The Civil War thread

[Dee Dee Warren]

just figured it needed to be started - I am very interested in this period of history and I watched Cold Mountain tonight

sad, I cried

[Gideon Brown]

I've been to Gettysburg. It's pretty cool, if you like big fields with nothing in them. :nsm:

[Cyrus Johnson]

just figured it needed to be started - I am very interested in this period of history and I watched Cold Mountain tonight

sad, I cried

I too am interested, but your thread seems very broad as the Civil War covers a lot of territory. Can you narrow the subject down down a bit?

[Mr. Tinkles]

And one presumes that you mean the American Civil War

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

just figured it needed to be started - I am very interested in this period of history and I watched Cold Mountain tonight

sad, I cried

Did you read the book? I liked both, but I had a few misgivings.

In about a month, we're going up to Winchester, VA for the 110th National Skirmish. We're a Confederate militia and usually end up pretty well shooting muskets. There are about 5,000 people who participate, and it carries you back in time---except for the modern soft drinks and the pickup trucks around camp....

[Dee Dee Warren]

I didn't read the book but I suspect I would enjoy the book more. I really like audio books, so I will look for it in that format.

hmmm about narrowing it down, this was kind of a free for all....

[Cyrus Johnson]

I didn't read the book but I suspect I would enjoy the book more. I really like audio books, so I will look for it in that format.

hmmm about narrowing it down, this was kind of a free for all....

Okey, fair enough.

I was wondering what people think of Lincoln's decision at the beginning of his administration to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. Was it a necessary if drastic step or a clear trampling of the Constitution?

[Dee Dee Warren]

Interesting - exactly how did that play out in any inequities to the south?

This subject is so volatile because of the slavery issue - but I have heard from many sources that slavery was not the real issue, but the real issue was what kind of country we should be set up as, and on that basis I have heard arguments that as far as original intent, the South was right - is there any merit to that? Was there a way to maintain the strict state's right position and still deal rightly with the abomination of slavery?

[guacamole]

First off, if I could pimp a product here, I was absolutely enthralled when I watched the Ken Burns documentary on the Civil War. It was quite long, but very good in my admittedly ignorant opinion.


was wondering what people think of Lincoln's decision at the beginning of his administration to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. Was it a necessary if drastic step or a clear trampling of the Constitution?

Those aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. I don't know if it was necessary, however, since it aparently was only applied once. So either people got the picture or the majority of those in the north were somewhat ardent patriots unwilling to rile the administration. .. I doubt it though. It's something of a mystery of me.

fwiw
guac.

[Cyrus Johnson]

First off, if I could pimp a product here, I was absolutely enthralled when I watched the Ken Burns documentary on the Civil War. It was quite long, but very good in my admittedly ignorant opinion.

I agree. It was an excellent piece of film making. His documentary on baseball was likewise superb.


Those aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. I don't know if it was necessary, however, since it aparently was only applied once. So either people got the picture or the majority of those in the north were somewhat ardent patriots unwilling to rile the administration. .. I doubt it though. It's something of a mystery of me.

fwiw
guac.

Point taken.

In Lincoln's words, in addressing Congress on July 4, 1861, "Are all the laws, but one [writ of h.c.], to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?"

I think it's an eye-opening episode as one does not not normally think of the violation of civil rights when one thinks of Lincoln. He certainly didn't shy away from doing what he thought had to be done.

He argued this violation, if it really was a violation, was a necessity to control rebellion in the South and in the border states like Maryland. Chief Justice Taney disagreed, and was nearly arrested himself for his efforts. But Lincoln had an army and Taney did not. So in the end, Lincoln won that battle.

It was used again, but by Jeff Davis and by several of his generals in the South.

[guacamole]

In Lincoln's words, in addressing Congress on July 4, 1861, "Are all the laws, but one [writ of h.c.], to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?"

I think it's an eye-opening episode as one does not not normally think of the violation of civil rights when one thinks of Lincoln. He certainly didn't shy away from doing what he thought had to be done.

He argued this violation, if it really was a violation, was a necessity to control rebellion in the South and in the border states like Maryland. Chief Justice Taney disagreed, and was nearly arrested himself for his efforts. But Lincoln had an army and Taney did not. So in the end, Lincoln won that battle.

It was used again, but by Jeff Davis and by several of his generals in the South.

Oddly, people are willing to get their panties in a wad about Bushco getting anywhere near such a line, while Lincoln remains foremost in the pantheon of liberal secular saints. Go figure... sorry, I don't mean to politicize this innocent thread.

Not that we are done discussing that by any means... but I'm always interested to hear if anyone with some authority can speak to the perception that the Union Generals (excepting Grant and Sherman) were somewhat incompetent compared to the confederates. If it is true that the were incompetent (Maclellan, for example, consistently had his rear handed to him on a platter by Lee, and yet for that he thought he deserved to be promoted to the presidency...), why were the southerners more able commanders?

fwiw
guac.

[DarwinianJihadi]

It's been a little while since I've taken my history course on the American Civil war, but IIRC, the reason that most people don't make a big deal about that particular bit of Lincoln's administration was because the vast majority of people who were subjected to it were either deserters/draft dodgers or were arrested in Confederate territory. I'll try to ask my professor more when I get back to school next week.

[DarwinianJihadi]

Not that we are done discussing that by any means... but I'm always interested to hear if anyone with some authority can speak to the perception that the Union Generals (excepting Grant and Sherman) were somewhat incompetent compared to the confederates. If it is true that the were incompetent (Maclellan, for example, consistently had his rear handed to him on a platter by Lee, and yet for that he thought he deserved to be promoted to the presidency...), why were the southerners more able commanders? Well, I don't remember enough from my classes as to why Southern generals were actually better than their Northeastern counterparts, but back then, there was the idea that the South simply had a better martial tradition than the North. Northerners themselves were afraid that they had become decadent and weak since the Revolution.

Also on McClellan, I think the general perception was that he loved the army that he had built up and didn't want to see it get destroyed, which was why he didn't commit it full-force at Antietam. Ironically, this led to the piecemeal destruction of parts of his army and the ultimate stalemate at that battle when McClellan could have simply overwhelmed Lee through sheer numbers. As an aside, when asked about Northern generals after the war, I think Robert E. Lee said he respected McClellan the most. Go figure.

[geochron]

I'll never understand this obsession with the South. I always felt seeing that flag as being like driving through Germany and seeing the place festooned with swastikas, with Germans mithering that it represented their cultural heritage.

The South wasn't interested in states rights. For instance, one reason they wanted to secede was that they wanted to tell northern states who they could recognise as citizens in their own territory - South Carolina was upset that they couldn't dictate who New York should recognise as a citizen. It accuses northern states of enacting laws nullifying Acts of Congress as one reason for secession! "States rights" confederacy style meant that they were upset they couldn't use the federal government to tell other states what to do. (The secession document is well worth reading before anyone accepts that the war was not about slavery.) The South was in favour of states rights only insofar as it allowed them to continue holding slaves, and against states rights if other states legislated against slavery.

Another example is the Confederate constitution, which explicitly forbids member states from impairing the right to own slaves or prohibiting slavery "regardless of local sentiment". States rights was not a feature of the confederacy set up by the seceding states.

The South wasn't successful or popular - the place was bankrupt, got spanked in the war, and during Sherman's "infamous" march to the sea his army grew as white Southerners joined up; such was the support for the confederacy.

What (powerful white former slave owners of) the South was good at was winning the peace. Northerners were so anxious to rebuild the Union that they eventually put up with the South sinking into a mire of racism and corruption and eventually got dragged down with it. People forget that race relations declined through the 19th century after the civil war as white racists gradually took control and made a hell for the lives of black Americans and anyone who tried to help them. Segregation was imposed later, it wasn't a relic of the Civil War.

Face it: "Gone with the Wind" is fantasy, not history. It's the northerners who should be romanticising their role in the civil war. They stood against evil and trounced it.

[Amazing Rando]

The greatest civil war heroes of them all were those gallant men of F-Troop (http://www.cfhf.net/lyrics/f-troop.htm).

The end of the Civil War was near when quite accidentally,
A hero who sneezed abruptly seized retreat and reversed it to victory.

His medal of honor pleased and thrilled his proud little family group.
While pinning it on some blood was spilled and so it was planned he’d command F-Troop.

Where Indian fights are colorful sights & nobody takes a lickin’
Where pale face and redskin both turn chicken.

When killing and fighting get them down, they know their morale can’t droop.
As long as they all relax in town before they resume with a bang and a boom F-Troop.

[Captain Ochre]

I'll never understand this obsession with the South. I always felt seeing that flag as being like driving through Germany and seeing the place festooned with swastikas, with Germans mithering that it represented their cultural heritage.

That's a loaded comparison. The swastika was adopted by the Nazi party and put on nearly everything when that party came to dominate Germany.
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=37067
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika#In_Nazi_Germany

If swastikas were not prohibited by law you'd probably see them in Germany.
http://www.xasa.com/wiki/en/wikipedia/f/fr/freedom_of_speech.html#Freedom%20of%20speech%20in%20Germany


The South wasn't interested in states rights. For instance, one reason they wanted to secede was that they wanted to tell northern states who they could recognise as citizens in their own territory - South Carolina was upset that they couldn't dictate who New York should recognise as a citizen. It accuses northern states of enacting laws nullifying Acts of Congress as one reason for secession!

Isn't this case transparent? A slave escaping to NY could have that state declare "property" from SC as a citizen in NY. This put states with strong abolitionist movements in political opposition to those who perpetuated the culture of slavery. With the perception (correct or not) that the Southern economy relied on slavery, can't you see it as a states' rights issue?


"States rights" confederacy style meant that they were upset they couldn't use the federal government to tell other states what to do.

As in keeping other states from undermining the laws of the Southern states?
Yes, but you simply can't make that statement in a vacuum. It was obvious to minority Southern states that the North could make the South their legislative pawn. That was the whole rationale behind apportionment of new states being added to the union and the allowance that slaves would count (partially) toward the census (which in turn determines how many seats a state has in the House of Representatives.


(The secession document is well worth reading before anyone accepts that the war was not about slavery.) The South was in favour of states rights only insofar as it allowed them to continue holding slaves, and against states rights if other states legislated against slavery.

Incorrect. The Southern states would not have cared if other states did not have slavery if the Southern insitutution of slavery was not undermined.
It was all about the ability of the Northern states to control the political process and potentially utterly ruin the Southern economy.
Imagine if the right and left coasts outlawed meat-eating and you had a couple of states whose economies relied on meat production through the raising of livestock. People from the coasts start taking the animals away, and the Vegan Party ideas seem to have a majority in Congress. The meat producing states have good reason to see their economic future in doubt.

This is only to compare the economic situation, BTW. The Southern institution of chattel slavery was wrong. The economic realities of the time, however, were quite real.

Here are three representative declarations of secession.
http://www.nv.cc.va.us/home/nvsageh/Hist121/Part4/SecessionDocs.htm

You can selectively read them to fit your view, but if you look at the whole thing you can't honestly ignore the fact that state sovereignty is the overriding issue.


Another example is the Confederate constitution, which explicitly forbids member states from impairing the right to own slaves or prohibiting slavery "regardless of local sentiment". States rights was not a feature of the confederacy set up by the seceding states.


I can't seem to find what you're referring to.
Section 10 lays out th powers prohibited of States. I don't see it there.
Perhaps you should offer a citation?


The South wasn't successful or popular - the place was bankrupt, got spanked in the war, and during Sherman's "infamous" march to the sea his army grew as white Southerners joined up; such was the support for the confederacy.

It's hard to be successful when you're being blockaded and you rely on overseas trade.
The Southern military effort was amazingly effective considering the disparity of supplies.

As for Sherman:
In my research I was surprised by how frequently Federal commanders called for this directed severity and also by how readily rank-and-file soldiers accepted and obeyed it. The unauthorized destruction that attended Sherman's marches was mainly, in the phrase of corps commander Major General Alpheus S. Williams, the work of "the few (ever found in large bodies of men) who were disorderly and vicious." The chief exception was South Carolina. From the moment the Federals crossed the Savannah River, incidents of pillaging and arson accelerated dramatically. The perpetrators were no longer the marginal soldiers alone, but included many of the best, most motivated troops. What happened to South Carolina forcefully underscored the substantially directed nature of the severity that had preceded it. It showed what a Federal army could do when it wanted to wreak indiscriminate havoc.
http://people.cohums.ohio-state.edu/grimsley1/myth/myth.htm


What (powerful white former slave owners of) the South was good at was winning the peace.

The leniency was a product of Lincoln's persona, IMO. While he could still be criticized for waging aggressive war in support of the union, he did not see the South as a conquered nation but as a wayward brother to be restored to fellowship.
The chaos of Reconstruction was simply the normal chaos of the reworking of the Southern economy put on the fast track.


Northerners were so anxious to rebuild the Union that they eventually put up with the South sinking into a mire of racism and corruption and eventually got dragged down with it. People forget that race relations declined through the 19th century after the civil war as white racists gradually took control and made a hell for the lives of black Americans and anyone who tried to help them. Segregation was imposed later, it wasn't a relic of the Civil War.

Prior to the Civil War, blacks in the North and in southern cities were much more likely to experience segregation than those in the southern countryside where there were few opportunities or incentives for segregation. In the North, an influx of European immigrants and the spread of universal white male suffrage between the mid-1820s and the 1840s were largely responsible for the end of an earlier period of less restrictive race relations. Whether owing to custom or—less often—to law, white-initiated segregation became common in schools and public accommodations at the same time that blacks lost jobs to whites and new limits were placed on black voting. Demonstrating a combination of protest and accommodation, blacks responded to segregation within white churches by founding African Methodist Episcopal, African Methodist Episcopal Zion, and independent local Baptist churches; they countered exclusion from white fraternal orders by establishing black Masonic and Odd Fellow lodges. Although growing segregation in housing was partly due to the desires of blacks, it was mostly the result of white hostility. Blacks prevailed upon the Massachusetts legislature to bypass that state's supreme court endorsement of separate but equal schools and had some success in desegregating train travel, but even in Massachusetts they lost most other challenges to segregation.
http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/ah_077900_segregation.htm


Face it: "Gone with the Wind" is fantasy, not history. It's the northerners who should be romanticising their role in the civil war. They stood against evil and trounced it.

Are you in favor of a military invasion aimed at stopping the practice of slavery in Sudan?

[Augustine2004]

Geochron, did you know that in his first Inaugural Address Lincoln told the South she could keep her slaves as long as she complied with Federal law?

[Augustine2004]

{This is a version of something that I posted in 'Greatest military commanders . . .' thread, repeated here for the convenience of some readers of this thread, if that's OK with the moderator or the thread starter.}

Gettysburg was a mixture of bad luck and unusual staff ineptitude for R. E. Lee. Before Lee invaded the North, he gave orders to General Stuart, the commander of the cavalry. Stuart rushed to where it was based, but Lee had already covered much ground by the time Stuart could get his men moving. Meanwhile, the Union army maneuvered to keep itself between Washington, D. C. and Lee's invading army. As luck would have it, that lengthened communication delays between Lee and Stuart by a factor of several times until the afternoon of the second day of the Gettysburg battle. That deprived Lee of much timely intelligence. The cavalry eventually did a great loop around the north flank of the Union army in order to hook up with the main body. So, Stuart did eventually participate in the battle, but not until the third day.

[DarwinianJihadi]

That's a loaded comparison. While they're not exactly the same, I can see where Geochron is coming from. When you have a society that relies on black slaves owned by largely white masters, then you have a situation where whites must keep control over blacks to prevent slave uprisings. The South was a society that was expressly based on white supremecy. They imposed control over blacks through legislation and terrorism. It's not hard to see the Stars and Bars as the epitome of all of that.


Isn't this case transparent? A slave escaping to NY could have that state declare "property" from SC as a citizen in NY. This put states with strong abolitionist movements in political opposition to those who perpetuated the culture of slavery. With the perception (correct or not) that the Southern economy relied on slavery, can't you see it as a states' rights issue? Yes, their right to keep slaves. I'm not quite sure where you're going with this states' rights assertion. It's not that simple. By the time the Civil War broke out, the slavery issue had been entwined with most of the major issues of the day such as Westward expansion and this states' rights issue.


As in keeping other states from undermining the laws of the Southern states? The South brought that on themselves. To be honest, the vast majority of Northerns couldn't have cared less about whether blacks were slaves or not in the South. It wasn't until the South began pushing it their faces with things like the Fugitive Slave Act that really pissed off the North.


Yes, but you simply can't make that statement in a vacuum. It was obvious to minority Southern states that the North could make the South their legislative pawn. That was the whole rationale behind apportionment of new states being added to the union and the allowance that slaves would count (partially) toward the census (which in turn determines how many seats a state has in the House of Representatives.

Incorrect. The Southern states would not have cared if other states did not have slavery if the Southern insitutution of slavery was not undermined.
It was all about the ability of the Northern states to control the political process and potentially utterly ruin the Southern economy. Isn't the second paragraph implicitly contradicted by the first one? How can you not care if other states outside of the South had slavery or not and yet try to convert new territories into slave states to maintain the balance in Congress?

Also, may I reiterate that it was the South that was so aggressive in it's attempt to preserve slavery such as the Missouri Compromise and the Fugitive Slave Act that drove the North to finally oppose slavery. The South was not the victim here.


Imagine if the right and left coasts outlawed meat-eating and you had a couple of states whose economies relied on meat production through the raising of livestock. People from the coasts start taking the animals away, and the Vegan Party ideas seem to have a majority in Congress. The meat producing states have good reason to see their economic future in doubt. I think that by the time the Civil War broke out, it wasn't just about economic well-being. Remember, the vast majority of people who fought for the South didn't own slaves. The Civil War was highly ideological. And this was in no small part due to the South's aggressive expansionism over the years between the Mexican War and the Civil War. Things like the Missouri Compromise helped to ensure (in the short-term) that future slave states would be created to maintain the balance in Congress. And of course there's the Fugitive Slave Law I mentioned before.


This is only to compare the economic situation, BTW. The Southern institution of chattel slavery was wrong. The economic realities of the time, however, were quite real. While I agree that slavery was morally wrong, I should add that it was economically disadvantageous for the South as a whole as well. Those plantations were, by and large, self-sustaining. What this did was to retard economic development for everyone else in the South. There was little need for roads and railways to be highly developed because most of what slavers needed was already available on their estates. Local economies were stagnant because there was little spending from the higher-ups. Up until the Civil War, the average income for a Southerner was 2/3 to 3/4 that of his Northern counterpart. That dropped to half during the war, Reconstruction and up until relatively recently. Slavery was bad in more than just one way.


Here are three representative declarations of secession.
http://www.nv.cc.va.us/home/nvsageh/Hist121/Part4/SecessionDocs.htm

You can selectively read them to fit your view, but if you look at the whole thing you can't honestly ignore the fact that state sovereignty is the overriding issue. States' rights is really just a euphamism. The fact of the matter is, slavery was considered a sovereign right by these states. That's not contradicted by your link, which explicitly names slavery as one of them.


It's hard to be successful when you're being blockaded and you rely on overseas trade.

The Southern military effort was amazingly effective considering the disparity of supplies. Ah, this is much closer in spirit to the nature of this entire forum, no?:wink:


As for Sherman:
In my research I was surprised by how frequently Federal commanders called for this directed severity and also by how readily rank-and-file soldiers accepted and obeyed it. The unauthorized destruction that attended Sherman's marches was mainly, in the phrase of corps commander Major General Alpheus S. Williams, the work of "the few (ever found in large bodies of men) who were disorderly and vicious." The chief exception was South Carolina. From the moment the Federals crossed the Savannah River, incidents of pillaging and arson accelerated dramatically. The perpetrators were no longer the marginal soldiers alone, but included many of the best, most motivated troops. What happened to South Carolina forcefully underscored the substantially directed nature of the severity that had preceded it. It showed what a Federal army could do when it wanted to wreak indiscriminate havoc.
http://people.cohums.ohio-state.edu/grimsley1/myth/myth.htm What exactly was the point of this? All it shows is that they punished SC most of all. It was, after all, the first state to secede. In fact IIRC, there were a lot of Georgians who suggested that Sherman take his business up to SC seeing as how they started it all.:lol:


The leniency was a product of Lincoln's persona, IMO. While he could still be criticized for waging aggressive war in support of the union, he did not see the South as a conquered nation but as a wayward brother to be restored to fellowship. Well, Reconstruction was barely a glimmer in Lincoln's eye when he was assassinated. Most of the leniency came from Andrew Johnson. This, of course, angered a lot of Radical Republicans since they were still sore about the casualty lists of the war and wanted to punish the South and to reform it in the fashion that they wanted. This compelled them to impeach Johnson and institute Congressional Reconstruction.


The chaos of Reconstruction was simply the normal chaos of the reworking of the Southern economy put on the fast track. Well, this is a bit simplistic. There were a lot of things going on with Reconstruction. You might want to check up on Eric Foner's Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877. It's EXTREMELY comprehensive and is THE definitive book on reconstruction.

In short, Foner argues that the reason that Reconstruction was so chaotic was because of the reactionary backlash against Northern reform efforts by Southern whites. During Congressional Reconstruction, there was an immense effort to get blacks to vote. It was so successful that a state, I believe it was either Missouri or Louisiana, had the first black governor in Southern history. Black voters were protected from harrassment by black federal troops. Needless to say, this upset whites EXTREMELY. This led to the rise of the KKK and other vigilante action that terrorized blacks after the occupation of the South ended. The terror even went so far as to assassinate political figures who ran on the Republican ticket.

Basically, the chaos wasn't normal by any measure. It was a terrible effort by whites to re-establish their pre-war dominance. And it was so successful, that no civil rights breakthroughs happened in the South until the 1960s, almost a hundred years after Reconstruction. It is because of the chaos induced by white supremicist Southern society that led to the conditions that succeeded it. The oft-occurring lynchings of black people, the legal shenenigans that prevented blacks from registering to vote, and the overall state of white supremecy in the South was born during this chaos.


Prior to the Civil War, blacks in the North and in southern cities were much more likely to experience segregation than those in the southern countryside where there were few opportunities or incentives for segregation. In the North, an influx of European immigrants and the spread of universal white male suffrage between the mid-1820s and the 1840s were largely responsible for the end of an earlier period of less restrictive race relations. Whether owing to custom or—less often—to law, white-initiated segregation became common in schools and public accommodations at the same time that blacks lost jobs to whites and new limits were placed on black voting. Demonstrating a combination of protest and accommodation, blacks responded to segregation within white churches by founding African Methodist Episcopal, African Methodist Episcopal Zion, and independent local Baptist churches; they countered exclusion from white fraternal orders by establishing black Masonic and Odd Fellow lodges. Although growing segregation in housing was partly due to the desires of blacks, it was mostly the result of white hostility. Blacks prevailed upon the Massachusetts legislature to bypass that state's supreme court endorsement of separate but equal schools and had some success in desegregating train travel, but even in Massachusetts they lost most other challenges to segregation.
http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/ah_077900_segregation.htm Your point is... what?


Are you in favor of a military invasion aimed at stopping the practice of slavery in Sudan? I don't recall Sudan firing on a Federal fort after decades of trying to maintain slavery and pushing it in everyone's faces.

[Goose]

I played a lot of Sid Meier's Gettysburg, a historical video game simulator. Been to a few battle grounds. Also, the town I live near, Newburgh, Indiana, was the first town to be attacked by the Confederacy. They raided a local ammo supply dump or something.

[Augustine2004]

Hi DarwinianJ - do you know what the Tariff of Abomination is?
http://www.google.com/search?q=%27tariff+of+abomination%27&sourceid=firefox&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

It wasn't the North who was put off, it was the South. The North was outvoting the South in Congress and unfortunately ripping the South off. If someone is ripping you off, and you could stop that by moving away from him, wouldn't you want to?

[Cyrus Johnson]

Hi DarwinianJ - do you know what the Tariff of Abomination is?
http://www.google.com/search?q=%27tariff+of+abomination%27&sourceid=firefox&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

It wasn't the North who was put off, it was the South. The North was outvoting the South in Congress and unfortunately ripping the South off. If someone is ripping you off, and you could stop that by moving away from him, wouldn't you want to?

I doubt this was much of a significant immediate motivating factor. This "rip-off" happened way back in 1828, a full 33 years before South Carolina seceded from the Union. Corruption did play a part in the proceedings of the time though, as this was the norm. Buchanan even promised in his inauguration speech to reign corruption in, but without complete success.

If the abomination really was an important proximal cause, then the South would have bolted much earlier, like immediately after the Nashville Convention of 1850 for instance or earlier.

[Captain Ochre]

While they're not exactly the same, I can see where Geochron is coming from. When you have a society that relies on black slaves owned by largely white masters, then you have a situation where whites must keep control over blacks to prevent slave uprisings. The South was a society that was expressly based on white supremecy. They imposed control over blacks through legislation and terrorism. It's not hard to see the Stars and Bars as the epitome of all of that.

The Stars and Bars didn't and doesn't appear much in the South, but the Confederate Battle Flag does.
It's understandable that some would view it that way, but that doesn't make it right or wrong to view it that way.
http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/wiki.php?title=Confederate_States_of_America


Yes, their right to keep slaves. I'm not quite sure where you're going with this states' rights assertion. It's not that simple. By the time the Civil War broke out, the slavery issue had been entwined with most of the major issues of the day such as Westward expansion and this states' rights issue.

It should be obvious where I'm going with this states' rights issue. Slavery was indeed intertwined with the states' rights issue, and there is no war without slavery since it was the issue that brought the issue of states' rights to the fore. Few people in the South owned slaves. I've even heard it estimated that there were actually more slave owners in Northern states than in the South (slave ownership in the South tended to be by planation owners who owned many slaves).


The South brought that on themselves. To be honest, the vast majority of Northerns couldn't have cared less about whether blacks were slaves or not in the South. It wasn't until the South began pushing it their faces with things like the Fugitive Slave Act that really pissed off the North.

Whoa, not so fast. Sure, the majority in the North were apathetic about slavery--but many of those who weren't apathetic about it engaged in activities specifically aimed at undermining the institution of slavery in the South. Help slaves escape, help them move to North then declare them free in the North.
To those in the slave culture, this was state-legislated legalized stealing, just as though I went to the North, loaded up a bunch of snow mobiles (stealing them), and brought them back home to convert them to wave-runners while my state government declares that the vehicles need not be returned to their owners.
In a comparable situation you'd want federal legislation, too.


Isn't the second paragraph implicitly contradicted by the first one? How can you not care if other states outside of the South had slavery or not and yet try to convert new territories into slave states to maintain the balance in Congress?

No, the paragraphs are not contradictory in the least. It was the political movement against slavery nationally that prompted the latter. Mere absence of slavery wasn't a concern minus the hostile legislation.


Also, may I reiterate that it was the South that was so aggressive in it's attempt to preserve slavery such as the Missouri Compromise and the Fugitive Slave Act that drove the North to finally oppose slavery. The South was not the victim here.

It's almost as though you think that the Fugitive Slave Act itself happened in a vacuum. You do realize that slaves were escaping North to freedom, yes?


I think that by the time the Civil War broke out, it wasn't just about economic well-being. Remember, the vast majority of people who fought for the South didn't own slaves.

I'm quite aware of that, but quite obviously if the dominant player in the economy gets pasted, the entire region suffers. The South was predominantly agricultural, and back then the lack of air-conditioning made factory work nearly impossible in much of the South. Florida was practically a wilderrness.


The Civil War was highly ideological.

No kidding?
:wink:


While I agree that slavery was morally wrong, I should add that it was economically disadvantageous for the South as a whole as well. Those plantations were, by and large, self-sustaining. What this did was to retard economic development for everyone else in the South. There was little need for roads and railways to be highly developed because most of what slavers needed was already available on their estates. Local economies were stagnant because there was little spending from the higher-ups.

And what would you have had them purchase with their money? Heck, let's build a railroad! We don't have anything to ship on the railroad--but if we ever do, we'll have it ready to go!
The South simply couldn't follow the economic route taken by the North. Birmingham had steel, to be sure, but key elements of this infrastructure you refer to would have come largely from the North (follow money in that direction), and then you've got your railroads and roads with no apparent reason for existence.


Up until the Civil War, the average income for a Southerner was 2/3 to 3/4 that of his Northern counterpart. That dropped to half during the war, Reconstruction and up until relatively recently. Slavery was bad in more than just one way.

Because slavery kept wages lower in the South "until relatively recently"?
That makes sense.


States' rights is really just a euphamism. The fact of the matter is, slavery was considered a sovereign right by these states. That's not contradicted by your link, which explicitly names slavery as one of them.

Of course! Because each state considered itself sovereign just like the states that banded together to rebel against England!!!
Check your timeline. It was a scant 100 years since the American Revolution where the colonies rebelled over taxes on tea and the like. Those ideas of sovereignty didn't fade away overnight.


What exactly was the point of this? All it shows is that they punished SC most of all. It was, after all, the first state to secede. In fact IIRC, there were a lot of Georgians who suggested that Sherman take his business up to SC seeing as how they started it all.:lol:

Something about "Gone With the Wind" being an utter fantasy, IIRC.


Well, Reconstruction was barely a glimmer in Lincoln's eye when he was assassinated. Most of the leniency came from Andrew Johnson. This, of course, angered a lot of Radical Republicans since they were still sore about the casualty lists of the war and wanted to punish the South and to reform it in the fashion that they wanted. This compelled them to impeach Johnson and institute Congressional Reconstruction.

Point being that Confederates didn't "win the peace", and I'm referring to the segment of Reconstruction immediately following the war (obviously).

Even before the war ended, President Lincoln began the task of restoration. Motivated by a desire to build a strong Republican party in the South and to end the bitterness engendered by war, he issued (Dec. 8, 1863) a proclamation of amnesty and reconstruction for those areas of the Confederacy occupied by Union armies. It offered pardon, with certain exceptions, to any Confederate who would swear to support the Constitution and the Union
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0860645.html

Lincoln's successor, Andrew Johnson, at first pleased the radicals by publicly attacking the planter aristocracy and insisting that the rebellion must be punished. His amnesty proclamation (May 29, 1865) was more severe than Lincoln's; it disenfranchised all former military and civil officers of the Confederacy and all those who owned property worth $20,000 or more and made their estates liable to confiscation. The obvious intent was to shift political control in the South from the old planter aristocracy to the small farmers and artisans, and it promised to accomplish a revolution in Southern society.
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0860646.html


Well, this is a bit simplistic.

Tell me about it. That's what happens with one-sentence summaries of subjects about which books are written.


Your point is... what?

Obvious?


I don't recall Sudan firing on a Federal fort after decades of trying to maintain slavery and pushing it in everyone's faces.

:ahem:

You probably don't even recall Sudan being involved in Federal legislation, and calling the fort "Federal" begs the question of ownership that was disputed at the time.
http://www.civilwarhome.com/CMHsumter.htm

[DarwinianJihadi]

The Stars and Bars didn't and doesn't appear much in the South, but the Confederate Battle Flag does. Whatever. Goof-up on my part.


It's understandable that some would view it that way, but that doesn't make it right or wrong to view it that way. How do you figure this?


It should be obvious where I'm going with this states' rights issue. Please, spell it out for me. :tongue:


Slavery was indeed intertwined with the states' rights issue, and there is no war without slavery since it was the issue that brought the issue of states' rights to the fore. Okay...


Few people in the South owned slaves. I've even heard it estimated that there were actually more slave owners in Northern states than in the South (slave ownership in the South tended to be by planation owners who owned many slaves). And the point of this is? I hope you're not trying to equivocate.


Whoa, not so fast. Sure, the majority in the North were apathetic about slavery--but many of those who weren't apathetic about it engaged in activities specifically aimed at undermining the institution of slavery in the South. Help slaves escape, help them move to North then declare them free in the North. And your point is... what? Is this supposed to justify Southern legal actions at the federal level?


To those in the slave culture, this was state-legislated legalized stealing, just as though I went to the North, loaded up a bunch of snow mobiles (stealing them), and brought them back home to convert them to wave-runners while my state government declares that the vehicles need not be returned to their owners.
In a comparable situation you'd want federal legislation, too. So, in order to stop a bunch of extremist hooligans, the South bludgeoned the North with legislative action and thus confirmed the conspiratorial idea of the Slave Power that these same abolitionists were putting forth. By your example above, one could easily turn it around and use it as an example of how the South tried to influence Northern legislation and impinge on Northern states' rights.


No, the paragraphs are not contradictory in the least. It was the political movement against slavery nationally that prompted the latter. Mere absence of slavery wasn't a concern minus the hostile legislation. Or, you can turn that around and say that it was the persistence of slavery into the mid-19th century that provoked a "national" anti-slavery movement.


It's almost as though you think that the Fugitive Slave Act itself happened in a vacuum. You do realize that slaves were escaping North to freedom, yes? Irrelevant. Abolitionists were still a fanatical minority. For the South to go and propose federal legislation that would make Northern states comply with Southern law and slave culture was folly and highly aggressive on their part.

Southern aggression preceded the existence of the abolitionist movement as we know it. The South had dropped the apologetic tone long before the war, negating any possibility that they would dismantle the institution themselves. In 1824, when proposals were made to free slaves and reimburse the South using a combo of taxes and sale of public lands, it was met with hostility from the South.

A good essay to read is Kenneth M. Stampp's "The Irrepressible Conflict," which is a part of an anthology called The Imperiled Union: Essays on the Background of the Civil War.


I'm quite aware of that, but quite obviously if the dominant player in the economy gets pasted, the entire region suffers. But I assert that the planters weren't contributing that much to the local economies anyway. Again, I contend that it was the largely self-sufficient nature of these plantations that led to the economic stagnation of the South.


The South was predominantly agricultural, and back then the lack of air-conditioning made factory work nearly impossible in much of the South. Florida was practically a wilderrness. IIRC, textile mills were set up in the South after the war. The South's environment isn't completely adverse to the factory setting. Southern workers on the other hand...


No kidding?
:wink: :lol:


And what would you have had them purchase with their money? Heck, let's build a railroad! We don't have anything to ship on the railroad--but if we ever do, we'll have it ready to go!

The South simply couldn't follow the economic route taken by the North. Birmingham had steel, to be sure, but key elements of this infrastructure you refer to would have come largely from the North (follow money in that direction), and then you've got your railroads and roads with no apparent reason for existence. To start off with your second paragraph, why couldn't they? They certainly tried after the war. They were stuck in agrarianism. Slavery had no small part in that.


Because slavery kept wages lower in the South "until relatively recently"?
That makes sense. No, not until recently. That was regarding the antebellum period. During and after the war, it was because of the devastation brought by the war, which of course was started by slavery. :teeth:


Of course! Because each state considered itself sovereign just like the states that banded together to rebel against England!!!
Check your timeline. It was a scant 100 years since the American Revolution where the colonies rebelled over taxes on tea and the like. Those ideas of sovereignty didn't fade away overnight. To the degree that they were willing to push legislation that would force the North to accept these rights? The states' rights issue is a bit smudgy when it comes to causes of the Civil War. The fact of the matter is, the 1860 presidential election was highly contentious and Lincoln was elected with significantly less than half the popular vote. Coupled with the fact that, IIRC, the Democrats still dominated Congress, or at least one chamber of it, there was really no way Lincoln could crusade to dismantle slavery and cut back on Southern "states' rights." Secession was completely reactionary on their part.


Something about "Gone With the Wind" being an utter fantasy, IIRC. That came towards the end of geochron's post and had nothing to do about that movie. He was talking about the South getting "spanked," and losing support amongst even some whites in the South. Your post helped him out on the first part.

Also, I think what geochron was talking about was the idea of the "Lost Cause" that romanticizes the antebellum South.


Point being that Confederates didn't "win the peace", and I'm referring to the segment of Reconstruction immediately following the war (obviously). That was still Johnson when we're talking about it that early after the war. I think a Union officer commmented that the attitude of the white Southern populace changed radically when confronted with Johnson's leniency from thorough defeat to one of defiance, which helped spark congressional reconstruction.


Even before the war ended, President Lincoln began the task of restoration. Motivated by a desire to build a strong Republican party in the South and to end the bitterness engendered by war, he issued (Dec. 8, 1863) a proclamation of amnesty and reconstruction for those areas of the Confederacy occupied by Union armies. It offered pardon, with certain exceptions, to any Confederate who would swear to support the Constitution and the Union
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0860645.html

Lincoln's successor, Andrew Johnson, at first pleased the radicals by publicly attacking the planter aristocracy and insisting that the rebellion must be punished. His amnesty proclamation (May 29, 1865) was more severe than Lincoln's; it disenfranchised all former military and civil officers of the Confederacy and all those who owned property worth $20,000 or more and made their estates liable to confiscation. The obvious intent was to shift political control in the South from the old planter aristocracy to the small farmers and artisans, and it promised to accomplish a revolution in Southern society.
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0860646.html Okay...


Tell me about it. That's what happens with one-sentence summaries of subjects about which books are written. Then let me reword it. The contention that the chaos of Reconstruction was by any means normal was wrong. BTW, I highly suggest that you read Foner's book. My simplistic review of it did it no justice. It is indeed quite a landmark book.


Obvious? More like a distractive fallacy meant to draw attention away from Southern atrocities by equivocating it with discrimination in the north.



:ahem:

You probably don't even recall Sudan being involved in Federal legislation, and calling the fort "Federal" begs the question of ownership that was disputed at the time.
http://www.civilwarhome.com/CMHsumter.htm More distractive fallacies. It's irrelevant whether ownership of the fort was in dispute. The fact of the matter is, the South fired on a fort manned by federal troops. They started the war.

BTW, I'm honestly curious as to whether that legislation you referred to involved Sudan trying to impose US compliance with Sudan's slave practices in American territory.

[Captain Ochre]

Not worth the time.
Last message barring surprising content in a later message.




[quote]And the point of this is? I hope you're not trying to equivocate.

How could I possibly have been trying to equivocate?


And your point is... what? Is this supposed to justify Southern legal actions at the federal level?

Despite the name, the Underground Railroad was not really a railroad, but was a network of people who assisted fugitive slaves. Many fugitives who escaped to the North and Canada received assistance along the way from individuals who were involved in this network. By the early 19th century, the organization became so successful that it is estimated that between 1810 and 1850, 100,000 slaves escaped from the South through the Underground Railroad.
http://afroamhistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa020501a.htm

100,000.


So, in order to stop a bunch of extremist hooligans, the South bludgeoned the North with legislative action and thus confirmed the conspiratorial idea of the Slave Power that these same abolitionists were putting forth.

The South probably would have accepted secession even in 1850.
Congress met on December 3, 1849. Neither faction was strong enough in both houses to carry out its own programme, and it seemed for a time that nothing would be done. On January 29, 1850, Henry Clay presented the famous resolution which constituted the basis of the ultimate compromise. His idea was to combine the more conservative elements of both sections in favour of a settlement which would concede the Southern view on two questions, the Northern view on two, and balance the fifth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise_of_1850

So much for bludgeoning.


By your example above, one could easily turn it around and use it as an example of how the South tried to influence Northern legislation and impinge on Northern states' rights.

:ahem:
Try it.


Irrelevant. Abolitionists were still a fanatical minority.

100,000.


For the South to go and propose federal legislation that would make Northern states comply with Southern law and slave culture was folly and highly aggressive on their part.

100,000, and it was part of a compromise.


Southern aggression ...

:ahem:


To start off with your second paragraph, why couldn't they? They certainly tried after the war. They were stuck in agrarianism. Slavery had no small part in that.

It wasn't impossible, but difficult. Certain raw materials were harder to come by in the South (such as steel and coal, iirc).
Factory fittings would have come from elsewhere, predominantly.


To the degree that they were willing to push legislation that would force the North to accept these rights? The states' rights issue is a bit smudgy when it comes to causes of the Civil War. The fact of the matter is, the 1860 presidential election was highly contentious and Lincoln was elected with significantly less than half the popular vote. Coupled with the fact that, IIRC, the Democrats still dominated Congress, or at least one chamber of it, there was really no way Lincoln could crusade to dismantle slavery and cut back on Southern "states' rights." Secession was completely reactionary on their part.

They saw the writing on the wall that reminded them of the American Revolution. It was easy to see that the nation was on a path toward abolition, and the Southerners didn't trust the North with that decision.


That came towards the end of geochron's post and had nothing to do about that movie. He was talking about the South getting "spanked," and losing support amongst even some whites in the South. Your post helped him out on the first part.

He downplayed Sherman's bad reputation.
That reputation was earned.
It's off-topic, but the Union "spanked" the South by (MOL) getting beaten repeatedly by numerically and materially inferior forces until they emerged as victors by attrition.


More like a distractive fallacy meant to draw attention away from Southern atrocities by equivocating it with discrimination in the north.

It ties into your own observation that the majority of Confederate soldiers were not slaveholders.
Did you mean that as a distraction?


More distractive fallacies. It's irrelevant whether ownership of the fort was in dispute. The fact of the matter is, the South fired on a fort manned by federal troops. They started the war.

You didn't read the link, eh? The ownership of the fort was being negotiated. Anderson moved his forces into the fort and refused to depart. Then ships tried to bring in supplies and reinforcements.
Probably just a peacekeeping force ...
:ahem:

If South Carolina was sovereign, then Anderson was an invader. Moreover, you overlook the fact that the war is nearly exclusively a war of aggression by the Union. They want Fort Sumter back, so they invade Virginia? Or was it revenge motive?
Save for Lee's attempt to sway public opinion by threatening Washington D.C., the South's strategy was almost purely defensive.


BTW, I'm honestly curious as to whether that legislation you referred to involved Sudan trying to impose US compliance with Sudan's slave practices in American territory.

No you're not, unless you don't reason very well from what you read.

[Augustine2004]

The constitutional convention that issued the Constitution of 1789, under which the citizens of the United States of America are supposed to live even today, failed in the aim of ameliorating, if not preventing altogether, the problem that the majority would rule over the minority. This problem has been ever present since man created government. Any government has so much power that any part of a community's or society's people is ever tempted to band together to capture it and use it to rule over the rest of the society.

By 'majority' I do not mean above a majority of the population of a nation. Take Saddam's Iraq, for example. His people (Sunni Muslims) was a minority in terms of percentage of the population in Iraq, yet ruled it for decades. I mean 'majority' in terms of power. To prevent confusion altogether, especially in later posts, I will always write out in full, 'majority of power (MOP).'

Many reasons exist why people would want to rule over others. One is the desire for power itself. Incidentally, law enforcement people have often remarked that most cases of rape do not stem from the desire for sex; rather, it is for power. Another reason is material advancement that power over others can bring the one wielding it or his clients. Yet another reason is religious; witness the Muslim countries.

The American Revolution is an instance of a minority (in power) successfully revolting against a MOP. Unfortunately, it did not solve the MOP-rule problem for some people in the United States of America, especially in the South. The War between the 'United' States of America was a natural outcome of that problem.

To put it quite bluntly, the North was ripping off the South, and the South had wanted to put a stop to it for decades. The Tariff of Abomination was just one of many problems, including the 100,000 escaped slaves (estimate cited by Captain Ochre, if correct). There were not just one compromise, but quite a few that were struck to prevent Southern secession, which shows how bad the MOP-ripoff problem was antebellum. Indeed the Constitution of 1789 was itself partly a compromise in that vein.

[DarwinianJihadi]

How could I possibly have been trying to equivocate? Well, it seemed that you were trying to draw attention away from the debate about slavery and Southern states' rights by pointing at the North's history of slave ownership. Strictly from the point of view of debating, the North's slave record had nothing to do with Southern ownership and how it fits into the notion of states' rights.


Despite the name, the Underground Railroad was not really a railroad, but was a network of people who assisted fugitive slaves. Many fugitives who escaped to the North and Canada received assistance along the way from individuals who were involved in this network. By the early 19th century, the organization became so successful that it is estimated that between 1810 and 1850, 100,000 slaves escaped from the South through the Underground Railroad.
http://afroamhistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa020501a.htm

100,000. So? Over the course of 40 years, that's a drop in the bucket. By the time the Civil war started, there were somewhat less than 4 million slaves in the South according to Africana Online (http://www.africanaonline.com/slavery_colonial_era.htm). Having roughly 2500 slaves "stolen" every year on average isn't economically disadvantageous. A lot of slave owners had insurance policies covering their slaves. It still wouldn't explain why the South was so adamant in pushing the kinds of legislation they wanted at the Federal level.


The South probably would have accepted secession even in 1850.
Congress met on December 3, 1849. Neither faction was strong enough in both houses to carry out its own programme, and it seemed for a time that nothing would be done. On January 29, 1850, Henry Clay presented the famous resolution which constituted the basis of the ultimate compromise. His idea was to combine the more conservative elements of both sections in favour of a settlement which would concede the Southern view on two questions, the Northern view on two, and balance the fifth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise_of_1850

So much for bludgeoning. Perhaps I should have made my self more clear. I was talking specifically about the Fugitive Slave Act.

In any case, when you threaten to secede if you don't get your way, there's not a little degree of coercion there.


:ahem:
Try it. Well, there is the aforementioned Fugitive Slave Act. There was also the Congressional Gag Rule of the 1830s and the stricter one passed in 1840 that forbade any discussion on the topic of slavery. Response to legislation against slavery would be one thing, but preventing people from simply talking about it? Not to mention Bleeding Kansas where armed bands of pro-slavery Southerners from Missouri and Arkansas invaded the state, seized polling places, installed a pro-slavery government, and submitted Kansas' membership into the Union as a slave state.



100,000. Again, so what?


100,000, and it was part of a compromise. Yes, the North compromised with the South because they didn't want them to secede and destroy the Union. Rather admirable that the North would go so far to appease the South. And the South gets a MASSIVE slave state to boot. This was nothing but a good thing for the slave states.


:ahem: Are you adverse to the idea that the South took aggressive motions in attempting to ensure that slavery would continue to exist? Must it always be the North who was the agitator?


They saw the writing on the wall that reminded them of the American Revolution. It was easy to see that the nation was on a path toward abolition, and the Southerners didn't trust the North with that decision. At least that's what they percieved. However, as you point out, the North had been willing to compromise with the South before. Even when the South seceded, the North was beside itself wondering what it should do. The forces that wanted slavery eradiated didn't have enough of an impact to make Northern banks - nor anyone else with profitable business connection to the South - turn away Southern clients. What brought the North to eventually come to an abolitionist stance were the actions of the South itself from the "compromises" it sought under threat of secession to the attack on Fort Sumter.


He downplayed Sherman's bad reputation.
That reputation was earned. ??? How did he downplay it? All he said was that whites had started to join up. Presumeably these whites were of the Yeoman variety who had a grudge against slave holders.


It's off-topic, but the Union "spanked" the South by (MOL) getting beaten repeatedly by numerically and materially inferior forces until they emerged as victors by attrition. Hmm. That's definitely true of the Eastern Theater up until Gettysburg, but the Western one wasn't exactly a walk in the park for the Confederates.

Also, I was under the impression that the South wasn't that materially inferior in the first couple of years. I thought the overriding problem for the South was the lack of a manufacturing base, which led to problems in equipping their forces as the war wore on. Not to mention that the Confederates had roughly half the population of the North, leading to a manpower shortage as well.

BTW, it's not off-topic considering the original purpose of this thread. :lol:


It ties into your own observation that the majority of Confederate soldiers were not slaveholders. No, it doesn't. Geochron had come out and called the Reconstruction South a mire of racism and corruption. Instead of directly addressing that, you pulled out an expose on Northern racism.


Did you mean that as a distraction? Mean what as a distraction? The idea that most Southerners didn't own slaves? Not at all. I didn't pull that out as a way of deflecting attention from Southern atrocities during the Reconstruction period the way you did with regard to geochron's post.

Or, if you're talking about bringing up the idea of my pointing out of your post as being distractive as itself being a distraction, then no since from a debating point of view I was obligated to point out your fallacy rather than to directly address them and let you set the direction of that particular point of contention.


You didn't read the link, eh? The ownership of the fort was being negotiated. Anderson moved his forces into the fort and refused to depart. Then ships tried to bring in supplies and reinforcements.
Probably just a peacekeeping force ...
:ahem: I did read the link. As you state, the question of ownership was being negotiated. The first incident - the Star of the West one - didn't set off hostilities. Neither did the second one that was sent by the succeeding Lincoln administration, which took executive power on March 4. What set the South off was the unacceptability of the withdrawal timetable proposed by Anderson on April 14 where he said he would turn over ownership of the fort by noon on the 15th.


If South Carolina was sovereign, then Anderson was an invader. According to the link that you posted, negotiations were underway as evidenced by this: "proper negotiations for their cession to the State," which is in the first paragraph. This implies that the feds still considered the forts to be federal property at the time Major Anderson moved his command.

Also, the reason negotiations were underway, if indeed the link you posted is right, was to stave off Southern moves to take it by force. "An understanding had been established between the authorities in Washington and the members of Congress from South Carolina, that the forts would not be attacked, or seized as an act of war, until proper negotiations for their cession to the State had been made..."

Any which way you cut it, it makes the South look like the aggressor. Whether it was last-minute attempts to appease the South by handing over the forts or by the eventual bombardment by the South after the Southern leaders didn't like Anderson's timetable.


Moreover, you overlook the fact that the war is nearly exclusively a war of aggression by the Union. So? We're talking about what led up to the war. The South had a huge hand in setting the ground for its own secession over the course of the previous decades. If it had chosen the moderate path of actually improving slaves' conditions, the primary impetus for calls for action in the North - largely the horror stories that abolitionists promulgated about slave owners and the condition of their slaves - would have been largely negated.

Instead, as I have repeatedly stressed, the South - driven by a racist fear of slave insurrections and any support that they might get - reactionarily carried out heavy-handed legislative attempts to preserve and even expand the institution of slavery over the decades.


They want Fort Sumter back, so they invade Virginia? Let's see. Northern troops come under fire from Southern forces. North is electrified and unites to end rebellion, which is clearly belligerent after the events of Fort Sumter and, according to some views, illegal (seccession, that is). On the way, crusade to annihilate the institution of slavery is incorporated. The Old South must be destroyed and a new one put in to replace it. Makes sense to me. :wink:


Or was it revenge motive? I'm sure the war was partially punitive in nature.


Save for Lee's attempt to sway public opinion by threatening Washington D.C., the South's strategy was almost purely defensive. Good for them.


No you're not, unless you don't reason very well from what you read. :lol: You're right, I was being facetious about the Sudan thing, but then again, I didn't know how else to address that particular distractive fallacy. I think it's called a Red Herring.

BTW, where the heck is geochron? He ought to clean up his own mess. :rant: :whack: :lol:

[DarwinianJihadi]

To put it quite bluntly, the North was ripping off the South, and the South had wanted to put a stop to it for decades. The Tariff of Abomination was just one of many problems, including the 100,000 escaped slaves (estimate cited by Captain Ochre, if correct). There were not just one compromise, but quite a few that were struck to prevent Southern secession, which shows how bad the MOP-ripoff problem was antebellum. Indeed the Constitution of 1789 was itself partly a compromise in that vein. It's interesting that you - and others like Captain Ochre - would put the burden of responsibility for the South's disaffection on the shoulders of the North. If anything, those compromises showed what power the slave states had over the rest of the Union by being able to threaten secession and then garnering "compromises" that are generally good for the Southern states, the Compromise of 1850 being a whoppingly lopsided example in favor of the South. If anything, it illustrates the MOP of the Slave Power over the rest of the nation up until the election of 1860, when they finally realized that a noticeable - though not overwhelming - portion of the North had become tired of the South's stance towards slavery, which had become increasingly unapologetic and self-righteous over the decades. When the South thought that it could no longer wield the influence it wanted, it left.

So, it's not as simple as the North unilaterally exercising MOP over the South. The North as a whole didn't deliberately steal 100,000 slaves. They did have the Compromise of 1850 and the Fugitive Slave Act, after all. Abolitionists were even attacked in the North for being too inflammatory. So the idea that the entire North was acting with the express purpose of screwing over the South is just plain wrong.

[Captain Ochre]

It's interesting that you - and others like Captain Ochre - would put the burden of responsibility for the South's disaffection on the shoulders of the North.

The expert you cite, DJ, appears to be a moron.

Allegedly, Northern industrialists and their political friends had installed a schedule of price increasing import tariffs which forced Southerners to make an unpleasant choice. Either they purchased European goods, whose prices had been artificially raised to a price more than those of their Northern competitors, or Southerners could buy the relatively cheaper Northern products, but still at an inflated price due to the protected domestic market. Not only did the tariff eliminate European competition and protect northern industrialists, but if Southerners did choose to buy imported goods, the tax money was predominantly spent in the industrialized North rather than the agrarian South.
http://www.estrus.com/bands/quadrajets/cheetah/rich.html

Your guy claims that the South's own tariffs contradict their objection to the tariffs imposed by the federal government.
He completely (afaics) overlooks the fact that the South needed money for arms (to secure the ability to secede), and the fact that the Southern version of the tariff wasn't subsidizing Northern manufacturers.
Some expert (Columbian credentials notwithstanding).


If anything, those compromises showed what power the slave states had over the rest of the Union by being able to threaten secession and then garnering "compromises" that are generally good for the Southern states, the Compromise of 1850 being a whoppingly lopsided example in favor of the South.

And that's why they call it a "compromise"--because the South got everything it wanted?
:huh:

Peace was maintained until Abraham Lincoln's presidential election in 1861. When Lincoln took office, he made good on a campaign promise by signing into law a new import tax, the Morrill Tariff. Not only did the new tariff undermine the Great Compromise, but proved to be the highest tariff in U.S. history.
http://www.eh.net/Clio/Publications/confederate.shtml


If anything, it illustrates the MOP of the Slave Power over the rest of the nation up until the election of 1860, when they finally realized that a noticeable - though not overwhelming - portion of the North had become tired of the South's stance towards slavery, which had become increasingly unapologetic and self-righteous over the decades. When the South thought that it could no longer wield the influence it wanted, it left.

Exactly, because they could see which way the wind was blowing.


So, it's not as simple as the North unilaterally exercising MOP over the South. The North as a whole didn't deliberately steal 100,000 slaves. They did have the Compromise of 1850 and the Fugitive Slave Act, after all. Abolitionists were even attacked in the North for being too inflammatory. So the idea that the entire North was acting with the express purpose of screwing over the South is just plain wrong.

The tariff was designed to protect Northern manufacturers. It screwed over the South incidentally.
The Southerners noticed, and found that the North was able to pass tariffs that gave a disproportionate tax burden to the South regardless of their political opposition.
See again the parallel to the genesis of the American Revolution.

Many British still have trouble understanding that earlier revolution, BTW.
At least in terms of appreciating the justification for it.

[Augustine2004]

So the idea that the entire North was acting with the express purpose of screwing over the South is just plain wrong.It is true that the North was not unanimous in having the same aims vis-à-vis the South. It is also true that the South was no group of angels. However, for one thing, Lincoln was inflationist, mercantilist, and big-government. Far from the sort of president that the South preferred. Unfortunately for her, he was also the sort of commander in chief that can restore the Union in those times.

Mercantilist: the theory of economics and government that holds that a man or nation can gain or lose only if another man or nation loses or gains (nowadays called a zero-sum 'game') and that precious metals were always the most desirable form of wealth. To increase a nation's wealth, foreign trade has to be regulated so as to maximize merchandise exports and minimize merchandise imports, thereby creating an inflow of precious metals (called a 'favorable balance of trade').

[DarwinianJihadi]

Hey Ochre, I guess you can't get enough of me! :lol:


The expert you cite, DJ, appears to be a moron. I''m sure Kenneth Stampp appreciates that. :lol:


Allegedly, Northern industrialists and their political friends had installed a schedule of price increasing import tariffs which forced Southerners to make an unpleasant choice. Either they purchased European goods, whose prices had been artificially raised to a price more than those of their Northern competitors, or Southerners could buy the relatively cheaper Northern products, but still at an inflated price due to the protected domestic market. Not only did the tariff eliminate European competition and protect northern industrialists, but if Southerners did choose to buy imported goods, the tax money was predominantly spent in the industrialized North rather than the agrarian South.
http://www.estrus.com/bands/quadrajets/cheetah/rich.html

Your guy claims that the South's own tariffs contradict their objection to the tariffs imposed by the federal government.
He completely (afaics) overlooks the fact that the South needed money for arms (to secure the ability to secede), and the fact that the Southern version of the tariff wasn't subsidizing Northern manufacturers.
Some expert (Columbian credentials notwithstanding). Well, in terms of the overall argument regarding tax rebellion as a motivation for seceding, Stampp appeared to be arguing that if that was such an important factor, why was it that it was only South Carolina who was most vociferously against it eventually? Why weren't the other Southern states up at arms to the degree that SC was? While Stampp doesn't rule out disaffection about federal power with regard to this particular issue, he just doesn't see it as deserving this kind of attention. At least, that's what I gathered from the book.


And that's why they call it a "compromise"--because the South got everything it wanted?
:huh: Well, let me clarify. These compromises certainly didn't hurt the South immediately, though I think it's plain that the Fugitive Slave Act hurt them in the long run. What I was trying to convey was the idea that the South would throw a hissy fit, threatening to secede thereby creating a situation where the North would fall over itself to compromise and keep the South in the Union. I suppose you could call it a form of extortion.


Peace was maintained until Abraham Lincoln's presidential election in 1861. When Lincoln took office, he made good on a campaign promise by signing into law a new import tax, the Morrill Tariff. Not only did the new tariff undermine the Great Compromise, but proved to be the highest tariff in U.S. history.
http://www.eh.net/Clio/Publications/confederate.shtml You whippersnapper! I clicked on the link fully expecting to read about Southern tax rebellion but instead got a piece on Confederate inflation! Sneaky sneaky sneaky. :lol:


Exactly, because they could see which way the wind was blowing. So, is this an issue of states' rights or Southern MOP power?


The tariff was designed to protect Northern manufacturers. It screwed over the South incidentally.
The Southerners noticed, and found that the North was able to pass tariffs that gave a disproportionate tax burden to the South regardless of their political opposition.
See again the parallel to the genesis of the American Revolution. Hmm, but as Stampp would ask, how adversely did these taxes effect the South? From the Google link that Auggie provided, it would seem that SC had whined the most. I didn't get the impression that the other Southern states were as openly hostile to it enough to add to secessionist sentiment.


Many British still have trouble understanding that earlier revolution, BTW.
At least in terms of appreciating the justification for it. :lol: I hear they can't understand why we rebelled on taxes since the subjects in merry ol' England were being taxed far more heavily. In fact, I think that Europe still has ubertaxes.

Did you see that miniseries on PBS about the American Revolution from the British perspective? It's a little infuriating at times, but it's a must-see. I think the most relevant part to this debate was the idea that for the American officers, the war was ideological, whereas for the British, and even the French, it was simply business (as in martial professionalism). There was a wonderful scene where you had the French and British officers having dinner celebrating the peace, while American officers stood back and gawked at the French consorting, if you will, with the enemy.

This is getting WAAAY off topic, but there was another interesting tidbit about some british parliamentarians who were unsure whether the American Revolution was actually treasonous or whether the colonists were merely exercising their English rights.

[DarwinianJihadi]

However, for one thing, Lincoln was inflationist, mercantilist, and big-government. Far from the president that the South preferred. Is this what compelled the South to secede? Also, was this his platform before the war or during it? From the inflationist term, it seems you've hit on the paper money deal, which helps cause inflation, but this was during the war. The big-government also developed over the course of the war when Congress expanded the constitutional powers of the government in terms of both the economy and regulating duties.

[Captain Ochre]

Hey Ochre, I guess you can't get enough of me! :lol:

I'm not going to get into a geometrically expanding discussion with you.


I''m sure Kenneth Stampp appreciates that. :lol:

That's not the guy I'm referring to, IIRC.


Well, in terms of the overall argument regarding tax rebellion as a motivation for seceding, Stampp appeared to be arguing that if that was such an important factor, why was it that it was only South Carolina who was most vociferously against it eventually?

You appear to have misstyped. Barring a tie, of course only one state can complain "most vociferously" against it.


Why weren't the other Southern states up at arms to the degree that SC was?

:lol:
Interesting use of terms. If you want to see who was up in arms, just look at the states who fought.


Well, let me clarify. These compromises certainly didn't hurt the South immediately, though I think it's plain that the Fugitive Slave Act hurt them in the long run. What I was trying to convey was the idea that the South would throw a hissy fit, threatening to secede thereby creating a situation where the North would fall over itself to compromise and keep the South in the Union. I suppose you could call it a form of extortion.

It's of the same cloth that daily political compromises are made from. Vote for this, or I won't vote for that. Oooooooh! Extortion!


You whippersnapper! I clicked on the link fully expecting to read about Southern tax rebellion but instead got a piece on Confederate inflation! Sneaky sneaky sneaky. :lol:

You whippersnapper! I provide information about a Lincoln policy that was certain to anger the South and you ignore it in favor of an irrelevant gripe about the link leading to unexpected context!
Sneaky sneaky sneaky. :lol:


So, is this an issue of states' rights or Southern MOP power?

I missed where you defined "MOP", but I expect that it's not either one or the other but a combination.


Hmm, but as Stampp would ask, how adversely did these taxes effect the South?

Quite a bit, from some of the links I've seen.


:lol: I hear they can't understand why we rebelled on taxes since the subjects in merry ol' England were being taxed far more heavily. In fact, I think that Europe still has ubertaxes.

So why was it mainly X who whined about English taxes?
:wink:

[Augustine2004]

Is this what compelled the South to secede?Not the ONE thing. For one thing, Congress would have to go along.
Also, was this his platform before the war or during it?Lincoln was more or less consistent before and during the war, I think.
From the inflationist term, it seems you've hit on the paper money deal, which helps cause inflation, but this was during the war. The big-government also developed over the course of the war when Congress expanded the constitutional powers of the government in terms of both the economy and regulating duties.Quite true, but it does show what a kind of politician Lincoln was & what the government was going to be. The South seemed to foresee pretty well what would happen. As a rule she favored free trade and small government. Also, paper money = practically inflationism. A money system based strictly on precious metals (principally gold and silver or just gold) is practically impossible to inflate.

Look, if you felt that the government's policies were impoverishing you, won't you throw a hissy fit?

[Augustine2004]

Most historians probably would prefer 'ruling class' to 'majority by power.'

[DarwinianJihadi]

I'm not going to get into a geometrically expanding discussion with you. :huh:


That's not the guy I'm referring to, IIRC. :clueless:


You appear to have misstyped. Barring a tie, of course only one state can complain "most vociferously" against it. What? You lost me there.


:lol:
Interesting use of terms. If you want to see who was up in arms, just look at the states who fought. ??? The response to Auggie was about the Tariff of Abomination. Obviously I couldn't look at all the links that were on that Google link, but I didn't get the impression that the whole South was against these taxes to the level that South Carolina was. If you could point out a specific link or links that cover the wider reaction of the South against these, then it would be extremely helpful.


It's of the same cloth that daily political compromises are made from. Vote for this, or I won't vote for that. Oooooooh! Extortion! So, states routinely threaten to secede? :wink:


You whippersnapper! I provide information about a Lincoln policy that was certain to anger the South and you ignore it in favor of an irrelevant gripe about the link leading to unexpected context!
Sneaky sneaky sneaky. :lol: :teeth: Well, I was trying to put some light-heartedness in the response. I was a little confused about reading one thing while expecting another. It was by no means an irrelevant gripe, but rather a little ribbing to get you to post the real link so that I can see what context you're quoting from.


I missed where you defined "MOP", but I expect that it's not either one or the other but a combination. Yeah. Auggie and I were talking about Majority of Power.


Quite a bit, from some of the links I've seen. Would you be able to post some of them?


So why was it mainly X who whined about English taxes?
:wink: Umm... I lost you there again.

[DarwinianJihadi]

Not the ONE thing. For one thing, Congress would have to go along. Ah, okay.


Lincoln was more or less consistent before and during the war, I think. Hmm. Take a look at the Republican Platform in 1860 (http://www.harpers.org/RepublicanNationalConvention.html). It does appear to be pro-business, but it also seems to make measures for the protection of slavery in point Four. Points Seven and Eight make mention of preventing the expansion of slavery, but Four indicates that slavery can be protected in states where they already exist.


Quite true, but it does show what a kind of politician Lincoln was & what the government was going to be. The South seemed to foresee pretty well what would happen. As a rule she favored free trade and small government. Also, paper money = practically inflationism. A money system based strictly on precious metals (principally gold and silver or just gold) is practically impossible to inflate. Interestingly, it was the secession of the South that allowed these things to develop in an accelerated form. Without the obstruction of Southern Congressman, the Republicans could then impliment what they wanted. War could be used to justify a lot of things. :wink:


Look, if you felt that the government's policies were impoverishing you, won't you throw a hissy fit? Yes, but to threaten secession way back in the 1820s?

And as it relates directly to the Civil War, wasn't it still a bit reactionary on their part? Lincoln got elected into office with FAR less than half the popular vote. He was in no position to change the status quo. As Ochre points out, previous Congresses have been willing to compromise before to prevent the South from seceding. The 1860 Congress might have done the same thing with the Crittenden Compromise (http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/cc.html) had SC not already seceded and the entire Deep South - along with some northern states - boycotted the 1861 Washington convention (link (http://www.tulane.edu/%7Elatner/Background/BackgroundCompromise.html)). According to this link (http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h96.html), Lincoln also rejected the Compromise because it allowed for the extension of slavery into Western territories, but the article seems to suggest that he had no problem with compensating the South or for allowing it to exist where it already existed, which meshes well with the Republican Party Platform. In the end, it was the supreme irony of the South's own secession that allowed everything they feared to have occured. :shrug:

[Augustine2004]

Fillmore, Pierce, and Buchanan, Lincoln's predecessors, all sought to conciliate the South. Lincoln tried to appear to do so in his first inaugural address also, but the South was not fooled. Lincoln did declare what has been called an 'adamantine' policy.

Incidentally, I wonder whether the South had a much better chance of staying independent had she seceded much earlier.

[Augustine2004]

In the end, it was the supreme irony of the South's own secession that allowed everything they feared to have occured.
. . . government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish . . .

More irony: The South seceded because it did not want any more of what it thought was government of the South, by Northern interests, for the Northern interests.

[Augustine2004]

Many years ago an alternate-history novel postulated that the South won the war for her independence. The novel 'predicted' that the South would have eventually freed her slaves, partly for economic reasons. I'd like to have a poll. You post 'yes, freed' if you think that the South would have, or 'no, not freed' if otherwise. You may give reasons.

[Augustine2004]

The South came oh so close to winning Gettysburg. Factors that normally operated in favor of the South turned to the North instead.

1. Worse intelligence. The South was invading Pennsylvania, where the citizens would rather give intel to the North, unlike Virginia. Also, an extensive network of telegraph wires straddled Pennsylvania, giving the North unusually timely intel. It was thus imperative that the South's cavalary commander, Jeb Stuart saw it to that intel flowed to Lee. Unfortunately, as detailed in an earlier post, the flow was absent. For the first time in the war the North had the edge in intel for a major battle.

2. Worse lines of communication. As the battle developed, the North took and held the high ground south of Gettysburg and thus could place its signal stations much more advantageously, on Culp's Hill and Little Round Top. Edge to the North here.

3. Bigger than usual disadvantage in equipment and ordnance. Not only did the North have the new flanged breech loading rifle, which played such a crucial role in the first day of battle, which all but determined the outcome of the whole battle, the South was more handicapped than usual. An explosion in the factory that made fuses for the Army of Northern Virginia forced the artillery boys to get their fuses from Charleston. These were much slower burning than the regular ones, and the boys did not have time to practice with them, so could not adjust their artillery firing accordingly. The terrific bombardment that preceded Pickett's Charge was consequently largely ineffective, battering the North's rear, but doing little damage to the front line that was to take the brunt of the charge.

4. And, of course the North used the terrain in and around Gettysburg to better advantage. For example, on the first day of battle, when the South infantry was chasing the North cavalry boys through the town, the unusual downtown geometry caused the infantry to pile up in a massive traffic jam, causing costly delay. The North thus was able to build up its forces quickly enough to save the battle.


Had any of these factors been a little more in favor of the South, how different history might have been!

{This essay is based on the TV show "Battlefield Detectives" from the History Channel, which I saw tonight (the 20th).}

[CharlesLouis]

Antietam, The Night Before

They sat around fires
the night before engaging
being prodded
to their highest hours
by figures they saw
on orange tongues
of dancing desire
thrusting flickering forks
at their secure dens
of cowardice and fear,
and they revelled in
that seduction.

Until weakness would curl in
over them
in the lulls between
and bury their boldest
affirmations
in tides of dark portents
as to the morrow
with the lines breaking
the flash of bayonets
against September sun,
the crash headlong or crumpled
on moistened soil
while all around
the tumult, the pounding of hooves
the swish of flags
crescendoing,
and then
the slow cessation of sound.

Also: Visit to Antietam (http://geocities.com/clcing/4hh.html)

[Dienekes]

Gettysburg to me shows General Lee's incompitence as an offensive leader. Victory could have been in the palm of his hand and he ordered the famous Pichets Charge (despite popular belief not Pickets idea ordered by Lee, Picket furiously refused until threatening of Court Martial)