Confederate or Union?

Status
Not open for further replies.

ComputerFlake

Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
67
Location
Antioch, TN
Hello everyone. I'm new here and I'm not trying to start a second Civil War. I just wanted to know how you feel. Are you sympathetic to the CSA or Union? States rights or central goverment? This is a political question and does not pertain to slavery.

I believe in one country but I also believe the states should be able to work things out for themselves. Why bother having states? I also have many members of my family who fought and died for the South in the Civil War. I'll say I lean toward Confederate ideals but I believe the proper side won. Your opinion?

By the way, is anyone shooting 1860s model rifles? I've thought about buying one and having it certified for shooting. Just wondered if anyone ever fires .577 muskets anymore.
 
Welcome to THR.

Book recomendation: Yankee Leviathan; The Orignis of the Central State Authority in America 1859-1877, Richard Franklin Bensel, 1990, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-39817-7

Bensel gives a pretty compelling case that the CSA had a bureaucracy set up that could have evolved into something similar to what we have today.

Remember, the massive federal expansion in the 1930s (New Deal) was done largely with Southern support. If the same depression had hit the CSA, would a similar expansion have occured in Richmond's bureaucracy?
 
I'd probably hunker down and head for the hills - Don't really like the aims of either side...

In the United States, one doesn't have to have a rifle "certified" for shooting, and many black powder civil-war-era replica firearms are available. Where are you from?
 
I agree with ComputerFlake that the right side won. I don't think it's possible to disentangle the actual conflict from the attempt to preserve slavery.

In general I think it's better if states (in any country) have some legal way to secede, just as we have a legal way to amend the Constitution. Both should be difficult and take a long time.
 
I just recently purchased the Civil War documentary by "Ken Burns" which I would strongly encourage all to watch. :)

Although Im a Yankee, I am sympathetic to the south in that it was bullied. Slavery was coming to an end. This was widely accepted in the south. It was understood and I believe that the south by its own power, would have eventually helped to see that come to pass. Lincoln on the other hand couldnt wait. And thats where I support the south in breaking from the union.

I would say to that had the south had a stronger industrial base, Lee would have won the war. He was the better General. Period. I also admire him greatly for supporting the end of slavery but not abandoning his southern people. He is in my opinion, America's greatest General.


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

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top