The American Civil War

[salt]

(mispost)

[TerraPrime]

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.

Just so.

For the issue of slavery to not end in a war in the U.S., many things would have to have gone differently, to a point of being very far from what actually happened prior to the war. It is also a bit of number-out-of-thin-air to conjecture that 20 years would have given us something similar to the Emancipation Proclamation, had we not had a civil war.

[Sci-2]

Is "bloodshed" worse than continued use of people as livestock? I might be wrong, but this seems to be the question this discussion centers around.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

WoC,

Actually, I believe a donkey or a mule was killed as a result of the bombardment. You are aware that if Lincoln had not called for miltia troops to invade the lower South it is entirely possible that the Upper South (Tennesee, Virginia, North Carolina, and Arkansas) may not have chosen to secede. I don't believe the oringial wave of seceded States would have survived long as an independent nation.

[salt]

Is "bloodshed" worse than continued use of people as livestock? I might be wrong, but this seems to be the question this discussion centers around.

Its a very good question. Slavery is one of the most evil, twisted, perverted insitutions ever thought up by man, and it makes me wish there was a hell so that the men who killed to defend it could burn in it. But a full scale brutal war is obviously one of the worst ways to eliminate it. I'm not sure what the United States could have done to abolish it peacefully considering the extent the southern states were willing to go to to make sure it didn't end.

[Verboten]

Is "bloodshed" worse than continued use of people as livestock? I might be wrong, but this seems to be the question this discussion centers around.

No. The system of slavery that existed in America was far worse than and claimed more lives than the war used to end it.

[WrathOfTinyKittens]

Scot,

I am aware that the upper south states may not have seceded absent Lincoln's call for volunteers. However, the consequences of not calling for them was the dissolution of the United States. Lincoln knew it was a calculated risk, but it was necessary to save it all.

What you don't see discussed much are the potential consequences of not taking military action once the original Confederate states proved that that was the only way to being them back into the fold. Think about it: if the South can secede over slavery without consequences, how long until New England or the Midwestern states, or California, decided to secede? It was a dangerous precedent.

Again, my main point remains that the CSA had shown that military action was the only way to keep them in the Union. As far as I can see, the fact that said military action prompted further secessions is irrelevant.

Edit: Forgot to address your second point. The CSA could have lasted, perhaps, but not forever. Regardless, as long as slavery remained an issue (which it assuredly would have), I can't see them ever peacefully reintegrating. This is even without the added complications of the possibility of additional secessions as I mentioned above. There may not have even been a USA to reintegrate into after a few decades.

(null)

[Howdyphillip]

Its a very good question. Slavery is one of the most evil, twisted, perverted insitutions ever thought up by man, and it makes me wish there was a hell so that the men who killed to defend it could burn in it. But a full scale brutal war is obviously one of the worst ways to eliminate it.

I agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment. The abolishment of slavery is absolutely something that I believe would be something to fight and lay down your life for.

I'm not sure what the United States could have done to abolish it peacefully considering the extent the southern states were willing to go to to make sure it didn't end.

My main point is that slavery, although the central issue of divisiveness between the North and the South, was not the reason for the Civil War. The North invaded to keep the South in the Union. The reason for this was to keep resources. Lincoln himself admitted this. I am certainly glad that the end results of this war ended the practice of slavery, but the idea that the troops from the North fought for the liberation of man is something that has been rewritten in history.

[Sci-2]

I am certainly glad that the end results of this war ended the practice of slavery, but the idea that the troops from the North fought for the liberation of man is something that has been rewritten in history.

I think this myth is a problem in that people have very interesting assumptions about the South. From friends of varied backgrounds and my own time there as a brown person, I find much of the accusations of racism and ignorance to be exaggerated/insulting.

As a female friend of mine once said, she'd rather have a Southern man who's upfront out courting her than a whiny Yankee making feminist claims to get in her pants. :-)

ETA: There's also the problem that people think thought of the North as the "good guys" who were free from prejudice, but it's the continuance of the stereotype that annoys me more.

[WrathOfTinyKittens]

HP, you're right and wrong here. The Union didn't originally set out to end slavery, but this was a consequence of believing that the war would end very quickly and there would be an easy, status quo reintegration. After Antietam, abolition became a bonafide war goal.

(null)

[Spring Bass]

ETA: There's also the problem that people think thought of the North as the "good guys" who were free from prejudice, but it's the continuance of the stereotype that annoys me more.

Not free from prejudice, but the North was on much better moral ground than the South. That's something the Civil War mythology that emerged near the end of the 19th century tried to erase by claiming it was about "states' rights" - they were trying to erase the moral culpability of the South in the war.

HP, you're right and wrong here. The Union didn't originally set out to end slavery, but this was a consequence of believing that the war would end very quickly and there would be an easy, status quo reintegration. After Antietam, abolition became a bonafide war goal.

That was certainly true as the war progressed. Like I said earlier in this thread, read Lincoln's second inaugural speech. Opinion changed in the remaining slave states in the Union as the war progressed as well (they all abolished slavery over the course of the war).

]No. The system of slavery that existed in America was far worse than and claimed more lives than the war used to end it.

That reminds me of something Ta-Nehisi Coates said over at his blog about it. About how it may have been four years for white Americans, but for blacks the Civil War was just the concluding four years of a nearly 250-year war against them by slave-owners and particularly slave-owners in the South.

[Howdyphillip]

HP, you're right and wrong here. The Union didn't originally set out to end slavery, but this was a consequence of believing that the war would end very quickly and there would be an easy, status quo reintegration. After Antietam, abolition became a bonafide war goal.

The same can be said about the liberation of concentration camps in WWII, but no one says that was the reason for the conflict.

Not free from prejudice, but the North was on much better moral ground than the South. That's something the Civil War mythology that emerged near the end of the 19th century tried to erase by claiming it was about "states' rights" - they were trying to erase the moral culpability of the South in the war.

State's rights was the reason for the succession. If the war would have been about slavery, then the South would have stayed in the Union and signed the amendment that Lincoln signed ensuring that slavery would be a continued practice in this country. The revisionist history is that the war was fought from a moral high ground from the North.

[Spring Bass]

The same can be said about the liberation of concentration camps in WWII, but no one says that was the reason for the conflict.

I think you're overly narrowing down the reasons for the conflict to "Why the Union launched campaigns to put down the southern rebellion in 1860." If we're talking about the actual proximate reasons for the conflict, then it was because of slavery - the South seceded because of slavery, and the Union was more or less bound to put down the rebellion or face the loss of legitimacy.

[Sci-2]

Not free from prejudice, but the North was on much better moral ground than the South. That's something the Civil War mythology that emerged near the end of the 19th century tried to erase by claiming it was about "states' rights" - they were trying to erase the moral culpability of the South in the war.

Oh I agree - and that it was likely better, from a human perspective, that the war occurred. I just think the stereotypes of racism are a little over the top sometimes.

[The Progressive]

Remember that it was the Southern traitors who first assailed federal troops as they attacked Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861.

[Howdyphillip]

I think you're overly narrowing down the reasons for the conflict to "Why the Union launched campaigns to put down the southern rebellion in 1860." If we're talking about the actual proximate reasons for the conflict, then it was because of slavery - the South seceded because of slavery, and the Union was more or less bound to put down the rebellion or face the loss of legitimacy.

My response is that narrowing things down to point as slavery for the reason for the war is just not factual. At the start of the war, the idea of freeing the slaves was not even a consideration of the Union. The South succeeded because they believed that the Federal government shouldn't supersede the laws of the State. If it were just for reasons of slavery, then they already had what they wanted with this evil practice, and it was supported by the North.

[Nukelavee]

IHTesla - threadjack - It not a question of population, but intensity of feeling, and how widespread that feeling seems to be. You would have a hard time having this kind of thread see so much action, in Canadastan, if you were discussing Quebec, and why/how it entered Confederation.

I mean, Quebec was bribed with nearly 2/3 of it's current area to join, and the Seperatists have failed, umm, 3 times now to even get most voters to want to seperate. I believe the last time, Bourassa blamed it on those damned ethnic immigrants fucking it up for the true Quebecois.

/threadjack

As a related sorta aside - Man, somedays I have a hard time seeing the USA as an actual country, in terms of how you see yourselves, ie states vs Fed. That's not a judgement, it's a "wtf?". I really don't get the whole concept, it's like you have 50 versions of Quebec, if I could take Quebec's rants seriously, flying in loose formation, until somebody decides they'd rather not.

So - question: because I really am interested in that being explained to me, and this isn't a thread focused on that, if I started one asking to have it explained, any body willing to explain it to me?

[Dragonfish]

My main point is that slavery, although the central issue of divisiveness between the North and the South, was not the reason for the Civil War. The North invaded to keep the South in the Union. The reason for this was to keep resources. Lincoln himself admitted this.

I read a book once (Lies My Teacher Told Me by James Loewen) that argued this is an oversimplification of Lincoln's goals. The author's main point was that the sole piece of evidence supporting the idea that Lincoln only wanted to preserve the Union was a letter he wrote to New York Democrats. But of course, when you consider that he needed their support for re-election, it makes sense that he would downplay the issue of slavery when communicating with them (abolition being an unpopular idea among Democrats). However, according to Loewen, when Lincoln spoke with abolitionists in private meetings, he singled out the abolition of slavery as being the great moral cause for the war.

I'd be curious to hear what some other civil war buffs think of this argument, as I myself don't really know enough about the issue to critique it properly.

[Dragonfish]

My response is that narrowing things down to point as slavery for the reason for the war is just not factual. At the start of the war, the idea of freeing the slaves was not even a consideration of the Union. The South succeeded because they believed that the Federal government shouldn't supersede the laws of the State. If it were just for reasons of slavery, then they already had what they wanted with this evil practice, and it was supported by the North.

This is something else Loewen argues is false. States' rights was just a convenient rationale the South used to support slavery. In cases where states' rights impeded that goal, the South was quick to dispense with it as a rationale (e.g.-southern politicians attempted to use the levers of federal power to impede certain states' attempts to grant suffrage to freedmen, believing that such an act would undermine slavery). In other words, states' rights was just the excuse, and not the true causus belli for the South (at least according to Loewen).

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

As a related sorta aside - Man, somedays I have a hard time seeing the USA as an actual country, in terms of how you see yourselves, ie states vs Fed. That's not a judgement, it's a "wtf?". I really don't get the whole concept, it's like you have 50 versions of Quebec, if I could take Quebec's rants seriously, flying in loose formation, until somebody decides they'd rather not.

So - question: because I really am interested in that being explained to me, and this isn't a thread focused on that, if I started one asking to have it explained, any body willing to explain it to me?

Sounds like you kind of answered your own question to some degree, although I probably don't know enough about Quebec to make that assumption. I'm Northern Californian, born and raised and I feel much the same way about the southern part of my state as you do Quebec. I can't even begin to understand the political makeup of my own state, let alone the country as a whole.