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.
Correct me if I am remembering history wrongly but I do not think that war started over slavery. Am I wrong?
As for quotes, there was a senator - forgive me for not going into the other room to recall his name - who said "My country right or wrong - if right, to be kept right; if wrong, to be set right".
We are a better nation than we were 200 years ago and we will, with any success, be a still better nation 200 years from now. One way to get better is to learn what we did wrong. But carrying vengeful grudges and all that entails will not help. We cannot expect improvement if we keep harping on past sins. Even our memorials are reminders of both our rights and our wrongs.
And that is enough - if not too much - from me. I'm off. Carry on.
You are correct. The Civil War was about much more than just slavery, as it wasn't even Lincoln's initial intent to free the slaves. The South had an agricultural based economy, while the North was transformed by the Industrial Revolution. Many of the main lines of transportation ran east to west, as the divide between the North and South began almost as soon as the country was founded. The potential for war slowly developed over decades, but began to escalate quickly as new states were admitted to the union. Would a new state be a slave state or a free state? The Missouri Compromise was a temporary answer to that question. What many people do not realize is that slavery was legal per the Constitution, which is what every state agreed to when the country was founded.
With all that said, if it wasn't for Eli Whitney and his cotton gin, there may have never been a Civil War.
It is sad, sad because all it is is another mark of cheap politics. Just another example of history being written by the "winners". There were two sides to that war and both sides should be allowed to have remembrances.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazel W
Correct me if I am remembering history wrongly but I do not think that war started over slavery. Am I wrong?
Amongst the thousands of quotes made at the time or shortly thereafter by those who lived and fought the war in question, offering us our best view of what people were thinking at the time, I offer this one from Louisiana Confederate soldier who fought at Wilson's Creek. I find this one particularly relevant since he, writing this shortly after the war, made the same accusation you did about the writing of history - but admits the role of slavery in its cause.
Confederate soldier William Tunnard, started his book “A Southern Record: The History of the Third Louisiana Regiment” “Truthfulness is the gem which gives to History its greatest charm ; the golden light which adorns it with mellow rays for all coming time. Hence in making History by our own deeds, or writing them for present and future ages, we should adhere strictly to the promulgation of facts alone.It is a lamentable circumstance that deep-seated, ineradicable prejudices have been ingrafted into every published record which has been given to the public concerning the late struggle. Men must be governed by fixed principles, must adhere to cherished thoughts and feelings, and hence act, speak and write in conformity with these controlling influences. Thus the Northern mind thinks of the war as a gigantic rebellion to destroy the American Government, while the South conceived it to be a struggle for the preservation of constitutional freedom and their peculiar institutions. No one at the present time can properly determine the truth. Justice, with her nicely-balanced scales, must wait for historians of the next century to properly weigh facts, in order to discriminate between the North and South, and give to the world a correct record of events connected with this gigantic internecine strife. Fanaticism, that foul demon of discord and strife, first reared its hydra-head among the mountains and hills of New England. From an insignificant birth, it grew in strength and power until its influence extended over the whole North. The first aim and object of this foul spirit was the eradication of slavery on this continent, an interference with the peculiar institutions of one section by the powerful arm of the opposing section. In opposition to fanaticism grew up an equally malignant spirit in the South. As years passed by, feelings of hatred and enmity first engendered, grew in intensity and bitterness until all compromise was rejected and the sword was unsheathed to settle the differences which existed. Of the opening acts of the war it is needless to write. They are known by every man, woman and child in the land, and are engraven in characters of living light upon millions of throbbing hearts.”
Tunnard had answered the call by Confederate Brigadier General Ben McCullouch who proclaimed “I call upon you, therefore, to rally to the defence of your sister State, Missouri. Her cause is your cause, and the cause of justice and independence. Then rally, my countrymen, and assist your friends in Missouri to drive back the Republican myrmidons that still pollute her soil and threaten to invade your own country, confiscate your property, liberate your slaves, and put to the sword every true Southern man who dares to take up arms in defence of his rights.”
The 'states right' that the South went to war over and men fought for - was so their states could keep their 'peculiar institutions' - slavery.
Amongst the thousands of quotes made at the time or shortly thereafter by those who lived and fought the war in question, offering us our best view of what people were thinking at the time, I offer this one from Louisiana Confederate soldier who fought at Wilson's Creek. I find this one particularly relevant since he, writing this shortly after the war, made the same accusation you did about the writing of history - but admits the role of slavery in its cause.
Confederate soldier William Tunnard, started his book “A Southern Record: The History of the Third Louisiana Regiment” “Truthfulness is the gem which gives to History its greatest charm ; the golden light which adorns it with mellow rays for all coming time. Hence in making History by our own deeds, or writing them for present and future ages, we should adhere strictly to the promulgation of facts alone.It is a lamentable circumstance that deep-seated, ineradicable prejudices have been ingrafted into every published record which has been given to the public concerning the late struggle. Men must be governed by fixed principles, must adhere to cherished thoughts and feelings, and hence act, speak and write in conformity with these controlling influences. Thus the Northern mind thinks of the war as a gigantic rebellion to destroy the American Government, while the South conceived it to be a struggle for the preservation of constitutional freedom and their peculiar institutions. No one at the present time can properly determine the truth. Justice, with her nicely-balanced scales, must wait for historians of the next century to properly weigh facts, in order to discriminate between the North and South, and give to the world a correct record of events connected with this gigantic internecine strife. Fanaticism, that foul demon of discord and strife, first reared its hydra-head among the mountains and hills of New England. From an insignificant birth, it grew in strength and power until its influence extended over the whole North. The first aim and object of this foul spirit was the eradication of slavery on this continent, an interference with the peculiar institutions of one section by the powerful arm of the opposing section. In opposition to fanaticism grew up an equally malignant spirit in the South. As years passed by, feelings of hatred and enmity first engendered, grew in intensity and bitterness until all compromise was rejected and the sword was unsheathed to settle the differences which existed. Of the opening acts of the war it is needless to write. They are known by every man, woman and child in the land, and are engraven in characters of living light upon millions of throbbing hearts.”
Tunnard had answered the call by Confederate Brigadier General Ben McCullouch who proclaimed “I call upon you, therefore, to rally to the defence of your sister State, Missouri. Her cause is your cause, and the cause of justice and independence. Then rally, my countrymen, and assist your friends in Missouri to drive back the Republican myrmidons that still pollute her soil and threaten to invade your own country, confiscate your property, liberate your slaves, and put to the sword every true Southern man who dares to take up arms in defence of his rights.”
The 'states right' that the South went to war over and men fought for - was so their states could keep their 'peculiar institutions' - slavery.
What would be more interesting to me is what the average union soldier thought he was fighting for. I have some family insight into it as I had an ancestor on my mother's side who lived in New Jersey and fought for the New Jersey volunteers for the North. He was a farm boy but a proflic writer until he was killed during the battle of Spotsylvania Courthouse and his letters home were saved and passed down. It made for interesting reading. He deeply believed in his cause to save the union and defeat the rebels, who he viewed as traitors. However, he never once mentioned slavery. I'll have to do some research to see if that was common or unusual.
He deeply believed in his cause to save the union and defeat the rebels, who he viewed as traitors. However, he never once mentioned slavery.
Not surprising. The common Union foot soldier was duped into sacrificing their life for a contrived cause. The same type of contrivances are of course still used today to rally the nation to useless wars.
What would be more interesting to me is what the average union soldier thought he was fighting for. I have some family insight into it as I had an ancestor on my mother's side who lived in New Jersey and fought for the New Jersey volunteers for the North. He was a farm boy but a proflic writer until he was killed during the battle of Spotsylvania Courthouse and his letters home were saved and passed down. It made for interesting reading. He deeply believed in his cause to save the union and defeat the rebels, who he viewed as traitors. However, he never once mentioned slavery. I'll have to do some research to see if that was common or unusual.
That seems reasonable. Officially, slavery didn't become a motivating factor of the war until the Emancipation Proclamation, as I understand it. Lincoln always asserted the war was for unity.
That seems reasonable. Officially, slavery didn't become a motivating factor of the war until the Emancipation Proclamation, as I understand it. Lincoln always asserted the war was for unity.
Slavery was never really a motivating factor for Lincoln and the North. The Emancipation Proclamation was more about weakening the enemy than it was freeing the slaves. Besides, the Emancipation Proclamation did not free the slaves in slave states (Missouri, Maryland, Kentucky) that remained in the Union, the states that were actually still under Lincoln's control. When Union forces encountered slaves from the South they needed to know how to handle the situation, declaring them free made the most sense.
Slavery was never really a motivating factor for Lincoln and the North. The Emancipation Proclamation was more about weakening the enemy than it was freeing the slaves. Besides, the Emancipation Proclamation did not free the slaves in slave states (Missouri, Maryland, Kentucky) that remained in the Union, the states that were actually still under Lincoln's control. When Union forces encountered slaves from the South they needed to know how to handle the situation, declaring them free made the most sense.
I don't think that's really accurate. Abolitionists gained a lot of power after the secession, and they of course wanted to free slaves. Congress also freed slaves in all "current and future" territories of the US, which was the maximum extent of their authority and implies some inclination to free slaves. Lincoln had professed abolitionist beliefs and was elected by an abolitionist party, even if he did explicitly set aside those beliefs for what he felt was the greater good of the country's unity. He campaigned in 1864 on abolition, as well.
The proclamation also was a boon to foreign opinion of the US, as the foreign powers such as England that the CSA courted for recognition were anti-slavery. So linking the war to slavery kept Europe on the North's side in the war.
I think there's room to be cynical about the timing and Lincoln's willingness to initially put the issue of slavery aside for the sake of the war, but to assert that abolition was strictly a war tactic is a bridge too far.
Slavery was never really a motivating factor for Lincoln and the North.
Indeed. Slavery could have been ended in the US by simple legal decree. Then compensate the slave owners. Much less expensive to the nation than fighting a protracted war.
Many false narratives such as the "free the slaves" narrative have persisted to this day. Another false narrative is the altruistic northern abolitionist narrative. Many abolitionists wanted slavery to end simply to stem the tide of Africans coming into the country. They considered Africans as an entirely incompatible people to Europeans. And allowing the continual flow of masses of Africans would prove problematic to the stability of the nation.
I don't think that's really accurate. Abolitionists gained a lot of power after the secession, and they of course wanted to free slaves. Congress also freed slaves in all "current and future" territories of the US, which was the maximum extent of their authority and implies some inclination to free slaves. Lincoln had professed abolitionist beliefs and was elected by an abolitionist party, even if he did explicitly set aside those beliefs for what he felt was the greater good of the country's unity. He campaigned in 1864 on abolition, as well.
The proclamation also was a boon to foreign opinion of the US, as the foreign powers such as England that the CSA courted for recognition were anti-slavery. So linking the war to slavery kept Europe on the North's side in the war.
I think there's room to be cynical about the timing and Lincoln's willingness to initially put the issue of slavery aside for the sake of the war, but to assert that abolition was strictly a war tactic is a bridge too far.
When Lincoln proclaimed that the slaves of the Confederacy were free, it would be like the POTUS today issuing an executive order declaring equal rights for the women of Afghanistan. It would not change a thing. The question is this, If Lincoln was passionate about putting an end to slavery, then why didn't he start with freeing the slaves in the Union, the states that were still under his control?
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.
