- This topic has 7 voices and 31 replies.
-
Posts
-
Regional conflicts were all too common, especially prior to the wars “beginning”. Look at the fighting in Missouri and Kansas. This was going on in the early 1850's. If you look at the why's of fighting, it had to do with all the things I mentioned, slavery would have been a part of it as well. Some of it was “Hatfield & McCoy” fighting… “People's War”, guerrilla fighting over grudges, land and differences of opinion. They fought and killed each other over this stuff.If you look at the start of the war, slavery was not on Northerners minds at all, in fact, Lincoln himself said; "I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union"I would say that the South wanted to break away on cultural grounds. Indeed, that was probably one of the main reasons. In James McPhereson's EXCELLENT book, "Battle Cry of Freedom", he explains that when a Union captor asked his Southern captive why he, a non-slaveholder was fighting to uphold slavery his captor replied "I'm fighting because you're down here". Shelby Foote said he regarded that as "a pretty satisfactory answer".Did the Union view of the why they were fighting change? You bet it did. I think some fought initially for the Union's preseveration, so fought for that AND against slavery, and some fought for the thrill. Later however I think it would be less thrill, and less Union preservation, than it was slavery/Union preservation combined.The kicker is that the South didn't change anything. They fought for the same thing from the beginning. Yes, slavery was part of the, but they were fighting for their culture, their way of life, however right or wrong it seemed, to them (at that time) it was a matter of resisting change they did not see as a necessity and one that infringed on their personal and rights. They were happy and now they were being told they had better change and that disturbed them deeply.What I would hope could be learned from this is that when we look at this conflict we had better apply it to ourselves today. Could we potentially go to war with each other again? I expect so. And it will be over things that people will, and actually do, say we would never fight over. That happened in the 1850's and it can happen today.
Notch…Southern culture and slavery were two sides of the same coin. Saying the South fought for their culture, for States Rights, etc. means the South was fighting to preserve slavery.The South has always had trouble acknowledging that (1) it fought a civil war (2) to preserve slavery. It invented the "Lost Cause" myth to avoid owning up to these truths.My sister lives in South Carolina and I often hear her say the same type of things you say. Her explanation (in private) to me is: What else can I tell my children? That their ancestors were bad men?Germany has done a relatively good job of teaching its citizenry that the Nazis were "evil." The South needs to acknowledge similar truths regarding slavery.Face it: --Slavery formed the economic underpinnings of the Old South. --Regional differences always boiled down to the issue of slavery.--The South started the Civil War to preserve slavery.
Notch...Southern culture and slavery were two sides of the same coin. Saying the South fought for their culture, for States Rights, etc. means the South was fighting to preserve slavery.The South has always had trouble acknowledging that (1) it fought a civil war (2) to preserve slavery. It invented the "Lost Cause" myth to avoid owning up to these truths.My sister lives in South Carolina and I often hear her say the same type of things you say. Her explanation (in private) to me is: What else can I tell my children? That their ancestors were bad men?Germany has done a relatively good job of teaching its citizenry that the Nazis were "evil." The South needs to acknowledge similar truths regarding slavery.Face it: --Slavery formed the economic underpinnings of the Old South. --Regional differences always boiled down to the issue of slavery.--The South started the Civil War to preserve slavery.
Uhm, wow... let me first say that I am not a southerner. I was born and raised in Illinois in the suburbs of St Louis. Every ancestor I have found fought for the Union. Just to get the whole southern bias question out of the way.Your arguments scream a sanitized, regurgitated viewpoint as opposed to an accurate, researched, unbiased, and historical viewpoint.There is no doubt a Civil War was fought, for a multitude of reasons that predate Ft Sumtner, and there is no doubt that slavery was indeed a very critical point in the conflict, albeit not the ONLY point.I find the association with the Nazis and Confederates alarming and status quo. That again screams regurgitated viewpoint and ignoring historical data. These men were not evil. No more evil than their northern bretheren. You do realized that a large number of northerners were opposed to abolition don't you? Some of these were high ranking Union Generals. You think THEY fought to abolish slavery? Would you say George Washington, and every patriot who fought for independence was evil? They were indeed seceeding from their established form of rule whose laws stated they did not have that right. These same men who gave birth to this country, mostly owned slaves. Most of these men were southerners as well. To call the southern men who fought for the Confederacy "evil" is saying that this country was based on and liberated for an "evil" premise.I have heard all the Unionist views as well as the Neo-Confederate views. This discussion isn't going to tread new groud or even attempt to convert ones thinking that "Oh, I see, well I was wrong then." The idea is to FAIRLY look at history. Take off the glasses that were given by the victors, look at the documents, facts, events, and stories and you will see that NEITHER side was better than the other, BOTH sides had justifications for armed conflict, and BOTH sides were EQUALLY to blame. There is no evil here. There is difference of opinion, difference of culture, and difference in interpretation of the law.Your view is just one of thousands that have invaded the minds of our culture and have caused the divide to be deeper because of lack of...actually, not lack of, but not being willing to accept the idea that the victor of a conflict could be equally wrong and liable for the conflicts being as is the vanquished of the conflict.The Civil War did NOT start in 1861.. it started all the way back in 1787 when the US Consitution replaced the Articles of Confederation and the divide built up with every event that took place between then and 1861.
Notch…you're articulate and make your case well. You're also dead wrong on many points, including your assertation that both sides were equally at fault. Your statement, "I find the association with the Nazis and Confederates alarming..." shows me you are unwilling to acknowledge the horrors of slavery. Taking a person's liberty isn't that far removed from taking a person's life. At least that's what I believe Patrick Henry had in mind when he said, "Give me liberty or give me death." Frankly I don't think it's inappropriate to compare slaveholders and Nazis: both groups felt that due to racial superiority they could do to others whatever they wanted, both groups forced others to labor under harsh conditions for their own ends, both groups unjustly put others to death.
Again, not every southerner was a slaveholder, not every northerner was against slavery.I agree, slavery is a horrible stain on our history, but I also realize that, for better or worse it was a LEGAL part of our history written into the law of the land at that time.You HAVE to look at the historical details and not let personal feelings and 140 year bias cloud your viewpoint.Patrick Henry, by the way, was a southerner (born in Virginia) and a slaveholder, a significant slaveholder I might add.
The Civil War did NOT start in 1861.. it started all the way back in 1787 when the US Consitution replaced the Articles of Confederation and the divide built up with every event that took place between then and 1861.
I disagree. When the Constitution was written slavery was a dieing institution in the South and it's decline continued until the cotton gin was invented. Slavery would have died a natural death in the South, just as it had in the North and in Europe, had the cotton gin not make the Southern landed gentry so rich they were willing to go to war to preserve their "peculiar institution."
...slavery is a horrible stain on our history, but I also realize that, for better or worse it was a LEGAL part of our history
What the Nazis did was also legal. That fact that something is legal does not mean it isn't evil.
...slavery is a horrible stain on our history, but I also realize that, for better or worse it was a LEGAL part of our history
What the Nazis did was also legal. That fact that something is legal does not mean it isn't evil.
Genocide was written in a German legal document? Where? The Nuremberg Laws do not sanction genocide, just seperation.The institution of slavery however was written in the US Constitution.
You HAVE to look at the historical details and not let personal feelings and 140 year bias cloud your viewpoint.
Slavery isn't just seen as being evil in the 20th/21st century. Prior to the Civil War slavery was seen as being evil in Europe, the North, and the most of the rest of the "civilized world" outside the South. I'm not using contemporary morality to say slavery was evil; I'm using the standards of the era to say it was evil.
Southerners were not evil for owning slaves. Northerners were not evil for rampaging through Georgia. War is what is evil.
The Civil War did NOT start in 1861.. it started all the way back in 1787 when the US Consitution replaced the Articles of Confederation and the divide built up with every event that took place between then and 1861.
I disagree. When the Constitution was written slavery was a dieing institution in the South and it's decline continued until the cotton gin was invented. Slavery would have died a natural death in the South, just as it had in the North and in Europe, had the cotton gin not make the Southern landed gentry so rich they were willing to go to war to preserve their "peculiar institution."
So Eli Whitney is responsible for slavery's rise? Come on.. Every professor I've talked to on this subject, even liberal ones have debunked this...All this being said, you are skating around the whole issue. I am not saying slavery is not and was not evil. I am saying that those people, not all of them, but quite a few of them were defending their legal right to own slaves. I've already stated that many a northerner did not think slavery should end. You are building a straw man on the morals of slavery and ignoring all the other intricacies that resulted in the eventual war.I've heard this argument over and and over. Again, I do not expect you to change your mind. But I think you are ignoring facts, documents, and using personal, political and regurgitated bias in coming to your conclusion.This has been debated longer and by people far smarter than you or I.I ultimately believe that there is more to this critical portion of our history than the specter of slavery. But sanitized, speedy, and politically correct history tells us otherwise. It's easy for a high school teacher to teach the subject quickly and say "it was over slavery". Same for a quick, etntry level college history course, "it was over slavery". But when you get down to the brass tacks, put off this quick, "well thats how it has always been taught" and "the Union won so they HAD to have been right and just" viewpoint you see the nuances and details of a far more complex and intriguing series of events that anyone with the patience to look and study will see that it was so much bigger than the issue of slavery.I've said my piece on this. Arguing is pointless. I think the details and facts speak for themselves. If you choose to look at them closely.What's so funny is I am not supporting the southern cause. Or the northern cause. And that my friend is where real history begins to shine.
Southerners were not evil for owning slaves. Northerners were not evil for rampaging through Georgia. War is what is evil.
You betcha... War is all hell.
Notch…had I answered these type of questions 10-15 years ago I would have posted something similar to what you wrote. It's was what I was taught.But the longer I've been away from school and the more reading I've done the more my views have changed on many subjects, including the Civil War. The views you expressed I now consider as being something akin to apologist/revisionist history. The more I read and ponder the issue the simpler it seems to become. In short, I really believe slavery was the only real problem the nation couldn't solve through compromise and was the real, true cause of both the sectional differences and the Civil War.I guess will have to agree to disagree.
The South had a right to secede, but was wrong in doing so. The North had no right to invade the South, but was right in doing so since the slaves were freed, and our Union was preserved. It's a case of had the South gotten its way, things would have been worse for the world down the road (thinking about the World Wars here). The Fire-Eaters were the real villains. Their uncompromising vehemence sent the nation hurtling toward fratricidal war. It was an avoidable war, but the sins of the nation had to be purged (both sides had their sins)…..well this is how many folks viewed it at the time. Both sides prayed to the same God and implored Him to grant them victory in the field. (How ironic is this?) The Civil War was a sad sad war, and most nations would not have survived such carnage, but not only did America survive it, it became a far stronger nation because of it.
As Shelbe Foote has pointed out, Americans are usually very good at compromise. The great exception (thanks to the fire eaters) was at the time the Civil War began.
My understanding of the political philosophy that began with John Locke and was expressed by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence leads me to conclude (that based on political philosophy) the South had the right to succeed.However, there is something to what an old professor of mine had to say on the subject. He said, there are more ways constitutional questions are resolved than just by a Supreme Court decision. The question of whether states have the right to succeed after joining the Union was decided by the contest of arms. And the decision was states do not have the right to succeed; that the Union is indivisible. As he further noted, had the South been successful then the question would have a different answer. The answer to the question, "Did the South have the right to succeed?" depends on where one turns to find the answer. The political philosophy on which the nation was founded and the constitution by which the nation is governed (as adjudicated by the contest of arms) provide different--and conflicting--answers.
