[Truth Teller]

QC, the 1820 Compromise was successful, but the 1850 Compromise was a total disaster (Scott vs. Sanford was a big part of this).

We don't know whether or not Lincoln would've been better than Johnson during Reconstruction. Lincoln looks like he would've been fairly moderate, though maybe slightly better than Johnson. Reconstruction was partially intended to not reignite tensions between the former Confederates and the United States.

[Truth Teller]

(10-08-2014 03:36 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

This isn't entirely true.

Before the 14th Amendment the Bill of Rights was not applicable against the States.

States had their own constitutions and could put limits on everything from speech and religion to gun ownership, while the federal government legally could not touch those issues or force a state to change those ordinances.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporati..._of_Rights

If the laws conflicted with the Constitution or federal laws, the laws would be abrogated. Otherwise, you're correct. Incorporation is a fairly recent development. Barron vs. Baltimore (1833) was fairly straightforward in saying that the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the states.

[TigerMandingo]

(10-08-2014 04:23 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

I have no sympathy for the South.

Really? None at all? I'm disappointed, Quintisimus.

Ok, slavery aside, and that was a turrble institution, the South had some good aspects to it, many of which we go on and on about: conservatism, patriarchy, family values etc. And all of that was erased. Never to be seen again in this land of freedom.

[kbell]

I would think that slavery would go away over time, due to automation. Why have slaves if a machine can do it faster and cheaper?

Also were their truly no slaves in the North? http://slavenorth.com/

[MidWest]

(10-08-2014 06:32 AM)kbell Wrote:  

This idea was brought up in the gay marriage thread recently. That Civil War might have not been fought simply for ending Slavery. It would have been cheaper to buy all slaves and set them free according to some. What do you think was the primary cause of the Civil War?

I actually studied and read up quite a bit on the civil war. Took a class on it here in college (I'm a History minor) so i'll chime in.

Remember Slavery was an institution and very political in those days. Lincoln wanted to free slaves not because he cared about them per-say but because it guaranteed more non-slave states added to the Western territories and more political power. Also even before the war happened, Lincoln never intended to go to war with the south over slavery (remember the South attacked first when they broke from the union). In fact, if the south never attacked the north, it would have been business as usual. His stance was that he wanted to keep it in the south exclusively and keep it where it is and not spread into other territories in the west. He felt that the only way to end slavery was to stop its growth into other territories and that eventually it would die on its own.

This is a letter from Lincoln to the New York Tribune that included the following quote:

Quote:

"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."

So in essence slavery was meant more to the south and had a strong significance to them than it did to the north. I can't help but smh when I sometimes hear people tell blacks "Hey! get over it! the North freed the slaves" although it was a fact, the north's motivation was not to free slaves, but to restore the union. A white guy working in a factory somewhere in Boston at the time was not going to fight to free Blacks. His main motivation was to restore the Union and saving the country from a foreign invader in the Confederate States of America.

Also a lot of people seem to forget that only about 6% of white southerners actually owned slaves as only the elite could afford them. A slave back then would cost around $1200 and $500 the acre so just imagine that in today's money. The Civil War was basically a rich man's war fought over by the poor (only 2% of confederate soldiers actually owned slaves). And many of these slave owners were scared that Lincoln would take their profits and their way of life.

This also begs the question that if only 6% of white southerners owned slaves, what was the motivation for the remaining 94% to actually fight? There are 3 reasons:

1) Racial fear mongering
In any war, you need some kind of threat, no different than what we have now with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, you need some kind of enemy and that enemy for the south was the slaves or the black man himself. Many of the elites had their money on the line at the start of the war and they had lots of political influence and power with politicians and congressman so they convinced them to rally the average southerner in the struggle against the "n#gger loving Lincoln and the black beasts" and appealed to the fears of miscegenation between Black men and White women:



^^^^Images like these were shown on newspapers, city halls, stores, bars everywhere which insinuated that the abolition of slavery and having freed slaves would result in, what would be considered horrible miscegenation and inbreeding. Pastors and priests all throughout the south in Sunday sermons will preach about the dangers of having slaves be free.


A quote from a pastor in Georgia during a sermon in 1860 said:

Quote:

"Do you love your mother, your wife, your sister, your daughter? If Georgia remained in a union ruled by Lincoln and his nigger loving crew, in TEN years or less our CHILDREN will be the slaves of the negro beasts"

Quote from the Book "Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era"



2) Aspiring to be a slave owner
Many white southerners in the 96% wanted to aspire to be a slave owner one day and the slave owners were considered role models and inspirational figures, no different than your Steve Jobs, the Zucherbergs and Bill Gates of the world. Also the south relied heavily on slave trade and economy as it trickled down to the rest of the people and it created jobs as a result from shipping companies to transportation of slave companies and everything.

3) Southern pride. Southern culture, southern way of life, etc...



Also there is a big misconception that the North is free of racism and the south is full of racists, even today.

Although Lincoln in his heart of hearts was an abolitionist, he still didn't see Black people as equals. I know many people don't like hearing that, but its the facts.

A speech delivered by Lincoln in Charleston, Illinois 1958:

Quote:

I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and in as much as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.

http://www.theroot.com/articles/history/...acist.html


A great book on the civil war is "Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era by James M. McPherson. It talks about documents, speeches, everything from war letters to letters from Abe Lincoln and everything. Great read as well.



Just my two cents.

[TheWastelander]

(10-08-2014 04:23 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

I have no sympathy for the South. I think the cause they were fighting for was, as U.S. Grant said, "one of the worst that any man has ever fought for." Slavery was irredeemably evil and I'm glad the war gave Lincoln the opportunity to abolish it, even if he originally was hesitant to do so.

The big mistake, in my view, that the US made after the civil war was permitting the South to backslide into segregation. Reconstruction was bungled. Maybe if Lincoln had lived, things would have been better. But Andrew Johnson was incapable of pulling it off. Maybe if we could have had a civil rights act in 1880, we would not have had 80 more years of segregation and bitterness in the US. The South's entire racist infrastructure should have been dismantled. Seen in this light, we can say that the Civil War was a war of unification for the United States.

I also think that the Southern rebel leaders and generals got off too damn easy after the war. Jeff Davis, Robert E. Lee, and the rest of that rabble...these people should not have been permitted to live out their lives in comfort.

In my view, I think most of these people should have been hanged, or received long prison sentences.

Backslide into segregation? That was never the issue. Segregation was accepted in the Union states, even, and it didn't really quietly go away until the mid-20th century. During college I was tasked with interviewing a black person who had lived through the Civil Rights-era, so I interviewed my English professor. He was the first black man allowed to swim in his Ohio hometown's public pool in the late 50s. It's been a while so I'd have to look it up for you, but I'm pretty sure it was around that time.

As far as Reconstruction was concerned, the Northern populace unfortunately did not have the stomach for it. They wanted the whole affair to be over with and weren't into the idea of having their sons, brothers and fathers stick around for some nation-building. Or rebuilding, as it were.

Now when you say you have no sympathy for the South does that also include the noncombatants who suffered during and after the war?

[Uzisuicide]

As was stated earlier, very few Southern soldiers were slave owners. It is estimated that between 70% and 80% were not (1). It defies logic to believe that these out numbered men endured 4 years of hardship so a few rich guys could keep their slaves. QC you may not have sympathy for the south but Northern states are equally to blame for slavery. The first American slave ship named Desire departed from Salem Massachusetts and the northern states were up to their ass in the slave trade for the next two hundred years. The means for industrial growth and investment by the north was directly linked to the slave trade. The Emancipation Proclamation was a cynical attempt by Lincoln to paint the North as moral protector as propaganda to influence France and Britain not to recognize the Confederate States. And to foment a slave uprising in the south. In fact here's a quote by Lincoln from the Lincoln - Douglas debate:
"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality."
Economics starts and drives wars. It also started the Civil War.


(1)Source John Tilley, "Facts Historians Leave Out"

http://www.history.com/news/5-things-you...ancipation

http://www.nps.gov/liho/historyculture/debate4.htm

[Quintus Curtius]

(10-08-2014 04:37 PM)Cunnilinguist Wrote:  

(10-08-2014 04:23 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

I have no sympathy for the South.

Really? None at all? I'm disappointed, Quintisimus.

Ok, slavery aside, and that was a turrble institution, the South had some good aspects to it, many of which we go on and on about: conservatism, patriarchy, family values etc. And all of that was erased. Never to be seen again in this land of freedom.

Yes, that may be true. But there is no escaping from the fact that the entire system was built on an empire of bondage. I'm not saying that the North was pure and angelic. Quite possibly, the industrial servitude in northern cities and factories was equally oppressive.

No one has entirely clean hands.

And I will say this about this South. As a northern "Yankee" raised in northern cities, I was brought up to believe certain stereotypes about the South. When I had my first experience of actually living there (in Atlanta) I was shocked at how much better it was than I expected.

What also rocked my world--and exposed my parochial, limited perspective--was that it seemed like race relations between whites and blacks was actually better in the South than in Boston. In fact, it was much better. There was none of the tension, anger, or repressed rage that I had known in northern cities. I'm not sure why this is so...there must be some historical or cultural reason for it.

I was not prepared for this. I was brought up to believe that they were all backward hicks, and clearly it was I who was the one with a narrow vision, and who was backward! It was undeniable that there was more racism and segregation in my home city than in a major Southern city.

So, I was unprepared for this learning experience. Things are more complicated than we think, often.

So, I'm prepared to show respect for the South, at least in the modern era.

I'm always willing to admit when I'm wrong.

[MidWest]

(10-08-2014 04:23 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

I also think that the Southern rebel leaders and generals got off too damn easy after the war. Jeff Davis, Robert E. Lee, and the rest of that rabble...these people should not have been permitted to live out their lives in comfort.

In my view, I think most of these people should have been hanged, or received long prison sentences.

I agree here. They committed treason and should have been hanged. Hundreds of thousands of people died because of them. In any country in the world treason equals death.

I think the reason though that Lincoln wasn't to harsh on them was because his plan was to help them and reconstruct again. He didn't want to give off the impression that he was punishing them more than they already were by having lost the war and freeing the slaves. In fact many abolitionists at the end of the war wanted the South to pay reparations and be severely punished (kind of like what happened to Germany after World War I) Lincoln thought differently.

Quote:

Quote:


"Do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?"
-Lincoln

He knew that if he attacked even more, that enemy can come back even stronger and more dangerous seeking for vengeance. Lincoln was a smart dude. Maybe the Allies in World War I could have taken some pointers when they went the other way with Germany, creating an even bigger enemy with Hitler thirsting for vengeance.

[Saga]

Quote:

I would think that slavery would go away over time, due to automation. Why have slaves if a machine can do it faster and cheaper?

That's probably true in the bigger picture, but in the short-term, automation surprisingly played a vital part in increasing slavery's importance: with the invention of the cotton gin and its effect on the profitability of cotton production, slavery's economic centrality grew tremendously (ironically, the inventor of the cotton gin had purportedly intended the opposite).

(10-08-2014 09:33 AM)Saga Wrote:  

and since Johnson's fecklessness had allowed the south to prepare materially for secession while doing nothing to reconcile the two camps

I just realized I meant Buchanan, not Johnson....

[Uzisuicide]

(10-08-2014 09:11 PM)MidWest Wrote:  

(10-08-2014 04:23 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

I also think that the Southern rebel leaders and generals got off too damn easy after the war. Jeff Davis, Robert E. Lee, and the rest of that rabble...these people should not have been permitted to live out their lives in comfort.

In my view, I think most of these people should have been hanged, or received long prison sentences.

I agree here. They committed treason and should have been hanged. Hundreds of thousands of people died because of them. In any country in the world treason equals death.

I think the reason though that Lincoln wasn't to harsh on them was because his plan was to help them and reconstruct again. He didn't want to give off the impression that he was punishing them more than they already were by having lost the war and freeing the slaves. In fact many abolitionists at the end of the war wanted the South to pay reparations and be severely punished (kind of like what happened to Germany after World War I) Lincoln thought differently.

Quote:

Quote:


"Do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?"
-Lincoln

He knew that if he attacked even more, that enemy can come back even stronger and more dangerous seeking for vengeance. Lincoln was a smart dude. Maybe the Allies in World War I could have taken some pointers when they went the other way with Germany, creating an even bigger enemy with Hitler thirsting for vengeance.

The Southern Generals did not commit treason. They were not trying to take over the United States Government. They were simply trying to leave. If you would have told the original 13 colonies that joining the Union meant that they were never allowed to leave, then they never would have joined in the first place. Joining the Union was voluntary, so leaving the Union should be equally voluntary.
Andrew Jackson was quoted, "The Federal union, it must be preserved." Yet he explained that the Union could not preserved by force because it was a voluntary Union. And force would essentially destroy what it was supposed to be preserving.
The book Federal Government: Its True Nature and Character explains it very well:
The name of our federation is not Consolidated States, but United States. A number of States held together by coercion, or the point of the bayonet, would not be a Union. Union is necessarily voluntary, the act of choice, free association. Nor can this voluntary system be changed to one of force without destruction of "The Union".

I'm saddened at how easily the thought of hanging our own brothers comes to some of you who have simply decided not to let one part company with one another. There would have been no war if the Confederate States were simply allowed to secede.

[Truth Teller]

You can't secede from the Union, and the Confederacy's actions were illegal. Texas vs. White, there's no Constitutional right to secede from the Union.

The Constitution was designed to replace the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, which had the states essentially as separate entities. In that position, it may HAVE been lawful to succeed.

[Spectrumwalker]

Good thread. I respectfully disagree with all those who say the cause of the civil war was slavery. To say that slavery was the sole reason and end all be all is being intellectually dishonest. That's schoolbook history.

Governments then and now do not go waging wars in order to free people. Though that's always the justification. There must always be a moral justification to the sell to the public, just like the war on terror today. The "war on slavery" was no exception. I liken a government to a woman in some regards in that you "don't listen to what they say, watch what they do". Governments have their own rationalization hamsters.

And like all wars the civil war was about economics, taxation, land/resource control, and particular to this case...long standing tariff battles between northern and southern states. Import/export taxes which were placed on the southern states by the US government. Protectionist tariffs that benefitted northern manufacturing but decimated southern agricultural trade with Europe. Southern states made up 30% of the US population at the time but were collectively paying about 80% of the taxes.

The Civil War was the southern states saying enough is enough. They banned together to secede from a heavy handed federal government that enacted one sided industry killing taxation laws sparking the fire for revolution. This put Lincoln in a position to swoop in and forcibly stop the secessionist movement with slavery as a pretext. Just like the founding fathers knew they were being abused and plundered by England, southern leaders knew they were being exploited and plundered just the same. Lincoln is not the saint he was made out to be in our history books as kids. He was a long standing member of the Whig party which was closely aligned to the big swinging dick money men who favor central banking.

That's my .02 on the cause of the civil war. Done. I don't want to go down a bad path with this. There's more than enough books out there that explain this in great detail.

"When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will". -Frederick Bastiat

[kbell]

What books do you recommend spectrumwalker, great summary as well!

[Orion]

(10-08-2014 04:23 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

In my view, I think most of these people should have been hanged, or received long prison sentences.

They might have been was it not for the sake of quick reconciliation. Officers still had a lot of popularity with their soldiers and countrymen and their execution which is the norm for treason would have perhaps contributed to divide.

Anyhow, Southern cause was doomed quicker than it began. Regardless of politics, slavery and such, a country that was to create such social structure that would favor entrenchment of agricultural economy and feudal social relations stood no chance against industrial might of the north.

Such thing happened so many times through history. Stalin was perhaps the only fella out there who said "Ok, we are backward, we need to rapidly and with brute force increase industrial activity and output, because 20 years from now, we will be overrun by developed nations." He was damn right. If it wasn't for such an evil person, Russia would probably not exist today was it to face Nazi Germany with Lenin's retarded NEP model.

[Krusyos]

Slavery was a major issue. However, perhaps we should make a distinction that the war was influenced more by the ECONOMIC factors of slavery rather than the MORAL.

[kbell]

I don't think the morality of slavery played a huge part of the war. Well not as much as we are now led to believe. It does make it sounds more noble. Economics would be a huge reason for war though, I think.

Was the Whigs the party of the carpetbaggers?

Also didn't the ex-slaves end up a situation that was as bad as or worse than slavery during the reconstruction? Out of the frying pan into the fire? I'm rusty on my history.

[buja]

Read Thomas DiLorenzo to find out the truth about the Civil War.
By definition, it was not even a "civil war" because the South was not fighting for control of the central government.

My government school education/indoctrination turned me into a Lincoln worshiper. I'm glad I know the truth now.

The South wanted to leave. They had every moral, political, and human right to do so.

The primary cause of the war was that the South was tired of being taxed and controlled...just like the First American Revolution.

If the Civil War was "The War on Slavery" like the government schools teach us then why did Lincoln choose slaveholder Ulysses Grant to lead the battle...

"If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission and offer my sword to the other side."

Why would the men of the South fight a war to protect the interests of the only 4% of men who held slaves?

Every other country of the world eliminated slavery without war.

[buja]

(10-09-2014 12:35 AM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

You can't secede from the Union, and the Confederacy's actions were illegal. Texas vs. White, there's no Constitutional right to secede from the Union.

The Constitution was designed to replace the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, which had the states essentially as separate entities. In that position, it may HAVE been lawful to succeed.

The government schools have taught you well...

[buja]

(10-09-2014 06:45 AM)kbell Wrote:  

What books do you recommend spectrumwalker, great summary as well!

Here's my suggestion...

The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War

http://www.amazon.com/The-Real-Lincoln-A...+dilorenzo

[Saga]

(10-09-2014 12:13 AM)Uzisuicide Wrote:  

If you would have told the original 13 colonies that joining the Union meant that they were never allowed to leave, then they never would have joined in the first place. Joining the Union was voluntary, so leaving the Union should be equally voluntary.

I agree with the argument that states should be allowed to leave the Union if they so wish, but I don't think the decision to secede can be considered legitimate if a large percentage of the population is denied even indirect representation in the matter, which was the case in the antebellum south.

[iknowexactly]

(10-08-2014 12:57 PM)Cunnilinguist Wrote:  

(10-08-2014 12:27 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

Slavery. End of story.

That isn't how history works. It's far more complex. The North tacitly approved of slavery and The idea that the North was full of abolitionists is absurd. The North tacitly approved of slavery and in no way had any sympathy for the plight of slaves.

That's surprising. I would think many people anywhere in all ages would have sympathy for slaves. I think even as far back as ancient Rome it eventually became illegal to kill your slaves.

[iknowexactly]

(10-08-2014 04:23 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

There's a lot of revisionist history out there about most of the major modern wars. Authors try to prove that the conventional narrative is lacking or simply wrong. Most of these revisionists make claims that just aren't convincing.

"irredeemably evil." Well put. +1 but I had already done it. You're looking pretty dimwitted when you trying to rationalize beating uppity slaves to death like they did and selling people's children and spouses. It's a horror pure and simple. Race hatred must be opposed at every turn and in every version or you end up with fuckwits like Isis or the crueler American slave owners.

[Orion]

Well, there is a fact that many slaves fled to the north, and fact that there were blacks in union forces. It pretty much shows who did enslaved people regard as their ally in the war.

[Libertas]

Legally, the question was whether states had a unilateral right to secede from the Union. There was some evidence that this was in fact the case, and states had talked about seceding prior to 1860.

Now there were other issues that would motivate this, such as the protective tariff that was detrimental to southern interests, but slavery was really the only big issue that the South was actually willing to secede over.

Slavery was the primer, secession was the powder, and war was the bullet.

Though many in the South did think the war was inevitable at some point anyway and had for some time and so decided to get it over with.

(10-08-2014 08:57 AM)Seth_Rose Wrote:  

To me, the event of most significance during the Civil War, or lack thereof, was the Emancipation Proclamation. It wasn't issued until 1863, two years after the war had begun. If Lincoln really wanted to free the slaves, why not do it from the get go?

Because there were still several slave states, most importantly Maryland, which had not seceded from the Union. Lincoln freeing the slaves may have tipped those states into joining the Confederacy. If Maryland did so, Washington D.C. would be completely surrounded by enemy territory.

The Emancipation Proclamation extended to those states in rebellion because the legal doctrine was that Lincoln was using his war powers as Commander-in-Chief to strip his enemy of its warmaking capability. He knew that he lacked the authority to do the same for those slaveholders who were not making war on the Union, not to mention that there was no way he was going to alienate those very important allies.

The Emancipation Proclamation was also intended to block potential European recognition of the Confederacy. Britain was actually on the verge of doing so when the Proclamation was passed.