|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Cause of Civil War | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The official state song of Maryland is "Maryland! My Maryland"
quote: What is often forgotten is that it was originally a poem soon set to music and is based on the occupation of Maryland by Union Troops (particularly the city and port of Baltimore and the capital at Annapolis) to prevent Maryland from seceding and the despot and tyrant mentioned is Lincoln. Maryland still sent a contingent of soldiers to fight for the Confederacy and they marched south through Washington to Richmond (about 150 miles) to swear allegiance before turning around and marching the 90 miles back north to Manassas for the Battle of Bull Run. On their way south they marched through DC and even stopped to salute the flag. At the time the capital was virtually undefended and they could have easily captured it and Lincoln ending the war, but honor did not let them fight before first joining the Confederacy. History could have been different. To carry the irony into today, it is traditional for the US Naval Academy chorus to sing the song before each Preakness. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2728 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Theodoric.
Theodoric writes: They never gave the political process while Lincoln was President a chance. I think I can agree with you on this. You've all convinced me. The rebels gave up on the union too easily, and thereby sacrificed any possibility of proving that states' rights was a legitimate complaint. Because of that, they made themselves look like NWR's "sore losers." Clearly, if it really was about states' rights, as their descendants claim, they did a very poor job of demonstrating this fact to the world, and did a very poor job of dealing with it. The next question that comes to my mind is whether or not it was actually about slavery from the Union side. What I've gathered from this discussion and a few cursory Google/Wiki searches on the Civil War is that there was a window between the first phases of the conflict and the Emancipation Proclamation in which the motivations of Lincoln and the Union might feasibly be questioned. What can we say about the Union perspective during that time period? Was Lincoln's interest in the conflict originally about slavery? Or was it originally about something else, and only came to be about slavery as a political move later on? -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Lincoln had a long history of opposing slavery, often outlining very good logical reasons to oppose the institution that went beyond Black/White.
But he was also practical and understood the limits of his power even though he often tried (many times succeeding) in going beyond the Constitutional limits. He understood that the issue must eventually be resolved by the Legislature and Court, and was perfectly willing to even accept slavery if doing so would preserve the Union. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
Bluejay writes: That's why Southerners are still disgruntled about the whole thing today: they feel like Lincoln used a popular stance on one moral issue to hide the fact that he was trampling all over another, less popular and less well-known moral issue that they felt was nevertheless bigger and more important. Make that some southerners are still disgrunted. I don't empathize with them in the least. Frankly, your argument has no legs. Secession began before Lincoln did anything at all. Further Lincoln's stated policy was that he wouldn't touch slavery in the slave states. The issue of what would happen to slavery in the western territories was certainly a national matter and not a matter of states rights. And slavery wasn't just noise. It was the issue. No amount of self rule would have given the southern states to decide the fate of the western territories. The southern states basically gave away the 1860 election, and probably had no future cards left to play except threatening secession in order to get their way on national issues. Then 7 states bolted as soon as the election results were in. I just don't see the states rights moral high ground here.
quote: That's my view as well. In particular, if you are in the minority on any local issue its just going to be your neighbors who will attempt to trample all over your personal rights.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
What can we say about the Union perspective during that time period? Was Lincoln's interest in the conflict originally about slavery? Or was it originally about something else, and only came to be about slavery as a political move later on? Lincoln was certainly opposed to slavery; but at the time of his election he had no intention of abolishing it outright (which in any case was a job for the legislature and not the executive). But the south (rightly) interpreted his election as a big "screw you" from the North to the South. He had been elected because he opposed slavery, by Northerners who opposed slavery, without him even bothering to go on the ballot in the Southern states. His election was a signal that the North was not prepared to compromise, and that eventually, if the Southern states remained in the Union, the North would abolish their "peculiar institution". It wasn't so much a question of what Lincoln was going to do, it was that his election was the writing on the wall. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
But if I am to be foolishly led on by the stories of The Gangs Of New York, the Scorsese MOVIE, then I am left with a hodgepodge of motives & sabotaging to advance one's own. In fact, it is my belief that soldiers go to war because of their own families and their own towns. They are willing to believe all manner of lies if it means saving their families & their home neighborhoods. So most of the southern soldiers were fed propaganda about "States Rights", which really only amounted to states rights to own slaves, while, on the other hand, northern soldiers were fed propaganda about saving the Union & serving your country as you walked right off the gangplank of the ship that brought you here. It is hard for me to think of a more powerful scene than of the Irish landing in New York and getting instantly impressed into the Union Army and boarding ships heading down to the battles down south while cranes are unloading the dead from those same battles off those same ships. OOOoooo. Of course the Union cause wasn't all pretty roses & moral superiority! LOL. But that was just a MOVIE. And everyone kneauxs that MOVIES are not reference material at all in this forum.
I stand for the RABBITS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Another fine book I read recently instead of long ago when I should have is Confederates In The Attic. It's only half-time, man. Hard core of course. But the scene that still brings tears to my eyes is from the Burns stuff - the old black & white movie of the survivors of Gettysburg, now in their 80's and 90's or whatever, reenacting the Battle...up to the point where they cannot go any further in this charade and throw down their weapons and run to each other in joy and hug and hug and hug - what a scene!!!! Mr. Dylan has been quoted somewhere as saying that the story of this country cannot be understood without at first understanding the story of the Civil War. - xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3131 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
That's why Southerners are still disgruntled about the whole thing today: they feel like Lincoln used a popular stance on one moral issue to hide the fact that he was trampling all over another, less popular and less well-known moral issue that they felt was nevertheless bigger and more important. A subset of people who live in the south even still talk about the civil war much less take sides. It is usually the uber-nostalgic, super-fundamentalist, racist subset of white southerners. Many of who were are not even old enough to remember the civil rights movement. This is coming from a grandson of a southern white preacher from Georgia who has lived in the south the majority of his life and is married to a girl from the mountains of North Carolina.
And slavery wasn't just noise. It was the issue. No amount of self rule would have given the southern states to decide the fate of the western territories. Slavery was the catalyst for the Civil War (or as the Southern extremists call it, "The War of Northern Aggression") it provided the impetus to begin the war in the first place. That is the South was bitter and indignant at the self-righteous North for the North telling them to get rid of their #1 economic source, aka slave labor in the cotton fields and other crops, In addition this free slave labor made many of these Southerners, especially the politically activated ones, rather wealthy and very reluctant to give it up.
The southern states basically gave away the 1860 election, and probably had no future cards left to play except threatening secession in order to get their way on national issues. Then 7 states bolted as soon as the election results were in. I just don't see the states rights moral high ground here. Agreed, when you are morally wrong, you are wrong no matter how much tap dancing you do. However, the North didn't really hold that much of a morally high ground either in the cause of abolition, as the majority who went to war with the south DID NOT do it because they wanted to free the blacks in the south. Many did it because of patriotic, peer pressures and other reasons to keep the union together as well as to protect their own interests. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given. "It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
But that was just a MOVIE. And everyone kneauxs that MOVIES are not reference material at all in this forum. Gangs of New York was first an historical book that was later adapted by Scorcese. You might be surprised how historically accurate that movie is (though of course much of the dialogue is interpreted). "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 866 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
DevilsAdvocate writes: Slavery was the catalyst for the Civil War (or as the Southern extremists call it, "The War of Northern Aggression") it provided the impetus to begin the war in the first place. That is the South was bitter and indignant at the self-righteous North for the North telling them to get rid of their #1 economic source, aka slave labor in the cotton fields and other crops, In addition this free slave labor made many of these Southerners, especially the politically activated ones, rather wealthy and very reluctant to give it up. Don't forget, the South demanded that any and all talk of abolition be suppressed, , not just in the South but the North as well, regardless of the First Amendment. After all, the supporters of slavery demanded the death penalty for anyone in the entire USA who stated slavery was morally wrong. I still have the goods on this, just haven't supplied the references because I have not felt the need now that potty mouth is gone, at least for now.
However, the North didn't really hold that much of a morally high ground either in the cause of abolition, as the majority who went to war with the south DID NOT do it because they wanted to free the blacks in the south. Many did it because of patriotic, peer pressures and other reasons to keep the union together as well as to protect their own interests. A succinct and IMO true observation, given what I have read. The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes. Salman Rushdie This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Dr. Adequate writes: But the south (rightly) interpreted his election as a big "screw you" from the North to the South. He had been elected because he opposed slavery, by Northerners who opposed slavery, without him even bothering to go on the ballot in the Southern states. His election was a signal that the North was not prepared to compromise, and that eventually, if the Southern states remained in the Union, the North would abolish their "peculiar institution". I think the opportunities for compromise were gone. The Missouri Compromise left in place a workable framework to keep a political balance in place, but both the Southern and Northern states hated it. Jefferson Davis wrote the following in his 600 page memoir, "The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government"
quote: Davis's epic is an unabashed apologetic for slavery and contains plenty of evidence that states rights is just a euphemism for right to own Africans. The Dred Scott Decision vindicated the South's position regarding the Missouri Compromise, but the decision also pretty much removed any possibility of enforcing any compromises which limited slavery's expansion in any way. What's worse, the decision implied that slave holders could freely bring their slaves into non slave holding states. Further Lincoln wasn't really an abolitionist on the order of William Lloyd Garrison. The south's rejection of both Lincoln and Stephen Douglas suggest that the South had already reached a no compromise position. That said, Lincoln's failure to campaign in the South surely was not helpful. But pragmatically it would have been a pointless and probably counter productive effort.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Dr. Adequate writes: Despicable how? It is certainly true that the USA and CSA didn't have to resolve their differences by war. The USA wanted to, and however much we may sympathize with their goals, they didn't have to if they didn't want to. Fair enough. First, the South had no right to secede, and in any event their reasons for doing so were reprehensible. Second, the South had no right to seize federal property or to fire on Fort Sumter. In short the 'you could have left us alone to exploit Africans' rationale denies all Southern responsibility for the war. Further, the slaves had no say about secession even though they were a large fraction of the southern population and despite the fact that their status would be dramatically worsened under the Confederacy. I understand that legally the slaves had 'no rights that a white man is bound to respect' prior to the civil war. Still, I find secession against the will of the slaves or any other large minority of Southerners in a state to be evil even if legal. Finally, if the CSA were not coerced, freedom and equality for blacks would have come when? In the fullness of time? While it is true that the North did not fight to free the slaves, they snorking well should have. Perhaps it is not fair to judge the confederacy under today's standards of fairness and morality. But it sure is fair to bring this stuff up when modern Neo Confederates wax nostalgic about the antebellum south. I can certainly judge modern apologists, and I'm not accusing anyone here of being one, by today's standards.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Why didn't the south have a right to secede?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
quote: Yikes! The reference to Lincoln is very blatant. Pretty amusing. I had not heard of this USNA glee club tradition and I'm a grad. Looks like it started after my time. InfieldFest - Preakness Stakes
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I had not heard of this USNA glee club tradition and I'm a grad. And many owe you a debt of gratitude. Were it not for the Middies many a Johnny would have had to buy his date dinner.
Yikes! The reference to Lincoln is very blatant. Pretty amusing. I wonder how many of them understand the song? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
jar writes: Why didn't the south have a right to secede? I understand that there is debate about this, but for one thing, the official answer to the question is found in Texas v. White
quote: Some people point to the Declaration of Independence as supporting the right to secede, but 1) The Declaration has no legal force, and 2) the Declaration was about the right to revolt. If revolution rather than secession is what the South wanted, then by siezing federal assets without compensation and firing on Ft sumter, the South got their wish. My personal legal theory is that federal government was formed by the people yielding up their individual rights to form a government. The federal government then yielded rights back to the states allowing them to govern. The idea that states could then simply back out at will any time they lost an election as if the union was a simply contract between the states is simply ludicrous in my mind. Edited by NoNukes, : Not finished
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024