't have had to believed the weird ideologies perpetuated by government to defend my loved ones and homeland. I think this rings true w/ most common soldiers.

Also, I think it's best that the North won - United we Stand, divided we fall kind of philosophy... Could you imagine the US being a little europe w/ the petty bickering of states ala britian and france and germany etc...When asked, my answer is I'm an American. It's not I'm a Floridian...

Glocker also made an excellent point concerning an enforced unity...like the soviet union.

We have a United States with a broad diversity that is pretty darned strong - it's kind of neat.

Oh well, back to work.

L.W.

Mike Irwin

August 25, 2003, 02:20 PM

Minion of the Zorgaxian Empire.

Tremble before our might, puny Blue & Gray.

Sgt

August 25, 2003, 02:36 PM

Minion of the Zorgaxian Empire.
Tremble before our might, puny Blue & Gray.

So what colors do Ya'll wear? Purple, or pink?;)

Mike Irwin

August 25, 2003, 02:57 PM

Thing of black. The blackest, darkest, most evil color you can thing of.

Ours is worse.

Dilettante

August 25, 2003, 05:28 PM

(Byron Quick)
That is a simplistic rationale re seccession and the Constitution. All powers not specifically delegated to the federal government nor forbidden by the Constitution are reserved for the states or the people. That covers secession quite nicely.

A nice line of reasoning I haven't seen in this context. I'm not sure this really works -- but I like it.

By the way, if secession is unconstitutional, then West Virginia's government should be disbanded and the territory returned to Virginia.

I don't remember the article, but the original constitution says explicitly that this is forbidden unless the state consents.
To get the right paperwork, the feds recognized a sort of "Union Virginia" legislature that permitted WV to secede. I don't know if that legislature ever did anything else (I assume it sort of morphed into the West Virginia legislature afterwards).

Item: The CSA tried continually, throughout the war, to exchange prisoners on a one for one basis.

Sort of...for a long time they refused to include black soldiers in this, since they were "property".

It doesn't sound as though either Elmira or Andersonville is a fair example of their side's overall treatment of prisoners. I don't know why Elmira was so bad, but it was clearly unusual. As for Andersonville, its commander was the only Confederate who was hanged for war crimes (!)

chaim

August 25, 2003, 05:28 PM

OK, it seems I have a lot to respond to so I'm going to break this up in a few posts:

From the US Constitution:

Article I, Section 10:
"No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.

No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay. "

This is forbidding states from acting as seperate nations, or from joining in a confederation of states or nations. They agreed to this when they ratified the Constitution.

For those who didn't like the term "treason" or "traitor" I direct you to Article IV, section
3 of the Constitution:

" Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted. "

So one of the definitions of Treason, as per the US Constitution, is making war against the United States.

It's lovely that you think so highly of legitimate govt being comprised of the consent of the governed, once you're in you're in for life, even if it is at the point of a bayonet? It seems that your 'Union' is a union in the same sense that the Soviet Union was comprised of states that wanted nothing to do with that govt but were being held to it by the point of a bayonet

Sorry Glock, doesn't work that way. Big difference between USSR type repression and simply keeping a country together. You as an individual are free to leave the US if you wish. You can move to any country you wish, renounce your citizenship and there you go. However, no country can survive long and allow itself to disintegrate. Big difference between the US and the USSR there buddy.

chaim

August 25, 2003, 05:31 PM

I find it interesting that you said you'd fight for the Union and didn't mention a single thing about slavery. So in part, you made my point for me. Most of the men who fought in the war fought and died for family and country.
Or maybe I simply choose to answer the original question, which stated to leave slavery out of it, instead of participating in the thread veer that had been going on.

Since you are bringing that into my post I'll respond. Of course slavery was a big part of the war! The war was not about slavery for the north in the beginning, sure enough, but they didn't start the war. The southern leaders succeeded from the Union over state's rights, sure that was part of it. But what was the tinder, the match? What issue brought on the state's rights issue, what specific right was it? Read a couple speeches from the time and you'll be left with absolutely no doubt that it was the continuation of slavery!

The thing is too, that Lincoln wasn't about to abolish slavery. What he was going to do, and what worried southern leaders, was he was going to stop the spread of slavery into the western territories. This terrified the southern plantation owners. They were afraid that when these slave-free territories became states, and gained votes in Washington, the power of the slave states would be dilluted and this would eventually lead to Congress passing a law abolishing slavery.

Now I am willing to grant that slavery wasn't the issue for most of the soldiers. At the time when you asked someone what was their country or nationality very few would say they were Americans or were from the USA, most would answer Virginia, Georgia, Maryland, New York. Further, it is true that most units were militia units or region, or even town based regular units so people were even fighting for their county, town or city and often for their friends. That is true to a degree today, in the trenches no one is fighting for an ideal, they are fighting for their buddies. However, that doesn't change the fact that the leadership of the south left the union because of slavery and that when it comes down to it this is what they were fighting over.

Oh, and for the guy who earlier mentioned his opinion that slavery wasn't abolished in the north until 1870, sorry you are wrong. The 13th Amendment which abolished slavery was established in 1865. What was established in 1870 was the 15th Amendment which Constitutionally guaranteed the right to vote for blacks and gave the Congress the power to enforce that right.
Oh, yeah. Andersonville...Um, all I mentioned was that I had family die there. In fact, these were men that people that my grandfather knew as a child knew (hmm, not sure if that sentence reads well- he knew people who knew them). These were very good family men, farmers, religious men, pillars of the community. These were men that the people my grandfather knew still missed half a century later. I was not getting into a pissing contest over which prison camp was worse. I've seen the southern apolygist arguements over why Andersonville isn't that bad. It was. So were some northern camps. I'm not about to downplay one evil to try to paint another as even worse. I'm not going to apolygize for one evil to discredit another. Both sides had people who treated prisoners of war horribly. That wasn't my point, nor is it an issue that I wish to discuss, because again, neither side is defensable.

As for the prisoner exchange... those are pretty rare in war and stratigically it would have been idiotic and possibly suicidal for the north to participate. Would you really expect the north which had no manpower shortage to turn over many tens of thousands of men who were still fit to fight (of course many more tens of thousands of others would have been too sick to fight) to the south which had a tremendous manpower shortage? This might have changed the outcome, and it certainly would have prolonged the war (leading to many more casualties on both sides).

chaim

August 25, 2003, 05:35 PM

Traitors is it? That's a mighty bold statement from a smartmouth who obviously doesn't know much U.S. history...
Here I'd simply have to say you do not have any idea what you are talking about! Do you regularly make such illogical conclusions and disparaging remarks about anyone who has the nerve to disagree with you. Because someone has a different interpretation of the facts you determine that they must be ignorant of the facts?

Not that it is any of your business, but I know an awful lot about history. Sure, I got my degree in psychology and I'm training to be a psychologist, but my real passion has been history my entire life- the only reason I'm not in graduate school for history is because I wish to have a job when I'm finished so I picked my second choice. I am thinking about getting an MA in history after I get my doctorate in psychology just for my own personal interest however, and I have been playing with the idea of writting a book on US history (I'm very loosely in the research stage right now).

I grew up with a father who had once been a graduate student in history (he left his Ph.D. program and fellowship when he decided he didn't want to be a college professor) and he did a good job of passing on his interest in history. Almost every family vacation was tied in with US history- Gettysburg, Williamsburg, Philidelphia, etc. etc. and we took quite a few weekend trips to such sites as well. I can't remember a time since I was about 8 that I wasn't in the process of reading at least one book on US history (usually military history or the history of the corresponding time period +/- 10 years, especially concentrating on some of our most significant wars- the Revolution, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, WWI and WWII). I didn't major in history but I took many history courses in college, and I've learned even more on my own (books, books and more books). Heck, when I was in 9th grade Social Studies my teacher brought things he wasn't sure of to me for clarification when we were on US History (his specialty was Geography). My original major was Secondary Education/Social Studies and I planned to be a history teacher before I realized that there simply weren't any jobs in the field. So you simply do not know what you are talking about here.

I'd appreciate you stay away from personal insults in the future just because you disagree with someone! I won't even go into the smartmouth part- jerk! I think the body of my 857 prior posts here speak for themselves pretty well that my thoughts and ideas tend to be well thought out and intelligent. Of course, if the majority agree with you and I'm not welcome here, I see no reason to stay where I'm unwelcome.
Few history books have even bothered to mention that, in December of 1814, the New England states held a secession convention in Hartford, Connecticut...
Really? I thought I remembered something about that in my university US History class, but since few history books mention it we must have spent that week learning about something else.

Sure, up to the Civil War the big issue in US politics was exactly how much power the state's had v. the federal government (an issue that continues to this day). This was compounded by the fact that not all rights must be directly mentioned in the Constitution and the fact that it was established early on by the Courts that the federal government was not limited to only the letter of the Constitution (interpretation by the Bench was an issue even most sucessionists agreed upon). What was generally agreed upon was that states didn't have the right to suceed on their own. Sure, from time to time a few states tested the waters so to speak, but why do you think no one tried before South Carolina finally did on December 24, 1860? Because they knew that this would lead to war! Why would it have led to war? Because most Americans and most states did not believe that sucession was allowed nor that it should be allowed. It took an issue as strong and emotional as the continuation of (and percieved threat to) slavery before anyone was willing to go through with it.

Waitone

August 25, 2003, 05:55 PM

Prisoner exchanges sound strange to our ears but during the Civil War it was common right up to General Grant assuming command of northern forces. His concept of total was precluded exchanging prisoners. Confederates has northern prisoners, they could barely care for its own troops, as the war ground on prisoners received less and less. Not hard to understand.

BTW, Andersonville was just one more example why the Civil War was the first modern war.

Dilettante

August 25, 2003, 06:20 PM

(Chaim)
However, no country can survive long and allow itself to disintegrate.

Chaim,
as you know, my overall sympathies are with the Union, both because of slavery and to prevent the dissolution of the USA.
The problem you're talking about is an old one -- arbitrary secession cannot be tolerated or the whole entity will no longer exist. And in the US in particular, one of the fundamental checks and balances is between the federal and state governments--the states help protect us from Washington, and Washington helps protect us from the states. This was always part of the strategy to protect liberty, not just after the Civil War, but from the 1780s.
But I do want to point out that there's another way of addressing this: a recognized, legal, time-consuming, discouraging, bureaucratic means of secession with significant political risks even if you win (like losing parts of the state that voted to stay with the union).

I also want to ask, what do people think the CSA would have been like after 3 or 4 decades? Because we ended up back together, many people imagine it like Canada: more or less like the US, but with a border in between. But it's easy to imagine an outcome like Cuba or North Korea, with huge resources put into holding slaves and maintaining the system, military adventures into Mexico and the Caribbean, while most of the society gets poorer and poorer and most young people try to move to the US.

Hkmp5sd

August 25, 2003, 06:21 PM

Those of you who claim it was a voluntary union, look carefully. US law provided for voluntary acceptance of the Constitution and joining of the US, if you look carefully there are no provisions for legal secession from that contract anywhere in either the Constitution or other US law.
There is no provision in the Constitution for Federal Income Tax either.

The leaders of the Southern states at that time thought that they were merely exercising a right, not starting a revolution.

No one thought there would be a war and many thought that some compromise would be worked out to keep the Union or SC would just go their own way. ONLY when Lincoln began calling up troops in order to invade the South did the South realize what was happening.

When Lincoln started gathering troops, he asked the governors of the border states to start rounding up troops and then transfer them to his command. The governor of Delaware informed Lincoln that as governor, he had no lawful authority for raising troops.

And since we're gonna bring up legalities, there was nothing in the Constitution that provided that Lincoln could raise troops either.

Lincoln, acting on his own, began the process of starting the war. He called a special session of Congress to meet on July 4th, which was 2.5 months after he starting raising troops.

During this time, before Congress met,
...free from interference, he drove ahead to organize his war, making laws and breaking them as he had need to, creating armies, enlarging the Navy, declaring blockades, exercising all the war powers of Congress.
- The Story of the Confederacy

BTW, an interesting sidenote, in the District of Columbia, slavery was legal throughout the war.

Sgt

August 25, 2003, 06:45 PM

Thing of black. The blackest, darkest, most evil color you can thing of.

Mike, I THINK You'd look better in another color :rolleyes: But good luck with that "black" thing you've got going...:scrutiny:

chaim

August 25, 2003, 07:14 PM

But I do want to point out that there's another way of addressing this: a recognized, legal, time-consuming, discouraging, bureaucratic means of secession with significant political risks even if you win (like losing parts of the state that voted to stay with the union).Again, while no provisions were written in to allow sucession, there are a few ways it could have been done.

Negotiation with federal authorities: Of course the federal government has no authority in the Constitution to allow the country to splinter, but a Constitutional Amendment could always have been proposed to allow just that. I'd have nothing wrong with a well written amendment that made it difficult to secede. This would of course be the legal way to do so.

War. Which is of course, the way the south went. Also, as an American I see the leadership as traitors. Of course, the British saw us that way during and after the Revolution. Had the south won their leaders would have been seen by them as great patriots (as unfortunately, many southerners see them anyway), and even in the north they would have been eventually grungingly accepted (in the same way that the Brits eventually accepted us, and while some still see men like Washington as traitors, and face it they were traitors to their then country, many/most now see them differently). I guess the way history would see them had they suceeded in seceeding would largely depend upon what kind of country they left (and I suggest that one that would have probably had slavery into the 20th Century probably would not have been seen very favorably in modern times).

I also want to ask, what do people think the CSA would have been like after 3 or 4 decades? Because we ended up back together, many people imagine it like Canada: more or less like the US, but with a border in between. But it's easy to imagine an outcome like Cuba or North Korea, with huge resources put into holding slaves and maintaining the system, military adventures into Mexico and the Caribbean, while most of the society gets poorer and poorer and most young people try to move to the US.

Hard to say. Slavery probably would have continued for decades longer. The south would have been virtually bankrupted. Most of the commercial and manufacturing might of the nation was in the north. Neither country would have been what we became (I fear that both would have been no stronger than perhaps Canada or maybe even Mexico today). There probably would have been further wars over western territory. There would have been very raw feelings (as there were after the reunification of the country) that probably would have stood in the way of the kind of treaties we had with England re. the Northwest Territories and without the treaties I'm sure the Union and the Confederacy would have fought at least one more war over some western territories.

Heck, when the two countries were much weaker than the one it might have been very possible that Mexico might have ceased on the opportunity to try to get back some of the territory they lost just 20 years before.

More opptimistically, perhaps with the close ties of northern and southern families, shared history, historic commercial ties and proximity making each other natural trading partners it might be possible that there would have been a better outcome. Perhaps no second western war, but still we would be a shadow of what we became economically and militarily when united.

chaim

August 25, 2003, 07:16 PM

There is no provision in the Constitution for Federal Income Tax either. Let me reword this to be a little more polite:

The 16th Amendment to the Constitution provides for a Federal Income Tax. An amendment to the Constitution is a part of the Constitution so it is indeed provided for in the Constitution.

Hkmp5sd

August 25, 2003, 07:30 PM

Thanks for educating me.

No problem. You're welcome. :)

I was under the impression that we were discussing the 1860s.

Income tax was introduced in 1862. The 16th Amendment didn't happen until 1913. If secession was unconstitutional during that time because it was not mentioned in the Constitution, so was income tax.

chaim

August 25, 2003, 07:37 PM

There was an attempt at an income tax during the Civil War. It could have been interpreted either way under Article I, section 8 of the Constitution:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; "

It clearly gives the Congress the power to tax. However, the Supreme Court ruled (interpreted) that an income tax was unconstitutional after which the federal government had to return to more indirect forms of taxation until the 16th Amendment passed. So yes, there was an income tax for a time during the Civil War, until the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional (and it is not clearly unconsitutional based on Article I, section 8 and very well could have gone either way).

Dilettante

August 25, 2003, 07:57 PM

No one thought there would be a war and many thought that some compromise would be worked out to keep the Union or SC would just go their own way. ONLY when Lincoln began calling up troops in order to invade the South did the South realize what was happening.

I'm not sure how this is meant. The Confederacy certainly prepared for war, and many people expected it.

BTW, an interesting sidenote, in the District of Columbia, slavery was legal throughout the war.

This is not correct.
Slavery was abolished in DC in April 1862, and in US territories in June 1862.
There were also negotiations with politicians in the border states to arrange compensated emancipation. They refused.

Hkmp5sd

August 25, 2003, 08:01 PM

This is not correct.

Oops, you're right. I stand corrected.

Dilettante

August 25, 2003, 08:04 PM

Oops, you're right. I stand corrected.

WOW!! This guy is a class act! :cool:

Glock Glockler

August 25, 2003, 08:42 PM

"No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation..."

Chaim,

All that stuff only applies to states within the union. Would all those rules apply to Rhode Island in the time period between when the Constitution was ratified by the other 12 states and when they finally did so? I think not, as they were their own independant state, and just as the Southern states declared their own independance.

What those rules would have prohibited was a state within the union engaging in those activities, and in that case it would have been a good idea. So yes, if a state wants to remain part of the USA they cannot similtaniously join the EU. It is not a good things to have states messing around in foreign diplomacy and what not, but a seperate nation (CSA) has as much right to do so as the US has to do so after seceeding from England, or should the Brit govt have "kept the empire together" even if it took genocide?

For that matter, do you even believe in the self-determination of peoples? I thought we were all about that. Should the Czechs still be part of the German Reich of Bismark and Wilhelm II, they were free to leave after all? Should Isreal be it's own state, maybe it should go back to the Turkish Ottoman empire? We can't allow countries to discintigrate now can we? Actually, why can't we? Do you believe in freedom?

Why is it that if the people of a state overwhelmingly want to leave and go their own way, you'd support killing them as opposed to letting them go and do their own thing? Do the other states somehow own the state that wants to go, or have some other claim on it? Do other people have a claim on you if you choose to leave a gentlemen's club or whatever other voluntary association you join, or are you just a part of the hive that expendable to the wishes of others? Well, if one person cannot make such a claim, how can a state, which is nothing more than a body representing a group of people?

cuchulainn

August 25, 2003, 09:00 PM

Chaim,

Would you have been proud to fight the traitors that were the Continental Army? ;)

Leaky Waders

August 26, 2003, 12:23 AM

interesting points all...as for the term traitor and ignoble innuendos hurled at the Patriotic Southerners ;)

Who betrayed who?

The South for leaving a Union that through decades prior to the Civil war methodically bullied the Southerners way of life and economy?

The South...for leaving a system of government that no longer represented their people? After all, if your government isn't for the people...who is it for?

The South...for seeing the Bloodshed in Kansas and recognizing the inevitable consequence of their status in the Union?

The North...for a scorched earth policy on non-military targets?

The North...for rewriting history "The War to End Slavery" (Just like WW2 was the war to end death camps).

As far as the legality of leaving the Union...Lincoln didn't take South Carolina to court...the consent to be governed no longer existed in that Confederation of States...right or wrong...the states left the Union and later rejoined. That leaving and rejoining was acknowledged by the Union. Their citizenry was treated much differently while outside of the Union. They were not treated as felons or traitors - they were not hanged indiscrimantely - they were treated as prisoners of war.

The war happened...and our country was much more stabilized by it than if it were avoided w/ compromising laws. Like I said before, it would suck to be living in the new europe of america...50 states w/ their own currencies and exchange rates. 50 different anniversaries of independence. 50 different tax rates. Tennessee invading Florida because Peyton Manning could never beat them...Mississippi invading Louisiana for creole recipes...Georgia uniting with the Russian Georgia just because they're spelled the same...it would be chaos.

L.W.

Mike Irwin

August 26, 2003, 12:52 AM

Glock,

Does this look familiar?

"No State, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, shall send any embassy to, or receive any embassy from, or enter into any conference, agreement, alliance or treaty with any King, Prince or State; nor shall any person holding any office of profit or trust under the United States, or any of them, accept any present, emolument, office or title of any kind whatever from any King, Prince or foreign State; nor shall the United States in Congress assembled, or any of them, grant any title of nobility."

It's article VI of the Articles of Confederation. Under that document, the individual states bound themselves to the same provision that they would bind themselves to under the Constitution.

The Articles of Confederation were in full force until the moment that the Constitution was ratified by the appropriate number of states.

Mike Irwin

August 26, 2003, 12:55 AM

Hey Waders...

Don't for a moment try to claim the high road for the South in Bloody Kansas, or anywhere else where the issue of slavery in a territory was in question.

BOTH sides were killing with extreme violence, and both sides were dying.

Mike Irwin

August 26, 2003, 01:00 AM

Computer flake,

"4) Since slaves were considered property (like a horse or wagon is property) and most of the Southern boys who fought in the Civil War never even SAW a slave...."

Except when it was time to apportion seats for the House of Representatives.

Then the Southern slave owners wanted their "property" to also count as people.

I'm sure that was of great comfort to the slaves...

"Hey Rastus!"

"Yessum Massah Sir?"

"Great news, today you're officially 3/5ths of a person!"

fallingblock

August 26, 2003, 03:33 AM

"Hey Rastus!"

"Yessum Massah Sir?"

"Great news, today you're officially 3/5ths of a person!"

;):rolleyes:

JohnBT

August 26, 2003, 07:46 AM

From www.donsides.com/Philosophy.html

"Mrs. Julia Grant, following her husband on the Mississippi Central Railroad Campaign, Nov/Dec 1862, stayed at the Walter House in Holly Springs, Mississippi, having brought along several of her slaves. General Grant had purchased a slave in 1858, which was sold shortly before the war started.

The General did not own slaves during the time of the war, but Mrs. Grant maintained hers until they were freed by the issuance of Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, about a month after she entered Holly Springs.

During Mrs. Grant's stay at the Walter House she was taken to a local dress shop, wherein she was engaged in conversation concerning the war:

"Then they talked of the Constitution, telling me the action of the government was unconstitutional. Well, I did not know a thing about this dreadful Constitution, and told them so. They seemed very much astonished and asked, "Why surely you have studied it?" "No, I have not; I would not know where to look for it even if I wished to read it, and besides, the Northern people think and say it is unconstitutional for any of the states to secede." I really was much grieved at my ignorance on these matters, but since then I have learned that even the chief justice is sometimes puzzled over the interpretation of this same Constitution."

The Personal Memoirs of Mrs. Julia Dent Grant
Page 106

Mike Irwin

August 26, 2003, 11:37 AM

"Well, at least that was in the Constitution."

Silly me!

That makes EVERYTHING right with the world, then!

ComputerFlake

August 26, 2003, 06:16 PM

Since you are bringing that into my post I'll respond. Of course slavery was a big part of the war! The war was not about slavery for the north in the beginning, sure enough, but they didn't start the war. The southern leaders succeeded from the Union over state's rights, sure that was part of it. But what was the tinder, the match? What issue brought on the state's rights issue, what specific right was it? Read a couple speeches from the time and you'll be left with absolutely no doubt that it was the continuation of slavery!

There was quite a bit more to succession than just slavery. Slavery was a large issue, I agree. But the South didn't decide to leave the Union simply because of slavery. It was a host of problems with which the South did not agree. Such as the North demanding upgraded roads, waterways, and railroads and wanting the federal government to pay for it. The South saw this as spending their money and getting nothing in return. There were also issues of tariffs being pressed by the North which weighed heavily against the South. The South did not feel justified in tariffs against their cotton, which was a main source of income for the South. The decisions over a national bank and currency also were one-sided and disagreed upon by the South. When the issue of ending slavery entered the picture it was enough to send representatives packing. So slavery may have been the straw that broke the camel's back but it wasn't the initial catalyst. The storm had been brewing for years before slavery was even an issue. I think we both agree on the biggest part: the South succeeded because the rich white men wanted to put money back into their pockets.

"Hey Rastus!"

"Yessum Massah Sir?"

"Great news, today you're officially 3/5ths of a person!"

Hahah I should make this my tagline. That's the funniest thing I've read today!

Dilettante

August 26, 2003, 06:56 PM

JohnBT: I am confused. The paragraphs don't seem to be written from the same point of view.

Which paragraphs come from Julia Grant's memoirs, and which come from some other source?

I have heard many times that USG owned one slave from 1858 to 59; the story has always been that he was a present from Julia's father, a wealthy landowner, and that Ulysses freed him outright in 1859 (i.e. before he knew there would be a war and before he returned to the army).

Hkmp5sd

August 26, 2003, 07:11 PM

I'm not sure how this is meant. The Confederacy certainly prepared for war, and many people expected it.

Yes, the South did prepare for war, but only after Lincoln began raising an army with the announced goal of invading the Confederate states. Until that time, most of the state leaders in the South didn't consider their secession would lead to war. They believed that their withdrawal from the Union was a legal action under the Constitution.

There had been several instances since the Constitution was adopted that some states, for one reason or another, decided they would just leave the Union. These were overcome by negotiations that worked out their differences. Leading up to the Civil War, many in the Southern political leadership thought this would also be the result of their saber rattling and secession. Once Lincoln started gathering his troops, war was inevitable.

Glock Glockler

August 26, 2003, 08:48 PM

Mike,

Slavery was legal under the US Federal govt, so why are you trying to absolve that govt of responsibility and blame the south? The fact that there was slavery in the "Union" states nullifies any attempt to claim moral responsibility. The fact of the matter is that is was primarily a war to retain control over territory and people that did not want to be controlled.

Didn't Lincoln himself say that his intention was not to eradicate nor preserve slavery, but to preserve the union?

Leaky Waders

August 26, 2003, 08:51 PM

Hey Irwin...

I don't for a moment claim the high road or acknowledge the low road for the South in Bloody Kansas, or anywhere else where the issue of slavery in a territory was in question.

BOTH sides were killing with extreme violence, and both sides were dying.

However...in Kansas...one side was fighting for their rights under the law of the land...slavery wasn't illegal. Their opponents were fighting to push their moral beliefs upon those who didn't agree with them. How far would these radicals go? By storming an arsenal and trying to flame a slave rebellion amongst the States that were considered immoral...how thoughtful.

L.W.

cuchulainn

August 26, 2003, 09:09 PM

Didn't Lincoln himself say that his intention was not to eradicate nor preserve slavery Indeed, slavery was not eradicated, and the Union victors specifically allowed it under certain, narrow circumstances when they added the 13th Amendment (though Abe, obviously, was not a part of that process). That form of slavery remains perfectly constitutional to this day.

Does anyone know how much the form of slavery preserved in the 13th Amendment has been used and abused over the last 140ish years?

How much do we enslave people today, or has the practice died out despite it still being 100% constitutional in narrow circumstances?

Soap

August 26, 2003, 09:36 PM

This is like asking would you rather eat pig crap or dog crap. The North was wrong because a state has a right to secede. The South was wrong because any government that allows slavery within its borders is same as allowing rape, theft, murder, etc.

Therefore both governments are illegitimate in a major fashion. Both sides suck. And that is my official stance on it. :)

cuchulainn

August 26, 2003, 09:42 PM

any government that allows slavery within its borders is same as allowing rape, theft, murder, etc. To this day, the U.S. Constitution allows slavery in narrow circumstances.

JohnBT

August 26, 2003, 10:21 PM

Dilettante - I've added the URL for the statement to my earlier post. I'm still having trouble making posts before timing out, but not as much trouble as I had earlier today at the office. Check out the casualty figures at the bottom of the page, too. JT

Glock Glockler

August 26, 2003, 10:27 PM

Mr. Flory,

I'm curious why you made no mention of that fact that the North allowed slavery within it's borders as well, and that the Federal govt even used slaves for manual labor over the course of the war. Both govts allowed slavery, so on those grounds they are on equal footing, but the North went a few steps further and invaded the South, which only wanted to be left alone.

I fail to see how the two can be considered equals.

fallingblock

August 26, 2003, 10:46 PM

The average Southron in the ranks was not fighting for the institution of slavery. It was one of the factors which contributed to the onset of war, but those boys were fighting for their state, not the slaveowner. The vast majority of Yankees (including my great grandpa, if his correspondence is to be believed) were fighting for the union, not the slaves. The slavery issue was not a winner outside the abolitionist's stronghold of the Northeast.

Do those of you who watched Ken Burns' series remember delightful old Shelby Foote's narration of the incident where some Yankees asked their Confederate captive why he was fighting...and the Confederate replied:
"Because you are here".:D

It was a much simpler and more rural nation in those days. Aside from the major urban centers in the Northeast, most of the United States population lived in small towns and on farms. The concept of state's rights held great appeal for such provincial settlement dwellers...

It holds great appeal for some of us today:D

Soap

August 26, 2003, 11:50 PM

Glockler- Fine, so the North allowed slavery. This just reaffirms the fact that they both suck. ;)

Sgt

August 27, 2003, 01:08 AM

Glockler- Fine, so the North allowed slavery. This just reaffirms the fact that they both suck.

Flory,

Let me guess, you are a history professor at Purdue University

I sure hope you aren't in the English Dept.......:p

If you were educating my son, I do believe I'd ask for my money back!!:scrutiny:

Good luck with that chip on your shoulder.....it looks really heavy......

ComputerFlake

August 27, 2003, 10:47 AM

How much do we enslave people today, or has the practice died out despite it still being 100% constitutional in narrow circumstances?

Honestly, I think slavery still exists today but in another form. Hispanics are slaves today. Slaves to the system. They come into this country illegally and we put them to work doing sgut jobs and pay them practically nothing. It's better than living in Mexico, so I understand it, but they are no less slaves than blacks were who worked on a plantation and were paid nothing more than the ability to live, eat, and have shelter.

But I guess blacks didn't have low-riders during the Civil War so the comparison isn't really valid. As long as I get a good deal on my taco, I can live with it. :D

On a serious note, I wonder how long it'll be before we see Martin Luther Valdez, Jr take a stand for the hispanic community and start demanding equal pay and equal rights? According to recent polls, hispanics already outnumber blacks in the US. I imagine their freedom plight happen soon.

JohnBT

August 27, 2003, 11:21 AM

"...take a stand for the hispanic community and start demanding equal pay and equal rights?"

You missed it. Check out the United Farm Workers, the grape strike and the nationwide lettuce boycott of the mid-1960s. Do a search on the union leader Chavez.

And I don't see how you equate the hispanic/latino group with plantation slaves. Do the Mexicans working here get chased down and shot if they leave their jobs? Your logic eludes me.

John

Soap

August 27, 2003, 11:48 AM

Sgt- Actually Glockler and I are good friends...so my statements are mostly in jest to him. FYI I'm a Management student at Purdue...and I've only received "A"s in my Engrish crasses. ;)

I'm sorry but no one has provided me with evidence that either side was right. Once again, the North accepted slavery on some levels like Glockler said, and they did not allow states to secede. The South was wrong because they had legal slavery. Regardless of their intentions after the war, they allowed slavery, plain and simple. Its not like we're talking Axis vs. Allied here, since both the North and South were in the wrong.

Sgt

August 27, 2003, 04:10 PM

Dear Mr. Flory,

I'm glad you got the humor in my post :D

Sounds like you are doing well at Purdue, but I do question what you have been taught about the War Between the States.....

It's not your fault, our education system is run by out of control liberals with an agenda. It starts in Kindergarten and gets worse from there. As with most any topic, one should keep an open mind and do some research, before arriving at a hasty conclusion. I agree that slavery was wrong, but it was legal in the land of yankees, as well as in my beloved Confederacy. Not to mention, that it really was a small part of the reason for the conflict. The winner, writes the history books....pure and simple. And they have been rewritten several times for various reasons, that include promoting animosity between blacks and whites and to feed the weak minded's feelings of guilt. My Ancestor's, both white and Choctaw Indian, owned slaves and I feel no guilt. There are good things and bad things that have happened since the beginning of time and those of us alive today are not responsible for them, anymore than those who fought the War Between the States. They inherited slavery from the British and French......

In any case, I hope that you continue to do well in school.

Good Luck, Sgt

ComputerFlake

August 27, 2003, 04:43 PM

You missed it. Check out the United Farm Workers, the grape strike and the nationwide lettuce boycott of the mid-1960s. Do a search on the union leader Chavez.

And I don't see how you equate the hispanic/latino group with plantation slaves. Do the Mexicans working here get chased down and shot if they leave their jobs? Your logic eludes me.

First of all, no one holds sit-in protests because of and sings songs about Chavez. I'm talking about someone worthy of a holiday. That person hasn't come along for the hispanic community yet. Unless you count Jesus el Christo.

Not all slaves were unhappy people who were shot for running away. Plenty of them never wanted slavery to end. I just finished reading a story about a black woman who said she was less happy with freedom than slavery because she had nothing and lived like a rat after Northern troops forced her family from her plantation. Your logic of why a slave couldn't also be happy eludes me.

Mexicans working here may not be chased down but they are treated like animals in some instances and are paid substantially less than white Americans. It can be likened to slavery in that situation.

Sgt

August 27, 2003, 05:09 PM

Mexicans working here may not be chased down but they are treated like animals in some instances and are paid substantially less than white Americans. It can be likened to slavery in that situation.

ComputerFlake,

Don't forget about us white folk......There are a lot of white people and American Indians, who would love to have what the Mexicans do. And no matter how bad you think they are treated, they've got it much better here than back home. Of course if we shot them as they crossed over and sealed off our border, we'd be better off....but if they weren't doing better here, they wouldn't be coming, now would they?

Sgt

TamThompson

August 27, 2003, 06:02 PM

What Felonius said on the first page!

The CSA. We would've eventually done the right thing and freed the slaves, probably within 10-20 years.

And damned right, Texans are mad! We still have the right to break up into 5 states, you know, so I wouldn't push us. ;)

Hkmp5sd

August 27, 2003, 06:33 PM

We still have the right to break up into 5 states, you know, so I wouldn't push us.

Do it! Please! We could use the extra 8 republican senators in Washington. :)

TamThompson

August 27, 2003, 06:45 PM

Mmm, no. I don't vote Republican, so...no. Not all Texans are Republicans. Witness the huge fight we're having over redistricting, engineered by Tom DeLay. I mean, c'mon, a district that carves up Austin so that we deliberately lose Lloyd Dogget (Dem.) and we're in a district with the Rio Grand Valley? Doesn't make sense.

Glock Glockler

August 27, 2003, 08:47 PM

Mr. Flory,

Speaking of Axis v Allies, who do you prefer on the Eastern Front? Not quite a simple as it seems now is it?

What about at Thermoplea? The Greeks are championed as the good guys but Athens was a Democracy that allowed murder as long as the majority voted for it (Socrates), Sparta was a police state, and neither one recognized the rights of women, and both had slavery, so would you fight with them or the Persians?

Would you prefer the English nobles or the English King if a war would have ensued over the Magna Carta? Were either one champions of freedom and property rights of the common man?

None of the above mentioned groups are very good by your standards, so which would you prefer? I know exactly who I would prefer.

War is nothing more than a military solution to a political problem, and politics is the art of the possible. While ancient Greece was nothing Chris II would be itching to move to it was certainly better than the society of the Persians who did not recognize the right to self government, which was the significant difference between them and the Greeks. Many of the Americans that fought against the Brits in the revolutionary war owned slaves and though women as little better, but does that not mean that they are the better of the two?

Political change is often slow, especially when it's for the better, but you do not achieve it by persuing progress because the side is not perfect. The failed war of Southern independence was a rebellion against the growing tyranny of the Federal govt that seeks to make all Americans into slaves regardless of their color, which I hardly think is conducive to freedom.

I think AHenry said it best: 'I'd fight like hell to preverve the CSA, then once that was accomplished I'd fight like hell to end slavery'.

Marko Kloos

August 27, 2003, 08:53 PM

Witness the huge fight we're having over redistricting, engineered by Tom DeLay. I mean, c'mon, a district that carves up Austin so that we deliberately lose Lloyd Dogget (Dem.) and we're in a district with the Rio Grand Valley? Doesn't make sense.

The Democrats successfully gerrymandered the districts back in the early 1990s, so that the Republicans have a minority of seats, even though they have a majority of total House votes.

Cosmoline

August 27, 2003, 09:07 PM

I'm with the CSA on this one. Slavery was disgusting, but the union did not fight to free the slaves until it had no other choice. Moreover, the freedom the slaves obtained was short-lived, and quickly replaced with Jim Crow and de facto indentured servitude. In time slavery would have been abolished in the CSA, and without the bloodshed of the war or the elogated troubles of the 20th century. I'm convinced that much of the southern resistance to civil rights was because they were being told they HAD TO.

Aside from the slavery issue, the north had little valid grounds for the invasion. If its purpose was to reclaim federal properties, it could have done so without total war.

Besides, the ONLY good thing to come out of the Civil War on the political level was abolition. The blocade forced the UK to look elsewhere for its cotton, which spurred the British colonization of India, Africa, and plenty of other places. It also led the way to the US becoming a great power by the 1890's. This, in turn, led to our own attempts to build an empire, our involvement in foreign affairs. Our intrusion into the European conflict in WWI basically forced Germany to concede. If US troops (and more importantly--the threat of millions more US troops) had not been there, Germany could have and almost certainly would have smashed through to Paris. Thus the bigger dog would have won, and there would have been no WWII, no loss of countless millions of lives.

And today we'd have two fine, wealthy republics instead of one not-so-fine empire.

Bigjake

August 27, 2003, 09:15 PM

some awesome discusion going here, to the point where i just read the whole 5 pages in their entirety.... i think the CSA was in the right, but thats just me. all this boils down to though is beating a dead horse.

telomerase

August 27, 2003, 09:47 PM

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20030827/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq_costs_2

Soap

August 27, 2003, 10:45 PM

Sgt- Don't worry sir, I have thick skin :) To be completely honest, my formal education about most aspects of history is nil. I learn everything through reading, the History Channel, and by reading threads like this/talking to people like Glockler or Chris II/etc. At first getting plummeled on a history thread used to embarass me, but now I try to get people like Glockler fired up so he can throw me some interesting bones to chew on. I understand you sentiment exactly on formal education...especially things that are not hard sciences. Subjects like history, poli sci, English, etc. are not taught very well at all. But I guess I can just hang onto my poop scoop for dear life and just start digging :D Thanks for the well wishes BTW!

Glockler- Now that is good stuff! I see exactly what you are trying to say. I wasn't thinking of it in the context of generations, rather in the context of a single person's lifetime.

Sgt

August 27, 2003, 11:17 PM

Daniel,

I finally get it.....

Glockler is the professor and you his willing student;)

I feel much better now:D

Semper Fi, Sgt

4v50 Gary

August 27, 2003, 11:23 PM

Slavery was one factor that gave rise to the war. Lincoln addressed it in his inaugural address and promised to leave the institution intact. While the majority of men who wore the gray (and butternut) did not own slaves nor cared a wit about them, they were concerned about states' rights and afraid that their lives (as miserable as some may been) was threatened by the North.

By the same token, most of the boys in blue didn't march off to free the slaves. Some certainly did. Robert Gould Shaw and several officers of the 54th Massachusetts were abolitionists. What did that majority fight for then? Why, to preserve the Union (and for the honor of the Nation). Remember the song, Battle Cry Freedom? It goes, "The Union forever, hurrah, boys hurrah! Down with the traitors, up with the Star"[/i]

Don't forget about the Draft Riots, the biggest of which was in NY and protrayed in the movie, Gangs of New York. The rioters didn't want to die for slaves and killed many folks of African descent living there. They even burnt down an orphanage and killed any kids not rescued by the firefighters or police. As a sidenote, the repression of the riot was my favorite scene. The Federal troops had just won a great victory at a small town called Gettysburg and were incensed and saw the rioters as traitors. When they marched north to restore order, they were happy about it (also beats fighting Rebels who can give as good as they receive).

Was seccession wrong? Apparently not. Nothing in the Constitution prohibited it. Recall that Jeff Davis was never tried as a "traitor" for leading the rebellion. The North had another "tricky" issue to contend with too. Remember West Virginia? Well, that was part of the Old Dominion State until McClellan wrested control of it from her. The North then allowed the residents to secede and form a new state. How does this tie in? Well, if a portion of a state could secede, then why not a state from the Union? That was one embarassing issue that no one wanted to raise should Jeff go to trial.

The mistake the South made was firing upon Fort Sumter. They should have starved Anderson out (before being fired upon, Anderson ran out of Hard Tack and his mess sergeants were serving rice and salt pork). He would have left in another 24 hours anyway. Beauregard couldn't wait (and didn't know if another supply attempt was going to be made). Both sides were naive in thinking it would be a quick war. Lincoln called for 75,000 men for 90 days. Everybody believed one battle and it would be all over. 600,000 dead later, opps. Too bad the family feud wasn't resolved diplomatically.

I would like to close with comments about Wirtz and Andersonville. Byron is right in that the South could not deliver food stuff to the PoWs. There were many unnecessary deaths associated with starvation. Wirtz to his credit complained to Conf. General Richard Lee (see Destruction and Reconstruction, p 216, "In this journey through Georgia, at Andersonville, I passed in sight of a large stockade inclosing prisoners of war... a man who said his name was Wirtz... complained of the inadequacy of his guard and of the want of supplies, as the adjacent region was sterile and thinly populated. He also said that the prisoners were suffering from cold, were destitute of blankets, and that he had not the wagons to supply fuel. He showed me duplicates of requisitions and appeals for relief that he had made to different authorities...").

Wirtz was no angel though. Prisoners complained that he robbed them and that his guards were brutal (the original camp guards were soldiers and treated the prisoners with empathy but when they were replaced with 2nd line troops - old men & young boys, the cruelty really got bad). In Writz's defense, the Confederate supply system was horrible. Supplies (including food) did not reach their own armies and rotted in depots. Unlike the North which appointed a railroad man in charge of all railroads, the Southern railroads continued to operate for profit and if the military had to wait by the wayside, so be it. That's one advantage of a centralized federal government over a confederate one. The Confederates couldn't do that without risking become a "federal" government. Finally, the cutting off of PoW exchange didn't help any (blame Grant & Lincoln). However, partial blame must fall on the Confederates themselves since the Union wanted to exchange 1:1. However, the Confederates refused to recognize Afro-Union soldiers and would not exchange them. Since they refused, the Union refused altogether. Unfortunately, men on both sides suffered and languished in prisons because of it.

Sean Smith

August 28, 2003, 08:55 AM

I would say the Civil War is largely the fault of the Southern politicians, who initiated secession to pretect their personal material interest in the continuation and expansion of slave power, and plowed under hundreds of thousands of boys to try to preserve it. As their own public statements attest (reading those pesky primary sources again, sorry... ;) ), they considered slavery a positive moral good, not something that was a necessary evil that would eventually go away. So the claim that slavery would have gone away on its own seems specious to me if the slave owners were making alot of money off it and thought God said it was good to go. Because you know how eager people are to abandon ways of getting rich that have God's seal of approval on 'em.

The State's Right's claim is true as far as it goes, but again by actually reading the primary source material it is clear that the "right" to own slaves was the paramount concern of the Southern politicians. The fact that they could dupe otherwise disinterested farmboys into fighting with some ersatz visions of herrenvolk democracy or wild stories about Republican-sanctioned forced negro sex with their sisters just goes to prove that the public at large is stupid.

Even if you somehow accept that this circimstance can co-exist with being on the "right" side, you have to recognize that secession was a suicidal strategy that made certain all the bugaboos that the war was supposed to prevent in the first place. It directly lead to a vast expansion in federal power and set the South as a whole back 100 years. Even if we accept for a moment that the South was fighting for all the right reasons, and that secession was perfectly legal, we are still forced to conclude that the war itself was folly on an immense scale... a gamble for high stakes where the other guy has the stacked deck.