Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Cause of Civil War
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 91 of 193 (584517)
10-02-2010 11:59 AM


And a short historical aside.
The official state song of Maryland is "Maryland! My Maryland"
quote:
The despot's heel is on thy shore,
Maryland! My Maryland!
His torch is at thy temple door,
Maryland! My Maryland!
Avenge the patriotic gore
That flecked the streets of Baltimore,
And be the battle queen of yore,
Maryland! My Maryland!
Hark to an exiled son's appeal,
Maryland! My Maryland!
My mother State! to thee I kneel,
Maryland! My Maryland!
For life and death, for woe and weal,
Thy peerless chivalry reveal,
And gird thy beauteous limbs with steel,
Maryland! My Maryland!
Thou wilt not cower in the dust,
Maryland! My Maryland!
Thy beaming sword shall never rust,
Maryland! My Maryland!
Remember Carroll's sacred trust,
Remember Howard's warlike thrust,-
And all thy slumberers with the just,
Maryland! My Maryland!
Come! 'tis the red dawn of the day,
Maryland! My Maryland!
Come with thy panoplied array,
Maryland! My Maryland!
With Ringgold's spirit for the fray,
With Watson's blood at Monterey,
With fearless Lowe and dashing May,
Maryland! My Maryland!
Come! for thy shield is bright and strong,
Maryland! My Maryland!
Come! for thy dalliance does thee wrong,
Maryland! My Maryland!
Come to thine own anointed throng,
Stalking with Liberty along,
And chaunt thy dauntless slogan song,
Maryland! My Maryland!
Dear Mother! burst the tyrant's chain,
Maryland! My Maryland!
Virginia should not call in vain,
Maryland! My Maryland!
She meets her sisters on the plain-
"Sic semper!" 'tis the proud refrain
That baffles minions back amain,
Arise in majesty again,
Maryland! My Maryland!
I see the blush upon thy cheek,
Maryland! My Maryland!
For thou wast ever bravely meek,
Maryland! My Maryland!
But lo! there surges forth a shriek,
From hill to hill, from creek to creek-
Potomac calls to Chesapeake,
Maryland! My Maryland!
Thou wilt not yield the Vandal toll,
Maryland! My Maryland!
Thou wilt not crook to his control,
Maryland! My Maryland!
Better the fire upon thee roll,
Better the blade, the shot, the bowl,
Than crucifixion of the soul,
Maryland! My Maryland!
I hear the distant thunder-hum,
Maryland! My Maryland!
The Old Line's bugle, fife, and drum,
Maryland! My Maryland!
She is not dead, nor deaf, nor dumb-
Huzza! she spurns the Northern scum!
She breathes! she burns! she'll come! she'll come!
Maryland! My Maryland!
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!

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by NoNukes, posted 10-03-2010 10:00 PM jar has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 92 of 193 (584526)
10-02-2010 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Theodoric
10-02-2010 11:22 AM


Re: The Morality of States' Rights
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Theodoric, posted 10-02-2010 11:22 AM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by jar, posted 10-02-2010 1:06 PM Blue Jay has not replied
 Message 95 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-02-2010 10:01 PM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied
 Message 114 by nwr, posted 10-06-2010 12:15 PM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 93 of 193 (584531)
10-02-2010 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Blue Jay
10-02-2010 12:45 PM


Re: The Morality of States' Rights
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Blue Jay, posted 10-02-2010 12:45 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 94 of 193 (584608)
10-02-2010 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Blue Jay
10-02-2010 10:27 AM


Re: The Morality of States' Rights
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:
My take on states' rights, however, is that it wasn't the escape from tyranny that modern Confederates pretend it was, but just an attempt to shift the tyranny one level down the totem pole. Citizens of, for example, Georgia, would be as subject to a the tyrannical rule of Georgia as they had before been to the tyrannical rule of the Union.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Blue Jay, posted 10-02-2010 10:27 AM Blue Jay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 10-03-2010 8:48 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 95 of 193 (584609)
10-02-2010 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Blue Jay
10-02-2010 12:45 PM


Lincoln
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Blue Jay, posted 10-02-2010 12:45 PM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by xongsmith, posted 10-03-2010 12:14 AM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 98 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-03-2010 9:23 AM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 100 by NoNukes, posted 10-03-2010 3:51 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 96 of 193 (584632)
10-03-2010 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Dr Adequate
10-02-2010 10:01 PM


Re: Lincoln
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-02-2010 10:01 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3102 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 97 of 193 (584643)
10-03-2010 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by NoNukes
10-02-2010 9:50 PM


Re: The Morality of States' Rights
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by NoNukes, posted 10-02-2010 9:50 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by anglagard, posted 10-03-2010 12:01 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 193 (584648)
10-03-2010 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Dr Adequate
10-02-2010 10:01 PM


Re: Lincoln
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-02-2010 10:01 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 99 of 193 (584671)
10-03-2010 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by DevilsAdvocate
10-03-2010 8:48 AM


Re: The Morality of States' Rights
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 10-03-2010 8:48 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by NoNukes, posted 10-03-2010 11:18 PM anglagard has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 100 of 193 (584697)
10-03-2010 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Dr Adequate
10-02-2010 10:01 PM


Sectionalism
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:
For all the reasons thus stated, it seems to me conclusive that the action of the Congress of the Confederation in 1787 could not constitute a precedent to justify the action of the Congress of the United States in 1820, and that the prohibitory clause of the Missouri Compromise was without constitutional authority, in violation of the rights of a part of the joint owners of the territory, and in disregard of the obligations of the treaty with France.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-02-2010 10:01 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 101 of 193 (584735)
10-03-2010 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Dr Adequate
09-30-2010 10:44 PM


Re: Despicable?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-30-2010 10:44 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by jar, posted 10-03-2010 9:41 PM NoNukes has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 102 of 193 (584739)
10-03-2010 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by NoNukes
10-03-2010 9:37 PM


Why didn't the south have a right to secede?
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by NoNukes, posted 10-03-2010 9:37 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by NoNukes, posted 10-03-2010 10:40 PM jar has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 193 (584742)
10-03-2010 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by jar
10-02-2010 11:59 AM


Re: And a short historical aside.
quote:
Dear Mother! burst the tyrant's chain,
Maryland! My Maryland!
Virginia should not call in vain,
Maryland! My Maryland!
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:
The USNA Glee Club has performed "Maryland, My Maryland" during the Preakness Post Parade for the past 13 years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by jar, posted 10-02-2010 11:59 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by jar, posted 10-03-2010 10:17 PM NoNukes has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 104 of 193 (584744)
10-03-2010 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by NoNukes
10-03-2010 10:00 PM


Re: And a short historical aside.
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by NoNukes, posted 10-03-2010 10:00 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by NoNukes, posted 10-04-2010 12:32 AM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 193 (584749)
10-03-2010 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by jar
10-03-2010 9:41 PM


Re: Why didn't the south have a right to secede?
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:
6. When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by jar, posted 10-03-2010 9:41 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by jar, posted 10-03-2010 10:49 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024