The American Civil War

[WrathOfTinyKittens]

Scot,

The war itself was fought to preserve the Union. The North used military force to uphold the unity of this nation.

The secession is what was motivated primarily by slavery. Even if you want to call it the planting class upholding their place in society, that place was built, based, and completely reliant upon the institution of slavery and cultural racism.

HowdyPhillip,

I had a Civil War history class in college with a (fairly) well-known CW scholar. He was a bit of a contrarian in the South as he championed the North and focused his research on disproving Civil War myths. Foremost among these myths for him were the significance of Gettysburg and Sherman's march to the sea.

He spoke often of the MTTS. He said if you go along his route now, every little town has a story about why their town was spared. However, the truth is that aside from Columbia, Sherman really didn't do that much physical damage. His men burned and pillaged storehouses, gins, and fields, but it was very rare for them to burn houses and practically unknown for them to burn whole towns. His men were specifically forbidden from looting houses with occupants, and if they took food from an occupied farm they were required to leave enough for those inside to survive.

Some of his men committed crimes, it's true. But there was never a single incident of massacre to the best of my knowledge. If you know of one, please cite it for me.

As for Columbia, the records I've seen make it pretty clear that Sherman did not order the city burned. In fact, many units of his army fought the fires alongside the city's fire companies, and it is just as likely to have been set by fleeing Southern troops as by drunk Northern ones.

(null)

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

WoC,

I don't think we disagree except over the issue of the retained power to seccede. Saying war was only about Slavery is a gross oversimplification.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Ixodes,

You disagree with me agreeing with you?? How does that work?

Yes Scot, if got into your time machine and changed the right hearts and minds, you could have prevented the civil war. But doesn't this hold true with any war in history?

History went down in a way you don't agree with. I get it.

I disagree that bloodshed was inevitable.

ME,

If it had been New England that seceded over the differences with the rest of the Nation would you have been cool with forcing New England to remain in the Union, by force?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Cyrano,

If a war was necessary why wasn't it necessary to free Brazilian slaves?

http://en.wikipedia....avery_in_Brazil

A war was certainly necessary to end slavery by 1865. I can't fathom a moral justification for keeping human beings as chattel for an additional 20+ years simply to preserve lives among the people willing to keep them as slaves for a few additional decades.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

ME,

If it had been New England that seceded over the differences with the rest of the Nation would you have been cool with forcing New England to remain in the Union, by force?

If it would mean not having the Patriots in the N.F.L.? Shit, you may have sold me on this.

[Ixodes]

Ixodes,

I disagree that bloodshed was inevitable.

I never said this.

I did say that there were cultural and political forces at work in the US that made the situation more volatile, presumably than Brazil, and thus bloodshed was the result. I feel the argument that bloodshed was not inevitable can be applied to any war in history.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Ixodes,

Okay, that's a fair point.

[salt]

War is always ugly, good thing they kept it civil.

[Sci-2]

Damn it salt, I laughed and now feel guilty.

[Dinsdale!]

WoC,

I don't think we disagree except over the issue of the retained power to seccede. Saying war was only about Slavery is a gross oversimplification.

Is there a single tension between the north and the south that wasn't over slavery? Tariffs might have been the reason for the South Carolina nullification* crisis, but after 1857 rates were quite low. The South had won that argument.

I also wonder if an orderly secession would not have just led to later bloodshed, over the disposition of the western part of the continent.

In terms of why not wait for the gradual end of slavery, quite honestly, that was the plan in 1792, but it didn't happen. Instead South politicians masterminded an illegal invasion and conquest of a foreign nation (Mexico) in order to expand the slave territories.

Side note: Abraham Lincoln offered an appointment as General to Giusseppi Garibaldi. He replied that he would accept only if, 1) he was made overall commander and if 2) the abolition of slavery became an explicit war aim. Now THAT would be an interesting alternate history.

* Frankly an illegal thing to do. Whether or not secession is constitutional, excise taxes definitely are.

[Slurms McKenzie]

I did an essay on the use of railroad technology in the American civil war once..........bloody boring it was........

[TerraPrime]

Scot,

The war itself was fought to preserve the Union. The North used military force to uphold the unity of this nation.

The secession is what was motivated primarily by slavery. Even if you want to call it the planting class upholding their place in society, that place was built, based, and completely reliant upon the institution of slavery and cultural racism.

This.

The civil war was not only about slavery, but the issue of slavery underscored most of the points of conflict between the North and the South.

[IheartTesla]

Kinda funny example, since Haiti is the one other western hemisphere country where slavery ended violently. (in a slave revolt)

And I'm curioys to know the peaceful methods Lincoln tried to end slavery with. Because from the historical record, he never tried to end slavery before the war, never claimed it was a goal. Ending slavery was a side effect of the war, not the goal.

Yes, it's almost as if I was being snarky or something, but that has never happened on the interwebs.

As to the second point, Lincoln proposed buying out slaves from Delaware. You know, what Ron Paul wanted. But his plan was rejected. In a state that only had 1800 slaves or so.

My mind is boggled how the south would have agreed to a peaceful resolution in 20 years or less when even Delaware wouldnt go for emancipation.

[IheartTesla]

Of course, Delaware was to be a test balloon for the rest of the nation, particularly the south. But then Fort Sumter had the bad grace to explode those southern shells with its walls.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Cyrano,

Without question the South fired first. What was the dramatic loss of life as a result of that attack that precipitated the full scale invasion of the seceeding States?

[WrathOfTinyKittens]

It wasn't the loss of life per se, Scot. It was that the seceded states had proven their willingness to fight, kill, and even die to secede.

Lincoln knew then that the South would not accept another compromise and that a peaceful solution was not possible. THAT is what precipitated mobilization (however limited initially) and eventually invasion.

Edit: And to answer your question it was the two gunners killed by an artillery misfire during the surrender ceremony. No Union troops were killed by the Confederate bombardment.

(null)

[salt]

Cyrano,

Without question the South fired first. What was the dramatic loss of life as a result of that attack that precipitated the full scale invasion of the seceeding States?

In the scale of the war, there wasn't a "dramatic" loss of life at Pearl Harbor either. A declaration of war is a declaration of war.

[WrathOfTinyKittens]

Salt, while I agree with you in spirit, remember that there was no declaration of war. That would have been an acknowledgement that the CSA was a legitimate political entity.

(null)

[salt]

True, I think you know what I mean. Maybe I should have said "act" instead of declaration. Wether officially or not, the southern states certainly declared war when they launched a military attack on Fort Sumpter.

[Spring Bass]

I think war was necessary to end slavery in the US, at least in the 19th century. It was so central to southern identity by the 1850s than any threat to the institution - including plans to peacefully phase it out - were seen as an "attack" on the South and completely unacceptable. Combine that with increasing opposition to the expansion of the institution in the West, plus pushback from northern states to encroaching Southern attempts to use federal to protect slavery even in "free states", and you were going to get a war.