| Author | Message | ||
     Mr_grumpy |
| ||
| Hughlysses |
My main objection to focusing on slavery as the sole cause for the war is the implication that the South was totally and solely responsible for the enslavement of millions of Africans while the North was pure as the driven snow and who only wanted justice and enlightenment for all mankind. 1- Africans were captured and enslaved in Africa by OTHER AFRICANS. 2- They were sold to wealthy ship owners from NEW ENGLAND who transported them to the U.S. who profited immensely from the trade. 3- They were bought by southern plantation owners who reaped the benefits of their labors. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." | ||
| Britchri10 |
Looking at the actual question made me think of one myself. It is.,"How could the USA be expected to pick a side when the war was an internecine affair?" FWIW (& IMHO): Britain supported the South (discretely). W/O the slavery issue, Britain would have "come in hard" on the side of the CSA. (if only to redress the outcome of the war of Independence from a British perspective!) Chris C | ||
| Brumbear |
Newsflash.... 1787 Britain Fail 1815 Britain fail 1865 Britain/CSA FAIL!!!!!!!!!! See I always said beer and gas stations was a bad idea now I have proof!!!!!!! | ||
| Sifo |
My main objection to focusing on slavery as the sole cause for the war is the implication that the South was totally and solely responsible for the enslavement of millions of Africans while the North was pure as the driven snow and who only wanted justice and enlightenment for all mankind. I think you may be reading way too much into that, at least from my perspective. One thing I do know is that you can see from the Lincoln/Douglas debates that abolition of slavery was on Lincoln's mind long before the Civil War (or War of Norther Aggression if you prefer). Much beyond that, I'm really enjoying this discussion. It's an area that I've got lot's to learn about. Sadly in school I learned more about this war in science class than history class. | ||
| Britchri10 |
Britain spent a lot of time failing. It doesn't change my opinion though. Britain would have openly supported the CSA but for the slavery issue. Chris C | ||
| Ulynut |
Dangit! Now I have to go back and read up on this again. | ||
| Strokizator |
The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired. No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs; or to whom such service or labor may be due. The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States. These are excerpts from the constitution of the CSA. Do you still think it was all about states rights and not about slavery? | ||
| Hughlysses |
I don't think it was all about state's rights; obviously it involved slavery. OTOH I don't think the north was solely motivated by humanitarian concerns. There's a big difference in what the governments fought for/against and what the poor grunts who were out there slogging it out were fighting for/against. | ||
| Brumbear |
I can seriously say this . Even though it was spoken 147 years ago,I still find the hair on the back of my neck go up when this is read. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvA0J_2ZpIQ This country could use another President with this mans resolve. | ||
| Luftkoph |
If you guys would like a good look at the history of the civil war, read Bruce Cattons 3 books on it, The coming fury,terrible swift sword and never call retreat, they have more footnotes than you can keep up with, but as americans it is something that should be read and as you do read it you will see quickly how politicians always get our ass in trouble. Also the mason dixon line has absolutely nothing to do with the civil war. | ||
| Hughlysses |
The picture is always more complicated that the history books paint it. A couple of interesting titles of interest:  http://www.amazon.com/Black-Southerners-Gray-Afro- Americans-Confederate/dp/0963899392  http://www.amazon.com/Confederates-Afro-Yankees-Vi rginia-Nation-Divided/dp/0813915457/ref=sr_1_1?s=b ooks&ie=UTF8&qid=1301008323&sr=1-1 | ||
| Britchri10 |
Brumbear: Me too. I love that America stands for so many good things. I chose to live here because I believe that this country embodies much that I, too, hold dear. (The only thing I can't change in my life is what I learned when I was growing up in the UK.) I came here for one year. 22 years later, I am still here & I ain't going nowhere else. I love this country! Chris C | ||
| Sifo |
For fun: type in "French Military Victories" into Google and hit "feeling lucky". http://lmgtfy.com/?q=french+military+victories&l=1  | ||
| Stirz007 |
Hugh - I've read Killer Angels and quite a few others - my Dad and Brother (the history major) are WAY into Civil War history and consume everything in print -thus I get to read the stuff they recommend. Shelby Foote, in particular, and some of the stuff that came out of the LSU press is really good. I've heard that S.C. and UGA also have published some excellent work on Longstreet (turn me on to that if you know). Longstreet (whose Dad was from Jersey, BTW) was as good a field commander as there was (both sides). There is also some contention that as the war went on, Lee was under a lot of pressure to bring it to a close quickly, (as troops and materiel were becoming more scarce) possibly contributing to some ill-advised decisions - but then again, what general EVER has not made a bad decision at some point in his career?. An arrogant fool is hardly a good description of Lee given his overall career and accomplishments - only misinformed name-calling to elicit an argument - I ain't takin' the bait. In fact, Lee and Longstreet were both West Point graduates (Lee was second in his class and his decision to go to the CSA was a blow to the U.S. Army). Vicksburg, Gettysburg and Manassas are amazing places as are most battlefields. Almost every battlefield I have visited has given me the shivers - almost like I can feel the ghosts still walking the killing fields. Some kind of subconscious-level thing. The British and French angles and intrigues were pretty interesting to dig into, but I admit I haven't read much written from the B & F perspectives - mostly stuff from this side of the pond - any suggestions? | ||
| Whisperstealth |
Brumbear, - Resolve, yes. The man had a lot of resolve. I'll give him that. We could definately use a president with similar resolve. But I would never want another president like Lincoln was in other aspects. The guy crapped all over the constitution, and baited the South. The more I learn about the man, the less I like him. He was not the hero my school books made him out to be. | ||
| Luftkoph |
Britain would have openly supported the CSA but for the slavery issue. How true because of the union navy blockade on southern ports Britain's great textile mills were struggling and workers were without jobs,Britain was ready to go to a naval war to open ports until Lincoln did his emancipation proclamation and Britain backed off " the proclamation has no constitutional or legal justification except as a military measure" A. Lincoln | ||
| Hughlysses |
Jeff- I think my favorite book on Longstreet is "Longstreet- the Confederacy's Most Controversial Soldier" by Jeffry D. Wert. http://www.amazon.com/General-James-Longstreet-Con federacys-Controversial/dp/B003KCUGRW/ref=sr_1_28? s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1301013353&sr=1-28 It's been a few years since I read it, but it was one of the first "modern" books written about him. Longstreet was by all accounts a better general than Stonewall Jackson, but he made several critical mistakes after the war that tarnished his image. For one thing, he became a Republican, basically because he figured "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em". He saw that Republicans WERE going to run things after the South's loss and he figured he could influence matters more on the winning side. Ulysses S. Grant was a distant relative, and appointed Longstreet to a couple of different cabinet posts when he was elected. At one point Longstreet ended up leading black freedman soldiers against former Confederate soldiers during a period of unrest in New Orleans. Finally, Longstreet spoke out about Lee's actions at Gettysburg after Lee died. Other notable former Confederates managed to excoriate Longstreet in the press and generally created the impression that Gettysburg was his fault and he was trying to blame it on Lee. This combined with his politics resulted in Longstreet being shunned in the south for many years, although apparently the men that fought under him never lost respect for him. It was basically 100 years before someone was able to write a book to set his record straight. | ||
| Etennuly |
Wow. I guess it is not riding season yet?  | ||
| Blake |
Hugh, No one here is trying to demonize the south. The vast vast overwhelming majority of southerners were not slave owners. But slavery was THE core issue and cause of the war. Evil. Thank the southern politicians of the day and their wealthy supporters, slave owners. The slave trade was abolished in 1808, ineffectively. Highly doubtful it was New England ships transporting slaves. See http://www1.american.edu/TED/slave.htm | ||
| Blake |
>>> Immediately following secession, the CSA was attempting to negotiate with Lincoln for a peaceful withdrawal of foreign (U.S.) forces from CSA territory. Lincoln ordered the ship "the Star of the West" to sail to Fort Sumter in Charleston with supplies because he knew we'd fire on it, and he could then say "They started it!". The idea that Lincoln made the South attack Fort Sumter is just plain goofy. If they wanted peace, then they shouldn't have attacked, period. The South was prepared for and itching for war. Hugh, you sound like you are siding with the confederates. Really? | ||
| Gsilvernale |
Like Hugh, I tend to take exception to the "south started the war". The south seceded from the Union, but the north started the war. I grew up in the north, and was taught to believe that the southerners were evil slavers that we had to subdue. But after living in the South for 20 years, you actually get to see the conflict from another viewpoint. In Charleston, the war is referred to as the war of northern aggression, or as to that "recent unpleasantness". As to how the war actually started, it all depends on your view point. There are two forts in Charleston, SC within about 5 miles of each other. Fort Sumter sits on a island in the middle of the harbor. On the north side of the harbor, there is a barrier island called Sullivans Island. On Sullivan's Island the Union had a small detachment of soldiers at Fort Moultrie. However, it was considered indefensible. So in the middle of the night, they left Fort Moultrie and moved to Fort Sumter. "South Carolina seceded from the Union on December 20, 1860. Unlike their counterparts at the other forts, defenders of Fort Moultrie chose not to surrender to the South Carolina forces. On December 26, 1860, Union Major Robert Anderson moved his garrison at Fort Moultrie to the stronger Fort Sumter. On February 8, 1861, South Carolina joined other seceded Deep Southern states to form the Confederate States of America. In April 1861, Confederate troops shelled Fort Sumter into submission and the American Civil War began." Prior to the commencement of the shelling, the Union soldiers were asked to peacefully evacuate. They could keep their weapons and march north. The shelling went on for 34 hours. No Union soldiers were killed. The Federal/Union soldiers were allowed to surrender/evacuate the fort under the same conditions as before the commencement of hostilities. The Union commanding officer wrote: COLONEL: I have the honor to send herewith dispatches Nos. 99 and 100, written at but not mailed in Fort Sumter, and to state that I shall, at as early a date as possible, forward a detailed report of the operations in the harbor of Charleston, S.C., in which my command bore a part on the 12th and 13th instants, ending with the evacuation of Fort Sumter, and the withdrawal, with the honors of war, of my garrison on the 14th instant from that harbor, after having sustained for thirty-four hours the fire from seventeen 10-inch mortars and from batteries of heavy guns, well placed and well served, by the forces under the command of Brigadier-General Beauregard. Fort Sumter is left in ruins from the effect of the shell and shot from his batteries, and officers of his army reported that our firing had destroyed most of the buildings inside Fort Moultrie. God was pleased to guard my little force from the shell and shot which were thrown into and against my work, and to Him are our thanks due that I am enabled to report that no one was seriously injured by their fire." So it is technically true that the hostilities commenced at Fort Sumter - with both sides shelling the other. However, the Confederacy considered that Fort Sumter was their territory and that it was being occupied by a foreign country. They did not attack the Union. They just wanted the Union soldiers out of their territory. Lincoln did provoke this attack. His attempt to resupply the soldiers at Fort Sumter precipiated the shelling. If he had not attempted to resupply the Fort, the Union soldiers would have simply marched away when their supplies ran out. At that point, hostilities were still gentlemanly and had not fallen into the terrible behavior that was later shown by both sides. Fort Sumter is about as much a reason to start a war as WMD was in Iraq (hindsight being 20/20). The war really did not start until the first battle of Bull Run when the Union attacked the Confederacy. Most people living in the south consider that the Union was criminal in its prosecution of the later half of the war and there are reminders all around the South of the savagery that occurred. These same reminders are not found in the North (other then the battlefields like Antietam and Gettysburg.) As far as slavery being the reason for the war? That will be forever argued by which ever side you choose to believe. However, the result of the civil war was that slavery was abolished - which I am sure that we all agree was the most important result of the war. It is interesting to note that while Slaves were distributed around the Southern United States, Carribean and South America, the US was the last major holdout of slavery. Most other countries had already abolished slavery. The south's continued defense of slavery was definetly a low point in our countries history. | ||
| Blake |
No slavery, no war. It just isn't debatable. It is simple fact. | ||
| Blake |
Some people try to start their own nation apart from one which is already governing that territory. That is an act of war. Choosing to try to starve out the nation's troops is an act of war. Supplying a nation's troops on their sovereign territory is not an act of war. If I take up arms against Texas and declare Kilgore a state of it's own, it would be dishonorable of me to claim that it was Texas that started the fight. The corrupt power-brokers of the confederacy thought they could establish their own slaver nation. They miscalculated. The great Texas leader Sam Houston opposed the confederacy. It's a shame there weren't more men of his character and vision in leadership positions at the time. | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
That's a tricky one Blake, would you say that about the Libyans that our countries are currently trying to help? I guess it's a point of view thing, one man's terrorist being another's freedom fighter. And the winners get to write the history that puts them in the best light. As for the Brit's & French positions during the conflict, they both did what they could for their own advantage. "Twas ever thus" | ||
| Hughlysses |
The slave trade was abolished in 1808, ineffectively. Highly doubtful it was New England ships transporting slaves. The slave trading ships before the official abolition of slavery were largely owned by New Englanders. --Lorenzo Johnston Greene, “The Negro in Colonial New England, 1620-1776,” p.319. | ||
| Hughlysses |
Hugh, you sound like you are siding with the confederates. Really? Of course I am; I'm a sixth generation South Carolinian, how could I do anything else? Maybe it's because BOTH of my parents had living ancestors (both women) who personally witnessed and survived Sherman's march through South Carolina. Was slavery evil and wrong? Absolutely. Is it a good thing the South eventually lost the war? Probably yes; the consequences for having two smaller, weaker nations instead of the U.S. in the 19th and 20th centuries could have been drastic as far as world events. OTOH it's unfair to apply modern sensibilities to things our ancestors did 151 years ago. Do you really think if you'd been living in Texas in 1861 and they called for volunteers to oppose the coming invasion of the Union Army, you'd have said "Oh, no, I can't; that's wrong."? | ||
| Revz |
GREAT !! This has gone even better than I intended, we've almost set up all the arguments, tone, and tenor leading into the Civil War NOW my original premise! An unexpected and insurmountable force enters into the mix(the 21st century US) and renders the USA & CSA navies harmless to each other. A "No Cross Zone" is created along the Mason-Dixon line, meaning a 15 mile swath of land where no artillery or calvary may cross to engage the other side, ONLY Infantry. The Northern assets are frozen so that they can't get outside help. A Naval blockade along the entire coast of the US from Maine to Mexico. How does it pan out now? How long do the sides engage with limited power against each other? Do the countries run parallel? Do other countries get involved because of the need for goods from either side? What say you now? | ||
| Glitch |
What say you now? I don't think anyone would show up, unless of course, you could do it all on-line. | ||
| Sayitaintso |
If you put it that way it sounds like the Koreas to me. You do know that the Mason Dixon line is much further north than most people realize... partly in PA. |
