What do you think of the United States Civil War?

[Strike For The South]

What are your opinions?


IMO the war was inevitable. With the North becoming more industrialized and the south sticking to "older" ideals along with the amazing social differences (not just slavery) it was going to happen. I also belive there is a huge misconception about the CSA they were not all slave owning white differences very few whites in the south owned 1 slave. For the rich differences (about .5% of the people) it was about staying rich for the rest it was about states rights and protecting themselves and there families once it became clear this was going to strike in the south. Men like Lee and Jackson stayed because of there states not because they believed in slavery. What they dont teach is how Sherman marched through the South burning everything military or civilian, IMO the wrost wrist ever committed on American soil. the South also fought extremely hard even without the proper equiptment or good transportation. They were however better shots and knew the lay of the land. And last but not least the South would have won (it might not have been the best thing) If the Irish hadnt come over in mass numbers and the English didnt have a cotton surplus IMO the South would have won.

[Beirut]

I'm on my second tour through an excellent bio of Sherman. Looking forward to getting his memoirs from Amazon.com, but at $120, I have to wait. I like the guy. He had a gift for clear thought, foresight, and a master's appreciation of strategy.

Certainly he was ruthless and cruel, but as he said, "War is all hell."

[Kekvit Irae]

To actually have a Civil War, both sides must be of the same nation, continuing throughout the conflict. The American "Civil War" wasnt, as the South proclaimed their independance, along with their own government (and had their own president as everything).
It's like calling the American War of Independance the British Civil War. Same thing, except that in that war the seceeding states won.
"History is written by the victors."

My two cents.

[Strike For The South]

To actually have a Civil War, both sides must be of the same nation, continuing throughout the conflict. The American "Civil War" wasnt, as the South proclaimed their independance, along with their own government (and had their own president as everything).
It's like calling the American War of Independance the British Civil War. Same thing, except that in that war the seceeding states won.
"History is written by the victors."

My two cents.

True. But now it is a force of habit

[solypsist]

the south was never recognized as a seperate country and so the conflict remained civil in nature (but not, of course, in practice)

the war of independence was, actually, a rebellion, and remains so despite who won.



To actually have a Civil War, both sides must be of the same nation, continuing throughout the conflict. The American "Civil War" wasnt, as the South proclaimed their independance, along with their own government (and had their own president as everything).
It's like calling the American War of Independance the British Civil War. Same thing, except that in that war the seceeding states won.
"History is written by the victors."

My two cents.

[Kekvit Irae]

I still enjoy the old quote "All wars are civil wars, as all men are brothers."

[Mongoose]

What they dont teach is how Sherman marched through the South burning everything military or civilian, IMO the wrost wrist ever committed on American soil.

Yup. No on the south ever did that, for sure~:rolleyes: It's war; get used to it.



They were however better shots and knew the lay of the land. And last but not least the South would have won (it might not have been the best thing) If the Irish hadnt come over in mass numbers and the English didnt have a cotton surplus IMO the South would have won.

Question: Why would england and other nations decide to back the side that would have otherwise lost? Wouldn't it have made more sense to back the current winner?

AFAIK, the reason England and other nations didn't back the south was because they failed to win a large victory on union soil for most of the war. Antietam was southern victory, but what happended after it? Lee Went back to virginia.

Another reason for the south losing that you forgot mention is their lack of a navy. they had very few open ports towords the end of the war....

[Strike For The South]

Yup. No on the south ever did that, for sure~:rolleyes: It's war; get used to it.

If you can show me something on half of the scale of what Sherman did I will shut up




Question: Why would england and other nations decide to back the side that would have otherwise lost? Wouldn't it have made more sense to back the current winner?

AFAIK, the reason England and other nations didn't back the south was because they failed to win a large victory on union soil for most of the war. Antietam was southern victory, but what happended after it? Lee Went back to virginia.

Well England depended on the south for cotton. They also thought a weaker United States would be better for there remaning colonies.






Another reason for the south losing that you forgot mention is their lack of a navy. they had very few open ports towords the end of the war.... True

[Kekvit Irae]

I would note that at one point in time, the CSA had the most advanced ship in the world (the ironclad), until the North copied the design and smacked them down.
It's also worth noting that the Monitor design was not unsinkable, as noted from the sinking of the USS Tecumseh (within a few minutes!) by hitting a mine in the Battle of Mobile Bay.

[Mongoose]

Well England depended on the south for cotton. They also thought a weaker United States would be better for there remaning colonies.

But if they backed the south, wouldn't they be on better terms for trading cotton?



If you can show me something on half of the scale of what Sherman did I will shut up


Well, they never got the chance. The north was on the offensive for most of the war and the south was defending it self. Though they were not able to inflict the same amount of damage, they did try to devastate the north to some extent.


The south was not in a very good situation to begin with...
-Weak navy
-Mostly farm based
-Heavily out numberd by the north

Number one plus two were pretty bad because they needed to important alot of weapons IIRC.


"I would note that at one point in time, the CSA had the most advanced ship in the world (the ironclad), until the North copied the design and smacked them down.
It's also worth noting that the Monitor design was not unsinkable, as noted from the sinking of the USS Tecumseh (within a few minutes!) by hitting a mine in the Battle of Mobile Bay."

That's true. The reason the North had a better Navy was largely because of numbers for a part of the war. but in the North's defense, mines are a nasty enemy in Naval warfare....Wait...shouldn't this be in the history forum?

[Lehesu]

It was inevitable. The question of slavery, and the question of whether more soverignty lies in the states than in the national government in a federalist system, had been left unresolved since the American Revolution. Despite the fact that Jackson had pretty much shot down the idea of nullification during his presidency, the South still decided to nudge over the line a bit.

I am sorry, but all the Southern Generals, including General Lee, were traitors to a country that they had sworn oaths to. Many were good people, but this act tarnishes somewhat their legacies.

[Del Arroyo]

Antietam was southern victory,

Antietam was a Northern victory. It was costly, and McClellan failed to make anything out of it, but Lee lost and was forced to retreat.

DA

[Red Harvest]

I also belive there is a huge misconception about the CSA they were not all slave owning white differences very few whites in the south owned 1 slave. For the rich differences (about .5% of the people) it was about staying rich for the rest it was about states rights and protecting themselves and there families once it became clear this was going to strike in the south. Men like Lee and Jackson stayed because of there states not because they believed in slavery.
Those stats are completely wrong, and are often at the core of "it wasn't about slavery" debates. Interestingly, secessionists of the time argued the opposite about the number of slaveholders--and they were correct, I've checked their figures.
1. According to the 1860 Census, the 11 seceeding states had 9.1 million people, 3.5 million of them were slaves. So you have about 5.6 million whites. There were 317,000 slaveholders in those states, about 5.7%.
2. However, that also fails to tell the true story, because the census count only counted 1 slaveholder per household. In reality, the number of slaveholding families was about 32% of the total southern population (1.03 million households.)
3. R.E. Lee actually owned some slaves for several years (inherited from his father-in-law, IIRC.) While he had problems with slavery, he also had a rather typical socio/religious/racist justification for it as seen in some of his letters, basically giving it a "it's for their own good" spin.
4. States seceded in close to the same order as their percentage of slaves/slaveowners. Border states that did not secede, also happened to have a lower percentage of slaves than any of the seceeding states.

Those who didn't own slaves didn't necessarily oppose slavery. Slaves were expensive to purchase: ~$1,000 in 1860 dollars, and they had to be fed, clothed, and housed. Many simply didn't have the money to own slaves. If one was a subsistence farmer in the less fertile regions, then slaves were not really feasible (and these areas were largely anti-secession or even Unionist.) The dollar appreciation of slave value was one of the larger obstacles to eventual emancipation when the slave states were part of the Union.

I saw a study (but can't find it at the moment) of the percentage of folks holding slaves in various societal positions in portions of the Southern states. It was progressively higher until by the time "U.S. Senator" was reached it was something between 80 and 90%. Those who controlled the govt and business of the South were primarily slave holders.


What they dont teach is how Sherman marched through the South burning everything military or civilian, IMO the wrost wrist ever committed on American soil.
I've never seen any evidence that this aspect has been ignored. I get tickled about the uproar over property warfare vs. killing civilians or soldiers--let alone holding other humans in bondage and treating men, women, and children like cattle.

I find the concept of waging a war on physical property to be one of the more humane aspects. It was strategic war, pure and simple. The ability of both sides to keep armies in the field was directly related to their ability to forage and maintain horses/mules, chickens, pigs, etc. Public buildings, and industry were always subject to destruction anyway. The original kids gloves policy was foolish. Sherman's approach wasn't "Total War," it was "Hard War." Yes, it was harsh on civilians, but not in an effort to kill or otherwise demean them.

Many Southern civilians were not much happier with their own armies, than with the Federal invaders in regard to aggressive foraging and theft. Having a "friendly" army in your area during a campaign was not much better than having an unfriendly one. (Going a step further, Forrest had to wage some war against irregulars; and CSA sanctioned "partisan rangers" and the like in Arkansas/Missouri were a threat to all civilians, regardless of affiliation.) CSA forces used scorched earth tactics at times, even early and mid war (poisoning water sources in Mississippi, etc.) And the CSA was very hard on Unionists. Jackson had 20+ arrested in Winchester before he withdrew from there in early 1862. Actions like that in the Shenandoah were common--part of what put the fire into "Black Dave" Hunter. Unionists in CSA territory would often not volunteer, and were conscripted into the army. That didn't work so well, as there are a number of instances of units full of Unionist conscripts in CSA armies, leaving their positions, or deserting in large numbers when the opportunity arose.

Side note: You realize that the CSA started conscription don't you?

Sherman, Grant and others had tried to limit the amount of property destruction early in the war, but were not terribly successful. Later they realized that they could use aggressive foraging both to maintain their armies in the field, and to greatly reduce their enemy's capacity to maintain his own. The war would have been far shorter and less bloody had this been done sooner.


the South also fought extremely hard even without the proper equiptment or good transportation. They were however better shots and knew the lay of the land. And last but not least the South would have won (it might not have been the best thing) If the Irish hadnt come over in mass numbers and the English didnt have a cotton surplus IMO the South would have won.
The South fought well, that is pretty well established in any media/literature that you peruse. What isn't mentioned, but should be, is that western federal armies often did very well vs. CSA troops--and in a number of instances were outnumbered, but won anyway. The western federal armies were often composed of men with similar rural roots. The war was won in the West, not the East. Grant had captured two entire Southern armies by mid-1863.

Of course the Southern generals knew the lay of the land. It was their own. (It didn't stop them from doing an inept job in the West, but it certainly helped them in the East.) One thing that stands out, both sides had great trouble conducting invasions. Once either side entered enemy territory, things started to mount against them: lack of military intelligence, logistical problems, long supply/communication lines, the foe's ability to concentrate forces against them, etc.

The South's big mistake was in believing they could remain agrarian in an industrial age, and also relying on an outside nation to directly intervene in their behalf. The South was foolish and utterly unrealistic with the cotton embargo. This cost them money, credit, and supplies when they actually could get through the blockade. By the time they rectified this in early 1863 it was already too late. Their blockade running efforts (to make up for their lack of industry) were damaged greatly by their reliance on "free enterprise" and individual state efforts, rather than a uniform national system. It was not unusual for blockade runners to focus on bringing in goods for wealthy households, rather than military necessities.

Funny thing is, the Brits got suckered by the South. Southern buyers and agents assured the Brits that even if the CSA lost, the USA would pay off Southern debts after the war (didn't happen, LOL.) Had the Brits not believed that, the CSA would have found few willing to supply them with anything.

[Red Harvest]

Antietam was a Northern victory. It was costly, and McClellan failed to make anything out of it, but Lee lost and was forced to retreat.

DA
Correct, it was a Northern victory and allowed Lincoln to announce the Emancipation Proclamation. Ironically, Antietam also showed how inept McClellan really was, leading to the agonizing but necessary hunt for a competent replacement.

Antietam is an odd victory, in that it had such powerful, but mixed results for both sides.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I still enjoy the old quote "All wars are civil wars, as all men are brothers."


Civil wars aren't.



Seamus

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I would note that at one point in time, the CSA had the most advanced ship in the world (the ironclad), until the North copied the design and smacked them down.
It's also worth noting that the Monitor design was not unsinkable, as noted from the sinking of the USS Tecumseh (within a few minutes!) by hitting a mine in the Battle of Mobile Bay.

True, but the ironclades were virtually "proof" against all of the direct fire weapons of the day. This is what ushered in the development of the massive modern naval guns we are more familiar with today.

Seamus

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Red H:

Good summary of the strategics. I've seen your info on the slavery issue before, and it is nicely done.

It is debatable if Northern use of a "forage and destroy" approach would have ended the war very much faster. Remember that they were pushed back an awful lot until late '62/early 1863. When it was adopted, it did kick the legs out from under the fragile war economy of the South.

The confederacy was a broken dream even before the heroics of Gettysburg. Grant's conquest of Vicksburg and the loss of the Mississippi essentially doomed the Confederacy in strategic terms.

Seamus


P.S. Not sure why Solly didn't kick this one into the Monastery.

[Kraxis]

True, but the ironclades were virtually "proof" against all of the direct fire weapons of the day. This is what ushered in the development of the massive modern naval guns we are more familiar with today.

Seamus
Actually I think a few southern ironclads were holed by northern ironclads on the rivers. I think there was one called Atlanta that more or less got damaged to the extent that it had to be beached, by a Union ironclad.

Btw, wasn't the Gloire earlier than the Virginia?

[Red Harvest]

I would note that at one point in time, the CSA had the most advanced ship in the world (the ironclad), until the North copied the design and smacked them down.
It's also worth noting that the Monitor design was not unsinkable, as noted from the sinking of the USS Tecumseh (within a few minutes!) by hitting a mine in the Battle of Mobile Bay.
There are a couple of problems in these statements.
1. The French actually built the first western ironclad in 1859, La Gloire. (Oda Nobunaga apparently had some iron clad boats made in 1576!)
2. The USS Monitor was actually more advanced and far from a "copy." It was the predecessor of the battleship. It likely could have done better in the duel with the Merrimac, but full charges were not used for its guns.
3. Heavy rifled cannon could pose a serious problem even to ironclads. This was known at the time. Monitors were considered far from unsinkable, and mines were a major concern.

There was some belief that the ironclads/monitors were also a very good reason for Britain to stay on the sidelines. Britain had far more to lose than to gain facing such ships. In the War of 1812, the U.S. Navy had earned some respect, far exceeding what was expected of it at the time--so Britain had no reason to believe the USN would be unable to fight effectively with the new weapons. Britain also ran the risk of losing Canada if it entered the conflict and didn't win.

[Kraxis]

Weee... The Gloire was earlier than the Virginia (Merrimac was the Union name of the frigate hulk used for the hull), and seaworthy too.

But it wasn't Oda Nobunaga that had ironclads it was Hideyoshi's Korean opponent, the famous Turtleships. Few in numbers they made mincemeat of the samurai fleets.

[Kanamori]

The Civil War marked, and began, some of the biggest changes our country has gone through.

It also marks some of the biggest waste of lives because of a combination of the rifle and severly out-dated tactics.

The terrible slaughter and savagery against countrymen is probably best understood, or shown, in Antietam and The Bloody Angle of Spotsylvania.

The tensions that led up to it were perhaps started by debates over slavery, which were reflections of a Northern-Southern power struggle that started in the times of Webster and Calhoun. And, adding a little known fact (I think), some spots in the North were more anti-aboltion (not the same as proslavery) than most places in the South, prior to rebellion. A mob of wealthy people actually tried to kill Garrison in Boston, a leading abolitionist, saying that he wanted to destroy the Union.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Antietam was a Northern victory. It was costly, and McClellan failed to make anything out of it, but Lee lost and was forced to retreat.

DA
Anteitam was a, casualty wise, Southern victory. Anteitam was, tactically, a draw. Anteitam was, strategically, a Northern Victory.

[Don Corleone]

Red H, fascinating treatment of the topic. I am thoroughly impressed. I had not known the ownership of slaves extended quite so deeply into society, but my hat's off to you on your research.

I used to sympathize with the Southern cause, and viewed it as a question of right of self determination. I have moved beyond that. Having read personal memoirs & biographies of soldiers on both sides, I have no doubt that the military minds in the Confederacy believed that they were fighting for their independence and to protect their homes. But I'm afraid they bought the hype. In further review, I think I need to spend more time what the politicians, the Congress of the CSA as well as the State Assemblies of the secceeding states actually had to say behind closed doors.

There was no need for them to fire on the Union's southern harbor forts in the Carolinas. They certainly could have blockaded the fort and refused entry for resupply without firing on the fort itself.

Looking back on it now, I suppose the South was looking for a fight and it found one.

[Strike For The South]

Thanks for the info RH I will have to do more reaserach. (Only to disprove you of course~;) )

[Strike For The South]

Double Post

[Red Harvest]

I'm going to put in a plug for a book here, Lifeline of the Confederacy: Blockade Running During the Civil War by Stephen R. Wise (who also authored Gate of Hell: Campaign for Charleston Harbor, 1863.) The book does an excellent job putting into perspective the issues of Southern financial credit, blockade running, and strategic material supply. I already knew about some of the material shortages, but this book really helped me to tie it all together.

The South had some strategic material shortages that could have prevented it from fielding armies. Among these was lead. The South obtained two-thirds of its supply from Wytheville, VA and pre-war stocks. The other third came from blockade running. In addition to lead, the South imported at least 400,000 rifles (60% of its modern arms) and 2/3rds of its saltpeter (for gunpowder.)

Another strategic material was copper. This is something the South could only obtain from East Tennessee at the time. When this source was lost, the Southern ordnance chief turned to buying up all the copper stills in North Carolina (turpentine and apple-brandy manufacture) for use in making percussion caps. Casting of bronze cannon was immediately discontinued--instead howitzers and Napoleon smoothbores were cast from iron after that.

Salt was also a vulnerability during the war (in this time before refrigeration.) Much of the salt production came from Saltville, Virginia. Raids against it were mostly unsuccessful. As compensation, blockade running allowed the South to bring in a substantial quantity of meat (much of it packed by the North ironically.)

It is feasible that had the Union focused on the Shenandoah (a breadbasket for the Army of Northern Virginia), then Wytheville, Saltville, and East Tennessee early in the war, the South would have been in an impossible position for supplying its field armies.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

If you can show me something on half of the scale of what Sherman did I will shut up

Do you mean ever or in the Civil War? If you mean civil war than no, you're right.

Off the record, if I was in the situation, I would do the same thing. That's war and it is what it is.

Alexander did some pretty bad things when he invaded Persia and India, that would definetly match Sherman. (I say this only if you mean ever not just Civil War)

[Mongoose]

Antietam was a Northern victory. It was costly, and McClellan failed to make anything out of it, but Lee lost and was forced to retreat.

DA


IIRC Lee was able to halt McClellan's attack due to huge losses, so IMHO the battle itself was a southern victory. The over campaign was a Northern victory however.

Please correct me if im wrong.

[ichi]

At the end of WWII we fire-bombed Germany and nuked Japan, simply to break their will and destroy their ability to rise up and resist. This is ostensibly what Sherman did, although some reports indicate that he took great pleasure in destroying Georgia.

What would the South have done had they been able to successfully invade Maryland or New Jersey (not that they ever could have done that). Prolly the same thing, slash and burn.

ichi:bow:

[Red Harvest]

Red H, fascinating treatment of the topic. I am thoroughly impressed. I had not known the ownership of slaves extended quite so deeply into society, but my hat's off to you on your research.

I used to sympathize with the Southern cause, and viewed it as a question of right of self determination. I have moved beyond that. Having read personal memoirs & biographies of soldiers on both sides, I have no doubt that the military minds in the Confederacy believed that they were fighting for their independence and to protect their homes. But I'm afraid they bought the hype. In further review, I think I need to spend more time what the politicians, the Congress of the CSA as well as the State Assemblies of the secceeding states actually had to say behind closed doors.

There was no need for them to fire on the Union's southern harbor forts in the Carolinas. They certainly could have blockaded the fort and refused entry for resupply without firing on the fort itself.

Looking back on it now, I suppose the South was looking for a fight and it found one.
I agree, the South was looking for a fight. There were so many ways that the South deluded itself about how Britain and the Union would react. The South had whipped itself into a frenzy and clear thinking did not prevail. It thought the Union wouldn't fight, and that if it did it would tire quickly. (Admittedly, the majority in both the North and South deluded themselves into assuming that it would be over quickly.) It thought Britain would support the CSA against the Union--I admit that part makes me angry, as it is pure treason. I don't see that the North had really done anything that grievously wrong leading up to Secession--the North was not faultless, but the North was not working as a block to harm the South. The South was simply unable to accept a diminished role in the nation commensurate with her constitutionally allowed representation, and the South was desperately concerned about its economic and political future. (I don't feel compelled to cast this too much in terms of good vs. evil.)

I've been of mixed mind about the whole issue since I was a kid and it has only been the past year or so that it has gelled for me: The South had become a slave to slavery. It was a trap that it couldn't get itself out of, and those who created the conditions were long dead so placing blame doesn't really add anything. There were many Southerners who could see the future and knew slavery must end, but there was no straightforward/non-traumatic way out. (The best I've heard of is gradual emancipation: every child born after a given date would be free.)

A couple of the concerns for the average Southerner, valid fears:
1. What does one do with 3.5 million freed slaves? The ex-slaves would have represented a majority of the population in Mississippi and South Carolina, and they would have exceeded 44% in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and Louisiana. Many in the North feared freedom for slaves, because there were serious concerns about ex-slaves competing for jobs.

2. The Southern economy had become slave dependent. It had become agrarian due to the immense profits from cotton exportation. Without some sort of plan and help in transitioning, the Southern economy would likely collapse.

3. There was immense money tied up in slave ownership, it is the equivalent today of taking away someone's vehicles, or even their home, and at the same time placing their career and income in great jeapoardy and almost certain reduction. That is how valuable a slave was.

4. There was considerable concern about the possibilities of a bloody slave rebellion.

I can sympathize with Southern concerns, but not with the act of Secession without fundamental oppression. Nor of course can I accept slavery as being defensible, despite the hardships that emancipation would entail.

[Strike For The South]

The South had become a slave to slavery.

:embarassed: Why does that sound so true?

[Red Harvest]

IIRC Lee was able to halt McClellan's attack due to huge losses, so IMHO the battle itself was a southern victory. The over campaign was a Northern victory however.

Please correct me if im wrong.

Lee lost a disproportionate number of men, 27% of his force. His army was so battered that it had no choice but to retreat. In doing so it was forced to yield the field, although he delayed this another day (winning a bit of a moral victory over Little Mac.) Yielding the field is often considered defeat in and of itself--although I don't agree with the weight given to it. The absolute best I could give Lee at Antieatam is a tactical draw. He was not forced out of *most* of his positions on the day of battle, but he didn't repulse his attacker either. By not being crushed, Lee beat Little Mac, but he didn't beat the Army of the Potomac that time, nor did he win the battle, IMO.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

The South had become a slave to slavery.

It is true. The south was so dependent on slaves in the cotton economy that taking slavery away was just too much for them. They had to fight to keep it.

[Del Arroyo]

IIRC Lee was able to halt McClellan's attack due to huge losses, so IMHO the battle itself was a southern victory. The over campaign was a Northern victory however.

Please correct me if im wrong.

Here's a description of the battle: http://www.civilwarhome.com/antietamdescription.htm

Northern casualties were about twelve thousand four hundred, and Confederate casualties were about ten thousand three hundred.

Burnside's attack nearly cut off Lee's line of retreat. Lee had been trying to make an invasion of the North-- instead he nearly lost his whole army and was forced to retreat under cover of night. Had Burnsides acted more skillfully the Confederates could have been in a whole lot more trouble. They were in enough trouble as it was, with more than 25% of their army becoming casualties in the fighting.

So, in short, it was a Union victory. Not as big as it might have been, but a victory nonetheless.

DA

[Strike For The South]

My opinion has always been that the war was foolish. Personally I believe in the right to seceed.

The ultimate test of democracy is willing unison in the face of adversity. Forcing the compliance of the states was, in my opinion, and act of tyranny.

I dont beleive so. That is one of the reasons I belive in allot of states rights becuase it would remedy this problem. The only way a state should ever consider seccesion is if they are facing absoulte tyranny.

[Strike For The South]

Who are you to say whether or not they can seceed and why? This Union was supposed to be voluntary. Like all revolutions, it lost it's true meaning very quickly. To hold a state bondage against its will--and especially to ravage it to ensure it remains in place--is anti-democratic at best. Regardless of the circumstances.

Then what happens to the union? it becomes stagnant and unable to compete. If stagnant was legal in America we would ether be ether or be in a continuos state of disarray.

[Strike For The South]

Union? The Civil War ended the Union, and began the Hegamony.

Please elaborate

[Strike For The South]

The Union was voluntary. It was states banding together for a common goal, for prosperity. For the greater good. The Civil War was about establishing control. The South was in the wrong about slavery, but not about secession.

Where does it say seceession was legal Pre-1861?

[Strike For The South]

Nowhere. The issue is not really touched on.

I'm talking about the very idea of democracy. Look at it like this:

You've got a bunch of scrawny but brave kids, and you've got a very big bully. Alone, the kids are too weak to fight the bully. So they band together and drive him off. They help eachother out to invest in better ways of protecting themselves. However, there begin to be disagreements between this kids as they get older, and can protect themselves more ably in small groups. If some want to split off on their own, would it be right for the others to beat them up and force them to remain in the group?

At which point the bully comes back all juiced on steroids and picks each kid off one by one. This Quote comes to mind "Together we stand divided we fall"

[Redleg]

Lee lost a disproportionate number of men, 27% of his force. His army was so battered that it had no choice but to retreat. In doing so it was forced to yield the field, although he delayed this another day (winning a bit of a moral victory over Little Mac.) Yielding the field is often considered defeat in and of itself--although I don't agree with the weight given to it. The absolute best I could give Lee at Antieatam is a tactical draw. He was not forced out of *most* of his positions on the day of battle, but he didn't repulse his attacker either. By not being crushed, Lee beat Little Mac, but he didn't beat the Army of the Potomac that time, nor did he win the battle, IMO.

This is absolutely correct - when an army leaves the field with the other army holding it - it is indeed considered a loss.

Edit: Nice information on the Civil War Red Harvest while there are points that I could quibble over - its a good and accurate summary of some of the causations (SP) and events of the American Civil War. Good show

[Kraxis]

Lee lost a disproportionate number of men, 27% of his force. His army was so battered that it had no choice but to retreat. In doing so it was forced to yield the field, although he delayed this another day (winning a bit of a moral victory over Little Mac.) Yielding the field is often considered defeat in and of itself--although I don't agree with the weight given to it. The absolute best I could give Lee at Antieatam is a tactical draw. He was not forced out of *most* of his positions on the day of battle, but he didn't repulse his attacker either. By not being crushed, Lee beat Little Mac, but he didn't beat the Army of the Potomac that time, nor did he win the battle, IMO.
Yup... And that is also why the Battle of Jutland was not a German victory.

Mac hadn't even sent his reserve Corps of regulars into battle. Those were still very much better than most of the almost 'levies'. That was a failure. Not to use your strongest forces is simply bad command. That Corps could have rolled over the remaining southern forces.
And percentagewise Mac lost far less troops. His army was intact, Lee's was not.

I would say the battle was already decided when Mac got hold of those plans in the cigarcase. It could be victory or victory, with a difference in how big, and in this case the victory was basically not visible.
While Mac was no good commander I still believe he couldn't have bungled this up to the point that he would have lost. He was conservative and cautious. Such men tend to fare badly in attack but not in defense and even in attack they just end up not being effective, rather than putting themselves in bad positions like more rash commanders (Lee).

[Meneldil]

My opinion has always been that the war was foolish. Personally I believe in the right to seceed.

The ultimate test of democracy is willing unison in the face of adversity. Forcing the compliance of the states was, in my opinion, and act of tyranny.

I'm not american, but I agree with this statement. If a State want to seceed, it should be allowed to. Or rather, back then, it should have been allowed to, wether the issue about slavery was the point of the grudge or not.

In a country like France, this would be foolish, but in a federal country, it sounds pretty obvious.

[Lehesu]

Cube, it's a democratic republic. Not a confederation, not a loose coalition of the willing, but a republic. And a Federal Democratic Republic in America means much more than freedom for everyone, leave when you want whilly-nilly. All disputes must be handled through the system; nullification was never an option, as displayed by Jackson and Washington in the past. The Civil War was not tyranny. Lincoln had no intention upon gaining office to free slaves and was willing to work diplomatically to solve the problem. South Carolina just decided to shell a fort as soon as he was elected, in the face of a democratically elected president. A fundamental ideal of this government is the peaceful transition of power, precedented in 1800. South Carolina, in a fit of hot-headed rage, decided to spit on the views of the majority without exhausting diplomatic means and attempted to overthrow or break away from the national government to keep their slaves.

The Southern Ideal wasn't some noble quest for freedom in the face of a tyrannical federal government; it was a petulant outbreak of frustration by a people whose economic means of survival was rapidly being outpaced by the rest of the world, and certainly the nation.

[Kanamori]

The Constitution is a binding legal document. To terminate the agreement in any way that is not specified in it is an act of rebellion and a case of rejecting the entire foundation of law that they had accepted. It's like saying, I want to do this thing that is currently illegal, so I terminate my agreement with the government... where does that leave us? And, the reason the Constitution no longer suited them was because the Northern ideals found a majority, whereas the Southern ones did not. Who was being undemocratic? It is not a case where they were not being represented, they wanted to terminate because they were crying over a majority's decision.

[Redleg]

I said before the constitution has nothing to do with this. Nor do any funky semantics. Democracy was beaten to death in a back alley during the Civil War.

Then you are mistaken. The Southern States attempted to justify their departure from the United States using the constitution. The Civil War had several issues that were involved.

Democracy did not take a beating during the Civil War either - and it took several years to finish one of the main outcomes of the civil war the allowing of Blacks to have full constitutional rights.

The thing that took a beating because of the Civil War was the concept of States Rights and the increase of the powers of the Federal Government.

[lancelot]

the south was never recognized as a seperate country and so the conflict remained civil in nature (but not, of course, in practice)

the war of independence was, actually, a rebellion, and remains so despite who won.

Actually, I believe one of the obscure german minors did recognise the confederacy...

But it wasnt a civil war anyway technically, it was a war of independence. Opposing sides in a civil war are vying for the control of one state, which clearly wasnt the case in the US/CS war.

[lancelot]

The South was stupid, of this there can be no doubt. Slavery was wrong, and they were idiots. You could even say they brought it on themselves--they did fire first. So in essence the south is a bad example.

However, I do think any state should be able to peacefully seceed. And to deny them that would be tyrannical.

Yea, slavery was so wrong the US government continued such pleasent acts as segregation and discrimination into the middle 1900's! What an enlightened government.

I consider the US government idiots, blacks would not have had to suffer the KKK and segregation (IMHO) if slavery had been able to die its death naturally...even Brazil was implementing gradual emancipation at the time I believe...The forced policies of the federal government is to blame for every race,political problem derived from the 'civil war'

[Big_John]

Red H, when are you going to write a book? :book:

[Tribesman]

The South was stupid, of this there can be no doubt.
Yep , didn't they even manage to elect a President who had opposed seccession ?
It must have been a bit of a shock for him~D ~D ~D

[Red Harvest]

Red H, when are you going to write a book? :book:

Probably not for quite some time. ~;) A strategic work is beyond me for the foreseeable future. I'll admit I've been considering trying my hand at writing a battle monograph.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

My opinion has always been that the war was foolish. Personally I believe in the right to seceed.

The ultimate test of democracy is willing unison in the face of adversity. Forcing the compliance of the states was, in my opinion, and act of tyranny.

Surely this is an anarchistic position? How can a state remain any semblance of order if elements of it can break off as and when they choose?

Taken to it's logical conclusion, this point of view would mean it would be perfectly acceptable for me to declare my house a sovereign nation and secede from the UK. A country couldn't function if this was the case.

As an aside, the American Civil war is a period that I remain, unfortunately, very ignorant about on the whole-I suppose I've been too busy studying my own country's wars. Can anyone recommend a book that gives a god overview of the conflict?

[lancelot]

Surely this is an anarchistic position? How can a state remain any semblance of order if elements of it can break off as and when they choose?

Taken to it's logical conclusion, this point of view would mean it would be perfectly acceptable for me to declare my house a sovereign nation and secede from the UK. A country couldn't function if this was the case.


I see what you mean here, there a a couple of big however's though...

First, some site the right of self-determination as a right to secede...that every state has the right to choose how it is governed...if this is within the union and extends to leaving said union (which I personally believe is legitimate) is another debate.

2nd, the UK was and is a constitutional monarchy, which removes/limits the 'rights' of people/states/whatever a bit more than a federal republic does. So in a sense we do have less freedom from a certain perspective and is not within our type of government to secede our houses.

(On a side note, it often tickles me how many of our yankee breathren find the 'war of independence' as perfectly legitimate yet they will somehow try to suggest states within a federal coalition (the CS states) had no rights to do the same? (often referenced to the 'perpetual union'. Many southerners call the war the '2nd war of independence'...

Its a fascinating period, I recommend it! Hope I helped!

[Tribesman]

Can anyone recommend a book that gives a god overview of the conflict?

There was a short lived version of the New Testament with an add-on covering the civil war , but I don't know where you would find a copy .

[Tachikaze]

Technically, the American Civil War was neither a civil war, nor a war for independence, it was a war of secession. Not much different from a war for independence.

I wish the South had been successful. The United States (or whatever they would have been called after the separation) would now be a little weaker, which would be better for the world, Bush would be a problem for another country to deal with, and there would be no debates over the Confederate flag.

Also, the two regions are culturally quite distinct.

[Kanamori]

I said before the constitution has nothing to do with this.

Yes, and the assertion is wrong. Secession, by definition, is legally done. That would have required an amendment, in order to terminate the agreement and make it a secession. They voted amongst themselves, excluding the other members who joined the legal agreement with them, to leave the Union. As such, what they did was rebellion. Again, the only way to terminate a legally binding contract is through itself, and the tools where already inside of it. The South wanted to do things its own, which was itself anti-majoritarian, and, simply put, was a childish reaction to the government established by The Supreme Law of The Land (i.e. the constitution). (I find it ironic that had the Virginia plan gone through during the conventions, the process of legislating would have been even more difficult for Virginia, since both houses were propesed to be represented proportionally.)


Nor do any funky semantics [have anything to do with the secession argument].

Semantics are essential to understanding language. However, I do not, as I believe you are trying to suggest, play word games (besides Text Twist and Scrabble, they are fun. Er... wait, is that an equivocation?~D)


Democracy was beaten to death in a back alley during the Civil War.

Our government has never been a true Democracy. Democracies are at best impractical on a large scale. Our government combines aspects of indivual, or minority, rights with a majoritarian method. Further, when the Southern rebels modeled their governments more exclusively on the fundemental ideas of states' rights and Democracy, they doomed themselves. The Southerners fought amongst themselves and Jefferson Davis hardly had any power to anything. The military command was not centralized and movements were awkward. The states coined, or printed in this case, and enormously crippling inflation resulted. These two things alone provided huge contributions to their own destruction. They brought their own destruction on themselves; I only feel bad for the soldiers who were drafted.


Yea, slavery was so wrong the US government continued such pleasent acts as segregation and discrimination into the middle 1900's! What an enlightened government.

The Federal government never passed any such legislation. It was the Southern governments, and an awful court decision, that allowed for segregation. In fact, it took troops ordered by Eisenhower to ensure Brown v. BOE, allowing blacks into white schools.

[Kanamori]

Taken to it's logical conclusion, this point of view would mean it would be perfectly acceptable for me to declare my house a sovereign nation and secede from the UK. A country couldn't function if this was the case.


Exactly, a reductio ad absurdum shows the precariousness of the position.


Can anyone recommend a book that gives a god overview of the conflict?

The beginning parts of The Metaphysical Club by Louis Menand provides a very good overview, even though it focuses on the development of Pragmatism.


First, some site the right of self-determination as a right to secede...that every state has the right to choose how it is governed...if this is within the union and extends to leaving said union (which I personally believe is legitimate) is another debate.

Self-determination is not a Constitutional Right. The States all entered the Union granted by the Constitution. Once you have entered a legal agreement, you simply cannot, legally, leave on your own accord.


(On a side note, it often tickles me how many of our yankee breathren find the 'war of independence' as perfectly legitimate yet they will somehow try to suggest states within a federal coalition (the CS states) had no rights to do the same? (often referenced to the 'perpetual union'. Many southerners call the war the '2nd war of independence'...

We are a country founded by rebellion. There was nothing legal about how the Colonists severed the bonds with the British government. THe major difference is that the Colonists succeeded through force of arms.

[Lehesu]

Please don't blame the racial issues exclusively on the federal government. The American people gave up on Reconstruction. Wanted to move on to better things, such as industrialization. The masses rarely maintain a long-term work ethic to solve long-term, complicated issues such as racial segregation.

Cute statement, Tachi. I hope that is sarcasm, no?

[Red Harvest]

Surely this is an anarchistic position? How can a state remain any semblance of order if elements of it can break off as and when they choose?

Taken to it's logical conclusion, this point of view would mean it would be perfectly acceptable for me to declare my house a sovereign nation and secede from the UK. A country couldn't function if this was the case.
That's my feeling about it as well. It is similar to the "libertarian ideal" of having no taxes, no real central authority, etc. Nice theory, but as unworkable as pure communism. Late in the war, Jefferson Davis, made a reference to the problems of the States Right model of national government with a comment that the CSA's epitaph would read, "Died of a theory."

West Virginia actually seceeded from Virginia proper during the war and has remained a seperate state since then. The area had a small percentage of slaves, and the populace were largely Unionist/anti-secessionist in sentiment. They banded together and formed their own govt.

The CSA had concerns that North Carolina would abandon it during the war. NC was not as enamored of secession in the first place, was the last to secede, and had a somewhat independent streak throughout. Despite all of that, it sent more troops than any other CSA state to the war effort if I recall correctly. Wilmington, North Carolina rose from a minor developing port into the premiere blockade running port, absolutely critical to the CSA war effort and the dying Confederacy's final lifeline.

About 10 or 12 years ago, a number of counties in western Kansas were openly discussing seceeding from the state of Kansas over property tax issues. The tax structure was hitting the western ranchers hard and they did not feel that they were being adequately represented by the state government. It was a rural vs. urban argument if memory serves. Some similar issues arise in arid West Texas where a 10,000 acre ranch can support a few hundred cattle. The property taxes make it hard to even keep a ranch together.


As an aside, the American Civil war is a period that I remain, unfortunately, very ignorant about on the whole-I suppose I've been too busy studying my own country's wars. Can anyone recommend a book that gives a god overview of the conflict?
Unfortunately, I've been studying too many facets of the ACW military campaigns in depth to help much on single work covering the big picture. I've read a few summaries, but it has been a long time. Shelby Foote has written a mammoth 3 volume set that encompasses the entire conflict. I have not read it (though I have greatly enjoyed snippets of Shelby's writing and comments about the war.) I do intend to read this later as it is probably the most respected. Bruce Catton has also written a 3 volume work.

A book you might find useful as a summary of all the major actions is The Civil War Battlefield Guide, 2nd Edition. The book contains surprisingly detailed summaries of nearly all the major and minor battles, along with USGS topographical maps with approx, division/brigade level movements illustrated. The summaries are most often written by the recognized authorities on each campaign/battle and are often framed in considerable depth.

[Red Harvest]

First, some site the right of self-determination as a right to secede...that every state has the right to choose how it is governed...if this is within the union and extends to leaving said union (which I personally believe is legitimate) is another debate.
It is an incredibly weak argument. What is to prevent carrying that to county or city level? Rules from the governing hierarchy above...that is exactly what the federal/central govt. does.

It was particularly hypocritical of Texas to secede...considering the recent war and its recent entry into the Union. It owed some debt to the rest of the country.



(On a side note, it often tickles me how many of our yankee breathren find the 'war of independence' as perfectly legitimate yet they will somehow try to suggest states within a federal coalition (the CS states) had no rights to do the same? (often referenced to the 'perpetual union'. Many southerners call the war the '2nd war of independence'...
I don't think stated reasons for the War of Independence were all that grand. Taxation without representation had some merit as a cause. From what I can tell, the root was that the colonists had become accustomed to managing their own affairs. When policies in Britain changed and some effort was made to make the colonists more accountable, there was a backlash.

A key difference of course was that the Confederate states had consented to representation. These were not colonies or territories Actually, they consented to over representation, as they were awarded representatives in the house for 3/5 of the slave population. The slaves of course had no say at all. Despite outnumbering the whites in several states. True self determination in South Carolina or Mississippi might have reversed the slave/master roles. ~D

[Tribesman]

It was particularly hypocritical of Texas to secede
Didn't the bloke in charge down there object to secesion and got himself thrown out of office for his trouble ?

[Strike For The South]

Didn't the bloke in charge down there object to secesion and got himself thrown out of office for his trouble ?

Sam Houston the man who won TEXAS's independence was so ashamed. Although IIRC he resigned he wasnt kicked out. He moved and died in 1863 still wondering wether the greatest piece of land in human history would ever be part of the union agian.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Sam Houston the man who won TEXAS's independence was so ashamed. Although IIRC he resigned he wasnt kicked out. He moved and died in 1863 still wondering wether the greatest piece of land in human history would ever be part of the union agian.

I always enjoy an ubiased assessment.~;)

As to the right of secession:

A number of the founders felt the secession was appropriate under certain circumstances. Jefferson wrote pieces favoring the concept -- and was the principal author of the DOI that the South hailed. Many would argue that the South's list of "causes that impel[led] them to the separation" were not sufficient. Slavery, and the fear of changeover problems, really had decreased the quality of thought among Southern leadership.

Did the Union wreck the Constitution to preserve the union?

Maybe not, but there were a few dents and more dings than you could count. To fight a war against secession, Lincoln abetted the secession of part of Virginia from Virginia:dizzy2: , suspended habeus corpus, enacted conscription, deprived individuals of property without due process of law (Emacipation Proc), and sidestepped/trampled on most of the civil rights of nearly all citizens in Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland. The result was a growth in the power of the Presidency unrivaled by any previous administration and most subsequent ones (FDR edges Lincoln out in some areas). He is often hailed as our greatest President for these actions. While all of these pragmatic actions may have been required to win, it would be hard to support Lincoln as a strict constitutionalist.

What if the South had won?

This has always been the $64k question in US history. Would it have created the world of Turtledove's creation? I suspect that the two nations would have reunited decades (after slavery died its inevitable death) later under pressure from European powers practicing "divide and conquer" pressure tactics. The lack of "natural" N-S borders, cultural similarity, and economic linkages would have gradually pushed things in this direction. Still fun to speculate.

Red H:

Cool bit about Saltville. Nice reminder of the vital resource issues.

Seamus

[Kanamori]

Jefferson wrote pieces favoring the concept

Jefferson did not help draft the Constitution, he was away in Paris.


suspended habeus corpus


The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.


deprived individuals of property without due process of law (Emacipation Proc)

The Emancipation Proclamation only effected slave owners in the South, thus, the Rebels were only given a slap on the wrist for open rebellion.

[Slyspy]

But if they backed the south, wouldn't they be on better terms for trading cotton?



Well, they never got the chance. The north was on the offensive for most of the war and the south was defending it self. Though they were not able to inflict the same amount of damage, they did try to devastate the north to some extent.


The south was not in a very good situation to begin with...
-Weak navy
-Mostly farm based
-Heavily out numberd by the north

Number one plus two were pretty bad because they needed to important alot of weapons IIRC.


"I would note that at one point in time, the CSA had the most advanced ship in the world (the ironclad), until the North copied the design and smacked them down.
It's also worth noting that the Monitor design was not unsinkable, as noted from the sinking of the USS Tecumseh (within a few minutes!) by hitting a mine in the Battle of Mobile Bay."

That's true. The reason the North had a better Navy was largely because of numbers for a part of the war. but in the North's defense, mines are a nasty enemy in Naval warfare....Wait...shouldn't this be in the history forum?

This sums up why the South lost. Economics. With an economy entirely reliant on the export of two cash crops (cotton and tobacco) the blockade of their ports was fatal. It increased the selling price and the risks involved in the trade, and the the South's trading partners were not willing to pay the cost. That is why Britain started sourcing her cotton from her holdings in India, and so dealt a deathblow to the South's war effort.

With little money coming in the economy collapsed. Industrialisation, essential to winning the war, faltered. In the countryside farmers and plantation owners could not sell their produce. But then they had less to sell. The war was draining the manpower on which farms relied, both white and black.

The South could, IMO, have never won a drawn out conflict. The Confederate states just were not geared up for modern, almost total, war.

[Red Harvest]

Did the Union wreck the Constitution to preserve the union?

Maybe not, but there were a few dents and more dings than you could count. To fight a war against secession, Lincoln abetted the secession of part of Virginia from Virginia:dizzy2: , suspended habeus corpus, enacted conscription, deprived individuals of property without due process of law (Emacipation Proc), and sidestepped/trampled on most of the civil rights of nearly all citizens in Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland. The result was a growth in the power of the Presidency unrivaled by any previous administration and most subsequent ones (FDR edges Lincoln out in some areas). He is often hailed as our greatest President for these actions. While all of these pragmatic actions may have been required to win, it would be hard to support Lincoln as a strict constitutionalist.


Lincoln in many ways did an admirable job of maintaining some balance in the face of a rebellion and truly treasonous actions by many still within the boundaries of the remaining states. A true tyrant could have seized all sorts of powers.

When in a true state of war, with enemy armies and raiders operating and recruiting those same states, I find it hard to condemn the overall tone of federal actions. This was essentially a time for martial law.

The irony of states rights cause leading to open warfare is that it only strengthened the power of the Federal government, and diminished the role of states. This was not Lincoln's doing, this was their own. People became U.S. citizens first, New Yorkers, Missourians, and Virginians second.

Strict constitutionalism isn't something I would necessarily support for several reasons. It is not a sacred religious document, it has its flaws. It is after all a framework requiring both modification and interpretation.

As for "depriving individuals of property" through Emancipation...the answer is fundamental: People are not property, therefore the individuals were not deprived of true property by freeing slaves. Regardless, since the states were operating outside the laws, their citizens would have lost protections such as these anyway. I've always found it humorous that there were secessionist complaints about preserving their rights under a government that they had forsaken their citizenship under while in arms against it.

As a war act, it was again a tool that the secessionists in effect handed to Lincoln to use against them, because they started a war vs. the United States. To make it permanent, a constitutional amendment was drafted and sent to the state legislatures before the end of the war.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Lincoln in many ways did an admirable job of maintaining some balance in the face of a rebellion and truly treasonous actions by many still within the boundaries of the remaining states. A true tyrant could have seized all sorts of powers.

I agree. I was pointing to the "extra"-constitutional character of some of his actions, but I am well aware thatt defeating the rebellion may have been impossible without such measures.


The irony of states rights cause leading to open warfare is that it only strengthened the power of the Federal government, and diminished the role of states. This was not Lincoln's doing, this was their own. People became U.S. citizens first, New Yorkers, Missourians, and Virginians second.

I've always been struck by the irony of that as well.


Strict constitutionalism isn't something I would necessarily support for several reasons. It is not a sacred religious document, it has its flaws. It is after all a framework requiring both modification and interpretation.

I'm a good deal further toward the originalist end then you, RH, but if the ACW wasn't grounds for Constitutional "embroidering," I don't know what was.


As for "depriving individuals of property" through Emancipation...the answer is fundamental: People are not property, therefore the individuals were not deprived of true property by freeing slaves. Regardless, since the states were operating outside the laws, their citizens would have lost protections such as these anyway. I've always found it humorous that there were secessionist complaints about preserving their rights under a government that they had forsaken their citizenship under while in arms against it.

As a war act, it was again a tool that the secessionists in effect handed to Lincoln to use against them, because they started a war vs. the United States. To make it permanent, a constitutional amendment was drafted and sent to the state legislatures before the end of the war.

Your basic premise, that people are not property, is one with which I whole-heatredly concur. It is to our nation's detriment and shame that we ever followed the herd and allowed it.

My inclusion of the EP on the list reflected its "extra"-constitutional implementation. The EP declared slaves free by executive fiat, depriving person's in rebellious regions of their property [remember, however insipid, the verdict of the Dred Scott decision had not been formally overturned nor superceded by Constitutional ammendment at that time] without due process of law. No effort was made to discern if the slave-holder in question was loyal to the union or to the confederacy and no court was even consulted in rendering the decision.
As a war move, it was effective and increased the economic pressure on the South by depriving Southerners of vital labor even when they retook certain territory etc. It was also effective at making support for the rebellion from Britain and France that much more difficult. Morally, it was clearly the right thing to do, but it was not done Constitutionally.

Please don't confuse me with one of those folks who wanted the South to win, they mostly got what they deserved and slavery had to go. I merely think it is important to assess Lincoln on his actions and recognize their influence on the Presidency.

Seamus

[Alexanderofmacedon]

It is the fundamental right of the people in any democracy to make that choice for themselves.

Well, that shut him up...~;) ~D

[Tribesman]

Can anyone provide good link to the fighting in Kansas in the 1850s over the slavery issue ?
Or a good book on the subject .
Also how close was the cotton industry to collapsing , due to costs , before the gin was invented ?

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Oh, man. Fighting in Kansas was horrible. People for slavery were murdering people against it and vice versa. It was horrible.

Don't know a good link, but it was bad...

[Tribesman]

Just wondering what impact it had and how it changed things for addition of new States and Slavery .

[Kanamori]

Many historians say that John Brown and Bleeding Kansas really pushed on the South; it is possibly one of the big triggers towards huge friction betweeen North and South. That, and people like Emerson, and other abolitionists, made him a hero for sticking to his convictions... I guess they didn't really care that he did it by splitting people's skulls open.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

John Brown was a terrorist, and deserved his execution as much as any. The righteousness of his cause did not, does not, and can not justify the brutality and horror of his actions. He was lionized by Emerson and others in the Abolitionist movement -- at one remove.

I always thought that Lee acted with amazing restraint at Harper's Ferry -- perhaps more than was warranted.

Seamus

[Red Harvest]

Can anyone provide good link to the fighting in Kansas in the 1850s over the slavery issue ?

I've not studied it in detail, although when I was a kid, Kansans still loathed/distrusted Missourians in a general sense. (Humorous to me since I was born in Kansas and lived in both states throughout most of my childhood.) The numbers killed were not large, but the population of the time was quite small, 8,600 whites in 1855 according to the territorial census. By 1860's census it was over 100,000.

Kansas should have been admitted as a free state according to the Missouri Compromise of 1820, but the slave staters were not satisfied with the arrangement as it was eventually going to sap their control in the Senate. This led to the Kansas-Nebraska act of 1854, which allowed for elections in Kansas to determine if it should be slave or free. Missouri was a slave state and fairly populated. So during the elections of 1854 and 1855 many Missourians from bordering pro-slavery counties crossed over and voted illegally as Kansans. It was so bad that in some places only 20 votes out of 600 were by legal residents. The pro-slavery forces had control of many of the mechanisms of territorial authority as a result. Missouri's slave statutes were adopted while Kansas was still a territory.

A slave constitution arose from this and was backed by the weak President Buchanan of the time. A congressional committee declared the elections bogus after investigating the matter. Eventually, in 1859, a fourth constitutional convention established Kansas with a free constitution. Of course, predictably, the Southern states opposed it, so Kansas did not become a state until Jan. 1861 when several secessionist senators left, ending their procedural and filibuster delays.

There were quite a few cross border raids during the Civil War by irregulars of both sides. Quantrill and his Missouri guerrilla's repeatedly wore Union uniforms to approach and then massacre Federal forces. They also sacked the free soil capitol of Lawrence massacring 150 unarmed men and boys. The violence led the Union commander Thomas Ewing to issue an edict depopulating 4 Missouri counties during the war--eliminating them as safe havens for "Border Ruffians." The savagery of the Missouri/Kansas border war was probably the worst of the Civil War.

[Redleg]

Depending on what you want to know about bleeding Kansas before and during the Civil War depends on the prespective you wish to review.

Now I am not going to recommend any one book - but will provide some links to several sites that might have something of use for you to review.

http://www.civilwarstlouis.com/History/EdwardsVSMcElroy.htm


http://www.nps.gov/fosc/bleeding.htm

http://www.kshs.org/research/topics/war/

The University of Kansas has several decent works on "Bleeding Kansas" that will help you discover some of what you are looking for.

You can find a lot on the internet if you use a few key words.

Jayhawkers
Bushwackers
Bleeding Kansas
Quintral (I am spelling it wrong)
Lawerence Kansas
Fort Scott

"Bleeding Kansas American Civil War" Will generate a lot of hits and if I remember correctly there was even a boot titled as such.

[Papewaio]

If the South had won don't you think the two separate sides would have been much easier to crush by another contender.

Which side would Texas have joined? Would it have been feasible given that it would require war with Mexico on one front and probably a new round of hostilities on the other front.

Same for Spain, France or Britain attacking them separately.

[Azi Tohak]

If the South had won don't you think the two separate sides would have been much easier to crush by another contender.

Which side would Texas have joined? Would it have been feasible given that it would require war with Mexico on one front and probably a new round of hostilities on the other front.

Same for Spain, France or Britain attacking them separately.

Texas was part of the Corn-federacy. Provided lots of good troops and leaders for them too!

Speaking of Jayhawkers... well, nevermind. Probably shouldn't. Might get myself in trouble (I fear the banstick!).

Azi

[Strike For The South]

Which side would Texas have joined?

Texas was part of the stars and bars.

[Red Harvest]

Red Harvest, your arguments are sound from a logistical point of view, but what of a democratic point of view? What of liberty, and freedom? The Civil War was just as anti-democratic as Bush running into Iraq and saying "Alright, you're all a democracy now."

If a sufficient portion of the population wants to seceed, that should be their right. Obviously it's a slippery slope--you can't just claim your house is a sovereign nation. But the CSA was far more than a single house. The Civil War was the best example of American Hegemony.

Yes, there are some valid reasons to say there should be some way to leave the Union. However, some sort of peaceful treaty agreement would be necessary. To get out, you must be willing to take some lumps in the form of concessions. Instead, after the secession votes, seizures of federal property became the norm. The fact that no Constitutional provisions were even made for leaving strongly supports the argument that the Founding Fathers considered this a perpetual Union that could not be broken without mutual consent. Clearly, the other Union states complied with the Federal war effort, so there still was democracy in action. It is the "granularity" of democracy in question when one considers the Secessionists.

I don't believe democracy was compromised by it. Instead the scale moved from State to Federal and the hierarchy became more logical. The real travesty of hegemony rested with Southern attempts to dictate to the rest of the nation. They had succeeded in this regard for too long and it was distorting the fabric of the country. With 3.5 million slaves in the Southern population, it is hard for me to imagine a true 1 man (blind to color) = 1 vote referendum favoring disunion in many states, and the most secessionist states would certainly have flipped the other way. That is part of the crux of the problem. The South was starting from a morally indefensible and non-democratic position.

What should have become of Unionist or anti-secessionist counties, cities, and general population "behind the lines?" I would have argued for the option of individual counties and cities to opt out of their seceeding states through referendum within some time frame. Otherwise, you have an equally vexing problem of U.S. citizens being denied their property and rights where they are the majority.

A major aspect is still the problem of having a beligerent for a neighbor. Control of the Mississippi was a large fear for the far Western states. The competition for territories would have lead to war (look at Kansas.) Plus the blatant Southern attempts to use Britain against the United States created an intolerable situation--two wars had been fought with Britain in recent memory.

[Big_John]

And when the South shot on Fort Sumter, they shot themselves in the foot in that regard. so, in other words, they shot themselves in the fort http://deephousepage.com/smilies/laugh2.gif








:embarassed:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Fort-unately or not, Lincoln took the view that Sumter was their Rubicon.

The Constitution does not contain a provision for secession, but perhaps such documents should. GC does have a point when he implies that any polity accepting union into some larger polity forever after with no hope of change save through violence seems less then ideal for a collective republic. What right have I to dictate terms to my great-great grandlings? I think a state would be insane to secede, but should they lose that right when accepting statehood?

Seamus

[bmolsson]

I think that the American Civil war was a tragedy for both North and South......

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Most civil wars are. Some people would argue that the civil war brought us much closer together though. I don't know...

[econ21]

It's an interesting topic, with some contemporary parallels. For example, I find myself sympathetic to the case of secession in the case of the former Yugoslavia or East Timor. I think government ultimately has to be by consent and so if a region is so disaffected it wants to secede, I think it should be permitted to do so under certain circumstances. As a UK citizen, we have a possible case of this with Northern Ireland - if the nationalists get a majority within the province for leaving the union, I think the peace agreement implicitly says they can go. However, I am leery of allowing a region to secede for narrow economic interests. For example, in the 1970s, when the discovery of North Sea oil turned Scottish nationalism from a cause of romantic losers to a major political force. You have to have a good reason to want to secede - to escape oppression, for example - and the South's reason seems to have been one of the worst possible.

In the context of the ACW, the whole issue of secession is so intimately connected with slavery, I find it impossible to disassociate the two when discussing the war. I would be tempted to make a judgement like Portia's in the Merchant of Venice - take your pound of flesh, but spill not one drop of blood. Let the South leave, but do not let them take one slave with them.

On the issue of John Brown as a terrorist: again, this may be an issue with contemporary parallels (animal rights terrorism?). What went on in bloody Kansas was probably as heinous and murderous as what happened in Bosnia or is happening in the Sunni triangle. However, it is hard not to read Brown's words at the trial and be moved:


I think, my friend, you are guilty of a great wrong against God and humanity. I say it without wishing to be offensive - and it would be perfectly right for anyone to interfere with you so far as to free those you willfully and wickedly hold in bondage. I do not say this insultingly. I think I did right and that others will do right who interfere with you at any time and all times. I hold that the golden rule, "Do unto others as you would that others should do unto you," applies to all who would help others to gain their liberty.

Slavery is one of those fundamental moral issues where considerations of law, constitutionality, even non-violence no longer become paramount. I tend to find hollow the calls to war by patriots, shouting "liberty or death" but here is surely one issue where this is no hyperhole. What Brown did was foolish and probably wrong, but I can't help siding with Lincoln and the North for doing the right thing, if for the wrong reasons.