Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,485 posts, read 14,987,215 times
Reputation: 7328
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryantm3
seeing as how secession was a right that the states had, it wasn't treason! that's as absurd as saying that protesting the government is treason. there was no revolt, the government was never overtaken, and there was never any attempt to do so. the states simply did not want to be part of the united states anymore and declared their independence.
drop all the preconceived notions you have about the war— it's the same case as with the colonies and great britain. the colonies declared their indepedence, they didn't want to topple the british empire.
as for slavery, it was deplorable. but that wasn't really what the war was about. during the time period, blacks were viewed as inferior by BOTH sides. lincoln himself said he wanted to end slavery so he could send all the blacks back to africa.
i don't know if you're familiar with the time south carolina tried to secede before in the 1830s. it was about cotton tariffs.
slavery was certainly a factor, but it was more about the state governments not having control over their own affairs— they were tired of the federal government's increasing power, which in itself was unconstitutional— see the tenth amendment. secession, however, WAS constitutional and they chose to take that path.
most people view the union as some kind of moral crusader for the rights of slaves, it wasn't like that at all. if they were so concerned about morality, why didn't they conquer child labour, 14 hour workdays, the violations of basic human rights by industry— paying the workers in "scrip" that was only good for company stores, forcing them to work, lack of any regard for safety or human life. these things were occuring right in their backyard and they didn't care. why? because it wasn't a moral crusade. it was about asserting the power of the federal government. why do you think the south set themselves up as a *confederacy* and not a republic?
fast forward to today. do i think that the states should have the rights to own slaves, levy their own tariffs, etc.? no. the way the country was set up was honestly too much like a confederacy. i think it was important for the country to evolve so that the country could be managed centrally. where i differ is in believing that it wasn't necessary for hundreds of thousands of men to die. there's no way that you can justify that loss of life. look at cold harbour in VA— 7,000 men died PER HOUR. we can't view that as valour or pride... it was a completely unnecessary loss of life.
Ah, the great revisionist history of the Civil War strikes again (thanks Georgia!). You have been fed the story of losers of the war, and of course the losers of the war always have their reasons for justifying why they lost and that their cause was truly noble from every angle. Just look at the way certain people view the Vietnam War. They'll tell you that we lost because too many lies about the war were told in the media or that it was right we were there in the first place. Back here in reality we got thumped because it almost impossible to win a guerilla war in such conditions, especially with the technology of the day. Hell, look at how long it took us to get out of Iraq (and we still aren't "out" out) and what a "smashing success" that has been. Some wars just aren't meant to be fought, but I digress.
With regard to Civil War what you wrote, and the idea that it was not about slavery, that is nothing but hooey. I say this respectfully because I do want to show some respect to the soldiers of the Confederate armies for who most of whom fought for entirely different reason. Most of them did not own slaves or land, and because of it were disenfranchised citizens themselves in the Old South. They fought me simply to protect their homeland because we must understand back then, one's state was seen as their "country". I can totally respect and get this.
But to say the Civil War was not about slavery is hugely incorrect (although I will admit that at it's onset few realized that it was about Slavery). The reason being is that American Slavery was inextricably linked so-called "States Rights". To know why you have to go back to the beginning of the country.
During the Revolution, and for a few years after, the United States was governed under the Articles of Confederation. It was complete and total disaster. The main reason for that was that any new law or amendment to existing ones had to have 100% approval of all States. As you can imagine this caused almost nothing to be resolved. Before the country even had a chance to get off the ground, it nearly ran itself out of existence. At that point the only solution was to scrap the Articles of Confederation and start fresh.
When that decision was made, it was the point at which the Civil War began. Because the Founders were so wary of tyranny, they did not want to impose too much centralized control on the States. However, they did recognized that centralized control and agreement by majority was important to running a country. This led to one big problem:
Were the States sovereign nations joined in Union for mutual benefit but otherwise free to do as they pleased or was the United States itself a sovereign nation that was managed by the people themselves whom lived in the subdivided regions known as States where they could then pass their own laws in accordance with the Constitution.
Also because of this ambiguity, and the desire not to be tyrannical (though it was the worst example in history of not being tyrannical when you needed to be), the issue of whether or not to end slavery was left up to the individual States as a way to gain Southern support for the new Constitution. Why? Because the Southern states had no intention of getting rid of slavery because their entire economy depended on it.
Over the course of the next 90 years, the issue over slavery and what States could and could not due continued to fester. In nonviolent ways such as how almost every Supreme Court decision during that time was about what States could and could not do, and in violent ways as what happened when the country began expanding into new territory such as Bleeding Kansas which gave rise to John Brown. This is the important bit because it is John Brown who is at the center as to why the issues that led to the Civil War were not settled peacefully.
During the fight against slavery in the territories, John Brown became convinced that he had been sent by God to free the slaves. But rather than a political solution, which he and pretty much every Abolitionist at the time knew but refused to admit, John Brown and his followers decided that the only solution was to incite a slave rebellion wherein the slaves would rise up plantation by plantation and claim their own freedom. With that plan in mind he traveled to Virginia to begin the slave revolt and, well, it didn't turn out so well.
What went wrong in John Brown's plan, or his plan, isn't the important bit but it was what followed after he was captured. Rather than being charged with murder or terrorism, he was tried by the Virginia courts for treason against Virginia. This is where the whole State's Rights thing come in. You see, Virginia (and other Southern/Slave states) believed that it was their right to own slaves. This right was tied directly to the very livelihood of their State and the argument was made that without Virginia could not exist. Since Virginians saw their state as their country, they felt that if John Brown's plan had actually worked it would have led to the end of Virginia.
Treason against a State had never been tried before, and it immediately caused furor in Washington over its legality. However, since things worked much different then, Brown was convicted and executed long before the Supreme Court could weigh in on the legality of treason being applied to a State rather than a country.
The fallout from the John Brown incident was catastrophic and Constitutional crisis was at hand. A guilty verdict of treason against a State called in to question the very idea of who was in control. In the North, public sentiment leaned more towards Federalism. In the South, public sentiment leaned in favor towards State sovereignty and against Federal tyranny against what they saw as their unassailable rights (to own slaves).
As the next few years went on, militias began forming in the South to protect against what they saw was an inevitable slave rebellion and/or an armed invasion by radical Abolitionists. These militias would form the basis for the Confederate Army. Politically, the issue of who has more rights (the States or the Federal government in tandem with the States) became the topic of which every political matter was discussed and of 1860 election. At the same time a Secessionist movement came about that said if the Unionists led by the Republicans won the elections, then those States that should seceded from from the United States and form their own country in which control was heavily at the State level and less central control.
I suppose I do not have to go in to details about what happened next, but this is how the Civil War came to be.While there are many sides as to why people fought in the War (contrary to popular belief, many Union soldiers also believed they were not fighting to end slavery and quit the army when Lincoln signed the Emancipation Declaration), it cannot be argued that the central issue of the war was merely over how this country is structured, but rather whether or not Slavery would continue. The war began over the issue of slavery both directly and indirectly, and at it's end slavery was over.
Despite this though, the mere fact that the Confederate States of America formed from States whom felt they could no longer be a part of the United States of America is an act of treason because that's exactly what the word means. When the Colonies rebelled against the British Empire, that was treason. Any time any part of (or a particular group) declares they are no longer a part of a country and takes up armed rebellion against that nation, it is treason.
You should really take the time though to watch the entire Ken Burns Civil War series from beginning to end. I've seen plenty of times when I was kid, but like I stated a few pages before I took the time recently to watch the whole thing through. I can tell you as an adult, and in this political age that seems so negatively and headed for disaster, it gave me a new perspective on every part of that war.
For example, I no longer hold in my heart as much animosity for the descendants of the soldiers on the Confederate side who want to honor them. At a very basic level, they were fighting to defend their homes and that's an honorable thing to do in my book. I do not like this idea though that because of their honorable stance in defense of their home, that the central reason for the war (slavery) was not the central reason for that war or the Confederacy itself was not treasonous. That is revisionist history.
look, bottom line, this argument is not so important to me that i have to listen to you accusing me of being some kind of ignorant backwater hillbilly, or accuse me of promoting some kind of revisionist history. i just think that people really need to understand where both sides were coming from, and during that time period it simply wasn't viewed as some kind of moral crusade against slavery. lincoln was an avowed racist and the issue wasn't about slavery. some choice quotes:
"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."
"I am not now, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or political equality of the white and black races. I am not now nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriages with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and the black races which will forever forbid the two races living together on social or political equality. There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white man."
from "Address on Colonization to a Deputation of Negroes":
"It is better for us both, therefore, to be separated. ...I suppose one of the principal difficulties in the way of colonization is that the free colored man cannot see that his comfort would be advanced by it. You may believe you can live in Washington or elsewhere in the United States the remainder of your life, perhaps more so than in any foreign country, and hence you have come to the conclusion that you have nothing to do with the idea of going to a foreign country. This is (I speak in no unkind sense) an extremely selfish view of the case."
back to john brown, his motives were admirable, but it's doubtless that he was crazy— he tried to take possession of a federal arsenal in harpers ferry. i don't know how he thought that would lead to a slave revolt, but nonetheless, he was one of the only people willing to stand up and say that black people were equal to white people, and for that i admire his courage and brazenness.
i have watched the ken burns civil war documentary— if you noticed i upped your reputation for mentioning it, i think it's a great documentary that shows the brutality of the war that so many people seem to idealize.
for you to claim that the states were committing treason by using their right to secession, *that* is revisionist history.
when it comes to the repossession of fort sumter, that's exactly what it was. it's the same as if great britain had tried to hold a military base in the middle of massachusetts after the US declared independence. the confederacy didn't declare war on the union, they wanted possession of a military base that was in their territory.
Despite this though, the mere fact that the Confederate States of America formed from States whom felt they could no longer be a part of the United States of America is an act of treason because that's exactly what the word means. When the Colonies rebelled against the British Empire, that was treason. Any time any part of (or a particular group) declares they are no longer a part of a country and takes up armed rebellion against that nation, it is treason.
Good post, waronxmas.
By most definitions the secession of the Southern states would be deemed treason. I know the "departing" parties rarely see it that way because they argue -- often after the fact -- that they weren't subject to the government in the first place. If that's the case, however, you have to wonder why the South spent several generations actively participating in the U.S. government and claiming the right to do so.
Would the Confederacy have acknowledged that Georgia or Virginia had the right to leave the Confederacy and go back to the United States? It's hard to imagine that, since those in the Southern states who refused to obey the Confederate government were typically branded as a traitors, rounded up forcefully or even killed.
Would the Confederacy have acknowledged that Georgia or Virginia had the right to leave the Confederacy and go back to the United States? It's hard to imagine that, since those in the Southern states who refused to obey the Confederate government were typically branded as a traitors, rounded up forcefully or even killed.
actually they probably would have been allowed to. it was a confederacy, thus the military for each state was separate. several states' refusal to send troops to back up other states' military was a major weakness in the confederacy and probably was one of the deciding factors in their defeat.
No, they wern't allowed to. Jefferson Davis was opposed to state's rights and believed it was the primary reason the south lost the war. For a good portion of the war the Confederacy occupied East Tennessee to prevent it from seceding.
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,485 posts, read 14,987,215 times
Reputation: 7328
@bryantm3 It wasn't my intent to label you as an "inbred uneducated hick". I just do not understand how anyone can remove slavery as a central reason for that war. It may not have been explicit, but it was the reason. The politicians in the Southern states seceded from the Union to start their own country because they felt their way of life (the plantation) was being threatened with becoming illegal. That was treason. The purpose of that treason was to preserve slavery.
Aside though, that truth can be removed from those who fought on the side of Confederacy in what they thought was the protection of their home. Robert E. Lee exemplifies that most since he hated slavery (even though he owned slaves) and thought the idea of the Confederate States breaking off from the United States was stupid. However, when given a choice of fighting for Union against his own countrymen from Virginia, he sided with Virginia. It was one of the worst decisions ever, but it was at least honorable.
Of course the underlying cause of the Civil War was slavery, and the founders of the Confederacy went to great lengths to make that clear. It's explicitly and repeatedly stated in their Declarations of Secession, and if there was any conceivable doubt it, Confederate VP Alexander Stephens explained it in even more detail in his Cornerstone Speech:
The new [Confederate] Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."
Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.
It's outlandish to insult the intelligence of the Confederate founders by claiming they were too stupid to know what their carefully crafted words meant. Their cause may have been wrong, but they believed in it and were willing to risk everything for it.
Most Southerners, of course, did not own plantations or slaves. It's also true that racism was rampant in the North. Once a war begins, however, many motives come into play. People fight for pride, regionalism, revenge, money, fear, religion, personal loyalty and umpteen other reasons. Like most great conflicts, the American Civil War included many acts of individual courage as well as many wanton acts of destruction.
There's plenty of blame to go around. But pretending that slavery wasn't the underlying issue subverts the lessons of history and dishonors the South as much as the North.
actually they probably would have been allowed to. it was a confederacy, thus the military for each state was separate. several states' refusal to send troops to back up other states' military was a major weakness in the confederacy and probably was one of the deciding factors in their defeat.
Which is why it can sometimes be all the more puzzling that Southern states in particular still advance the "states' rights" rallying cry in political settings--even more ironic consider that several are "welfare states" (getting back more from the feds than they contribute) although I don't know what percentage of those federal funds might be due to military expenditures.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arjay57
Of course the underlying cause of the Civil War was slavery, and the founders of the Confederacy went to great lengths to make that clear. It's explicitly and repeatedly stated in their Declarations of Secession, and if there was any conceivable doubt it, Confederate VP Alexander Stephens explained it in even more detail in his Cornerstone Speech:
The new [Confederate] Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."
Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.
It's outlandish to insult the intelligence of the Confederate founders by claiming they were too stupid to know what their carefully crafted words meant. Their cause may have been wrong, but they believed in it and were willing to risk everything for it.
Most Southerners, of course, did not own plantations or slaves. It's also true that racism was rampant in the North. Once a war begins, however, many motives come into play. People fight for pride, regionalism, revenge, money, fear, religion, personal loyalty and umpteen other reasons. Like most great conflicts, the American Civil War included many acts of individual courage as well as many wanton acts of destruction.
There's plenty of blame to go around. But pretending that slavery wasn't the underlying issue subverts the lessons of history and dishonors the South as much as the North.
Wish I could rep you 100 times for this. Great post.
my point is not that slavery was not an issue— my point is that slavery was not a moral issue in that time period, it was an economic and states' rights issue and the war was primarily about economic independence and states' rights.
slavery was part of the issue, i'm not denying that. but it's clear that slavery was not a moral issue by any means, the union didn't declare war against the confederacy to "free the slaves". that is a fallacy in its utmost form.
... the union didn't declare war against the confederacy to "free the slaves". that is a fallacy in its utmost form.
I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone make such a claim. Lincoln himself stated in his inaugural address that he had no objection to the Corwin Amendment, which would have prevented the federal government from interfering with slavery in any state where it already existed. As far as he was concerned, said Lincoln, it was fine to make this guarantee "express and irrevocable."
He didn't issue the Emancipation Proclamation until the war had been underway for nearly 2 years. Even then he exempted the border states, leaving slavery intact for nearly 1,000,000 slaves.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
