Scourge of War Boards

Did you ever really think it would go away?

LOL love the bit with out slavery, you say you cant understand the level of hatred

Try Subjugating a Nation! that should guarantee problems down the years, we have had problems with Slovenia, we have seen changes with Russia and Now changes in Libya, Eygypt, a new world order is forming
Old wounds which people thought had been forgotten are only just under the surface, waiting, waiting.
Oh yeah and no slavery issue to hide behind this time

Braxton Bragg

Hi, and I'm not naive to the hate in this world, I'm just unable too comprehend it(lack of experience).

Try Subjugating a Nation!

The Southern states did when they bought their first slave(Groan, that should get me a kick in the pants).

a new world order is forming

The new world order is actually already here, it's just requiring the people of the world to accept it, or be forced to accept it. Clinton has already been called the worlds president (I actually found that offensive), and the United States has been acting like it is the one world government.

we have seen changes with Russia and Now changes in Libya, Eygypt

You are absolutely right things are changing, countries are in upheaval, and it's only going to get worse before it gets any better.

Oh well, I suppose, if we really took learning from the past seriously you would think it logical that we would have already found a way to live in peace.

Later!

"Among the records found at the British archives is an 1863 order from Lincoln granting a British agent permission to recruit volunteers for a Belize colony."


That's the only reason I made this post, Jack. I realize Lincoln's views on recolonization are well known.

But that in 1863 he gave permission to a British agent to recruit black volunteers for a colony in Belize is new to me.

And that's what I find interesting.

"Among the records found at the British archives is an 1863 order from Lincoln granting a British agent permission to recruit volunteers for a Belize colony."


That's the only reason I made this post, Jack. I realize Lincoln's views on recolonization are well known.

But that in 1863 he gave permission to a British agent to recruit black volunteers for a colony in Belize is new to me.

And that's what I find interesting.

Ah...I see!

J

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_lincoln_colonization

As to the point Baylor and soldier are discussing (well, one of them): "Lincoln's views about colonization are well known among historians, even if they don't make it into most schoolbooks."

I would have to say that, in general, this view of Lincoln isn't picked up at least until college, by my recollection. It does detract from the generally pristine view that most (to my knowledge) are presented with of Lincoln (and even Northerners in general).

To that point I can offer personal experience. In 8th grade history class (in Texas), we were to act out a trial, of sorts, over the causes of the Civil War, etc. (I don't even recall the entirety of the assignment now). I was assigned the argument that Northerners would not have accepted blacks even if they had been freed and gone north (the word racism was not used). This was a very novel concept but I do not believe it was in our books. When I tried to speak, I was literally disregarded by my classmates as making a completely bogus statement. Racist northerners? Why they were all angels of emancipation and came to give their lives to free the slaves! This is another can of worms entirely, but one which still merits discussion. Perhaps we shouldn't embark upon a crusade calling for society to be less ignorant.

You will, however, find that most scholarship follows what Willard is saying. Any sort of pro-Southern mentality is not only discounted, it is met with utter disgust. This is from absolute, first-hand experience in academia (albeit primarily in PA). The best solution is to keep your mouth shut on that topic, I have found.

I will also point out this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03178.html
I personally think it has some major problems, but that can be discussed separately. 3 is the only point that I think is worth much (and correct).

I will counter Willard's argument later (so as not to write a novel in this post alone), but let me simply say that his bias is so evident it's painful to read. Willard, as a tip, if you would allow me, you oughtn't to put pejorative terms in an argument. It essentially nullifies everything you're saying. And to the others, if I may, you will do yourselves (and your side of the argument) a real favor if you take the time to write things out a bit more and counter Willard's points more directly. As it stands I'm not sure I follow what exactly you're disagreeing with him about...

Is that sufficient to entice y'all to bring the pain?

I am sure Mr Lincoln was at heart a good man, No one could deny that.

But as you say there are parts of history which for some reason or another are not included in school history, a warts and all view.

Willard is ok he has his views which I must respect (even if they are wrong) like I have said many times
History depends which side of the fence your from

Braxton Bragg

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_lincoln_colonization
You will, however, find that most scholarship follows what Willard is saying. Any sort of pro-Southern mentality is not only discounted, it is met with utter disgust. This is from absolute, first-hand experience in academia (albeit primarily in PA). The best solution is to keep your mouth shut on that topic, I have found.

I will counter Willard's argument later (so as not to write a novel in this post alone), but let me simply say that his bias is so evident it's painful to read. Willard, as a tip, if you would allow me, you oughtn't to put pejorative terms in an argument. It essentially nullifies everything you're saying. And to the others, if I may, you will do yourselves (and your side of the argument) a real favor if you take the time to write things out a bit more and counter Willard's points more directly. As it stands I'm not sure I follow what exactly you're disagreeing with him about...

Is that sufficient to entice y'all to bring the pain?

Bring the PAIN!!! :laugh: I promise the south will rise again, it will all just depend upon how high the flames will be this time!

Anyway, I am no more biased than the usual pro-South revisionist history types that always seem to pop up with their quasi-historical retrofited arguments about how the South was right, etc, etc.

I hold no illusions that the North was any less racist than the south - in fact some of my Irish Catholic ancestors were regretably probably part of the draft riots in NYC in 1863 that unfortunately lynched several blacks.

That being said, just because the North was not any less racist than the south, doesn't mean that the institution of slavery is a good thing or even justified. More importantly it doesn't undermine the legitimacy of the post-Emancipation anti-slavery efforts as the war evolved.

I also have no illusions that the prevalent attitudes of northern leaders at the time was anything but racist. That being said, there is a world of difference between moving away from the institution of slavery and having a horrible racist attitude VICE actively promoting slavery as a state economic policy.

More importantly, I think anyone who has done just a bit of in depth reading on President Lincoln would find him to be a very complex man. The fact that Lincoln did not initially make freeing the slaves a condition of ending the rebellion undermines the southern argument that Lincoln and the Republicans were actively plotting a quick end to slavery which was the exigent reasoning for secession in 1860/1. Lincoln's primary goal was to end the rebellion as quickly as possible - and as he often stated he would do that with or without freeing the slaves if it could be achieved. As the war continued, it became readily apparent that polticial and military necessity dictated that the slave issue would need to be handled once and for all. And the undoing of the south was their view of slaves as property - as property, it become war making material and could be seized or destroyed (as in the institution of slavery) where-ever the rebellion was active. Read the Emancipation Proclamation - it clearly states that slaves were only freed in those states in active rebellion, clearly giving the South yet another out had the war ended then.

More importantly, the pro-south movement, which continues revise itself in an attempt to eliminate slavery as the root cause of the war, can fool some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of time. Go read the Ordinance of Secession by the State of South Carolina: there are 18 references to slavery in that document. Amazing how the base document of a rebellion mentions slavery 18 times, yet had nothing to do with slavery!!!

Even when bringing up the consitutional issues surrounding the creation of the country, the federal system of government and the constiution, the over-riding factor is slavery. From day 1 of drafting the Declaration of Independence it was an issue between the north and south colonial delegates. Subsequent events such as the Mexican-American War, the Compromise of 1850, the Wilmot Proviso, the Fugitive Slave Law, Dredd Scott, etc, all were driven by the base issue of slavery. It is nothing more than a quasi-legalistic red herring to argue otherwise - the bottom-line remains that the only reason those events/issues became a problem was because of the root cause of slavery. Seriously, to argue Dredd Scott is about property rights insults the intelligence of everyone in the room. It isn't like some southern aristocrat's rocking chair found its way up north and its owner was arguing for its return!!! Of course if it was Baylor's bottle of Jack Daniels, I would certainly find that to be a legitimate casus belli and take arms to retrieve such a valuable commodity!

I gotta hand it to ya Willard, you is a born Politician!

That there piece was as good as War n Peace.

Seriously I did like it and had to agree on some of your points

Gotta agree about Baylors Tipple that would be worth a pursuit

Braxton Bragg

That being said, there is a world of difference between moving away from the institution of slavery and having a horrible racist attitude VICE actively promoting slavery as a state economic policy.

I can't quite make sense of this sentence - do you mean versus? It still wasn't true, however, that most northerners even wanted to fight for abolition though, racist or not. Abolitionists were largely extremely radical and not exactly welcomed wholeheartedly by society. As I recall there were a few units that deserted entirely when the war became "officially" about slavery. Still, not a total disagreement there.

More importantly, I think anyone who has done just a bit of in depth reading on President Lincoln would find him to be a very complex man. The fact that Lincoln did not initially make freeing the slaves a condition of ending the rebellion undermines the southern argument that Lincoln and the Republicans were actively plotting a quick end to slavery which was the exigent reasoning for secession in 1860/1.

I think this article is case in point. The fact that he sees ahead that blacks and whites will essentially never get along (as played out in part every time this argument surfaces) and thus supports the only answer he can see to solve it is complex indeed. I think your second point, however, is misguided. To say that is to judge people at the time with the benefit of hindsight. It really doesn't matter what we know/believe to be true now, but instead what people believed at the time. Was there manipulation of the lower "classes" by southern elites? Almost certainly. Does this account for rousing the entire population in support of an institution of which they weren't even formally a part? Not at all.

Basically, as the scholarship stands now, slavery was the equivalent of upward mobility to all Southerners. Despite strong inclinations towards complete independence and self sufficiency, Southerners supported slavery, because the poorest among them kept some hope that they could one day afford slaves (the vast majority of slaveowners had, as I recall, fewer than 10 slaves). This ironically sucked them into a dependent relationship with the economy, because slaves were basically always used to grow cash crops (what good does it do to pay to bring another pair of hands to work on growing food when it's also another mouth to feed?) Anwyay, that's all somewhat complex but I hope the gist of the argument makes sense.

And the undoing of the south was their view of slaves as property - as property, it become war making material and could be seized or destroyed (as in the institution of slavery) where-ever the rebellion was active. Read the Emancipation Proclamation - it clearly states that slaves were only freed in those states in active rebellion, clearly giving the South yet another out had the war ended then.

You make it sound as if that was a direct flaw, though, which it wasn't. Gen. Butler found a way to use an existing law to appropriate slaves, no matter what they were actually being used for. However, the issue of slaves as property is the primary point of friction, insofar as the South's entire economy was based upon it - thousands upon thousands of dollars and a vast part of their labor power. Morality doesn't really even need to enter the argument here.

So why did Southerners get angry when they heard that Lincoln was coming to take the slaves? As mentioned above, everyone kept a little bit of hope to get into that mode of production. But slavery was also an integral part of Southern social structure, and pulling them out of the house of cards would cause chaos(forgive me as I don't recall all the facets of this argument, but again that is the gist of it). Your rocking chair comparison is actually pretty well off the mark. Consider it more as if someone threatened to come in and take away all of the industrial machines in the North. No compensation, just gone. You believe those factory owners wouldn't have been mighty angry? How about the workers? Different regions, different output, but the same basic idea applies.

Also, I would point out that Southerners on the whole fairly well resented interference in their affairs by the north (ie taxes and tariffs that they saw as directly and blatantly harming their exports). They were basically somewhat indignant that the President, who they did not vote for, was haughty enough to reach his long arms down and take what he wanted from them. Davis ended up having to do some of those same things, making him vastly unpopular as the war wore on, but such were the demands and necessities of trying to scrape together a country and armies.

I have no idea where you got your last point at all. An out? Surely you jest. If all the states that had left the Union came back, it's not as if they would have been pardoned and been allowed to keep their slaves. Once the Emancipation Proclamation was released, that was it (and I believe there were a few versions that grew progressively stronger about abolition). Besides, what about all the slaves in regions not formally in rebellion? Lincoln didn't want to make potential supporters angry in border regions. That's a convinient loophole, if you're looking for one.

Even when bringing up the consitutional issues surrounding the creation of the country, the federal system of government and the constiution, the over-riding factor is slavery. From day 1 of drafting the Declaration of Independence it was an issue between the north and south colonial delegates. Subsequent events such as the Mexican-American War, the Compromise of 1850, the Wilmot Proviso, the Fugitive Slave Law, Dredd Scott, etc, all were driven by the base issue of slavery.

All of the legislative hubbub centered more directly on the expansion of slavery, though. Here again, you could consider that Southerners did not want the federal government impinging on what they saw as their right to take the institution of slavery with them westward. This is why you have events like Bleeding Kansas, not because of slavery itself, but due to the tension over the spread of slavery. Once the Southern populace became convinced that Lincoln meant to strike at slavery where it already existed did things get really heated. Lincoln tried to avoid that issue as long as he could, but I'm doubtful he convinced many Southerners.

Also, how do you lump the Mexican American War in there?

Was there manipulation of the lower "classes" by southern elites? Almost certainly. Does this account for rousing the entire population in support of an institution of which they weren't even formally a part? Not at all.

Basically, as the scholarship stands now, slavery was the equivalent of upward mobility to all Southerners. Despite strong inclinations towards complete independence and self sufficiency, Southerners supported slavery, because the poorest among them kept some hope that they could one day afford slaves (the vast majority of slaveowners had, as I recall, fewer than 10 slaves). This ironically sucked them into a dependent relationship with the economy, because slaves were basically always used to grow cash crops (what good does it do to pay to bring another pair of hands to work on growing food when it's also another mouth to feed?) Anwyay, that's all somewhat complex but I hope the gist of the argument makes sense.

You first part doesn’t make any sense and actually serves to prove my argument. Your whole premise is based upon the fact that the ordinary southern man wanted to make it big time. The only way he could do that in the southern economy was to make the leap forward to owning slaves so he could grow cash crops and join the aristocracy. It certainly sounds to me that if the upper segment of society is holding fast to an economic system of slavery and the lower segment is aspiring to join that class - by owning slaves - that this is ample justification for rousing and going to war. And yes it would not have been in their best interest as slaves lowered the cost of the labor for the elite at the expense of the working poor.

So why did Southerners get angry when they heard that Lincoln was coming to take the slaves? As mentioned above, everyone kept a little bit of hope to get into that mode of production. But slavery was also an integral part of Southern social structure, and pulling them out of the house of cards would cause chaos(forgive me as I don't recall all the facets of this argument, but again that is the gist of it). Your rocking chair comparison is actually pretty well off the mark. Consider it more as if someone threatened to come in and take away all of the industrial machines in the North. No compensation, just gone. You believe those factory owners wouldn't have been mighty angry? How about the workers? Different regions, different output, but the same basic idea applies.

See below issue regarding gradual and compensated emancipation. Your argument holds no water.

Also, I would point out that Southerners on the whole fairly well resented interference in their affairs by the north (ie taxes and tariffs that they saw as directly and blatantly harming their exports). They were basically somewhat indignant that the President, who they did not vote for, was haughty enough to reach his long arms down and take what he wanted from them. Davis ended up having to do some of those same things, making him vastly unpopular as the war wore on, but such were the demands and necessities of trying to scrape together a country and armies.

I did a search for the declarations of causes for the seceding states of Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas:

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

Using a quick search I found for all 4 documents that there were ZERO mentions of tariffs, 1 mention of taxes and 82 mentions for slaves. Call me crazy, but I think the guys had slaves – not taxes or tariffs – on their minds when they drafted those documents. You would think that these documents, establishing the reasons for secession and an airing of grievances (cue the Seinfeld references…), would mention taxes and tariffs more than ONCE in four separate documents if they were truly the root cause of the problem. By interesting contrast, the Declaration of Independence actually mentions taxes once, to equal the mention of those four ordinances.

I have no idea where you got your last point at all. An out? Surely you jest. If all the states that had left the Union came back, it's not as if they would have been pardoned and been allowed to keep their slaves. Once the Emancipation Proclamation was released, that was it (and I believe there were a few versions that grew progressively stronger about abolition). Besides, what about all the slaves in regions not formally in rebellion? Lincoln didn't want to make potential supporters angry in border regions. That's a convinient loophole, if you're looking for one.

Lincoln’s primary goal was to end the war. The EP was issued in two-parts, one Sept 1862 and another on Jan. 1, 1863. Slavery was at an end, but Lincoln was giving the south an out and was willing to consider compensated and gradual emancipation. That was his primary objective at that point. Shelby Foote covers this in his CW Narrative, it is at the end of the first volume. And I am not jesting, in hindsight the south lost far more by fighting than it would had it accepted a deal in late fall 1862 to return to the Union with compensated/gradual emancipation.

All of the legislative hubbub centered more directly on the expansion of slavery, though. Here again, you could consider that Southerners did not want the federal government impinging on what they saw as their right to take the institution of slavery with them westward. This is why you have events like Bleeding Kansas, not because of slavery itself, but due to the tension over the spread of slavery. Once the Southern populace became convinced that Lincoln meant to strike at slavery where it already existed did things get really heated. Lincoln tried to avoid that issue as long as he could, but I'm doubtful he convinced many Southerners.

Also, how do you lump the Mexican American War in there?

The whole point of “Manifest Destiny” from the southern perspective was to continue to add slave states to ensure – at worst – a stalemate in the Senate and continued southern dominance of the Supreme Court. The spread of slavery was important for the South – if states could not be added free/slave at a 1-1 ratio, the south would not be able to maintain that delicate balance in the Senate. Once it became apparent in 1860 that Southern dominance in national politics was at end, they decided to pick up their ball and go home.

As for the Mexican-American War – the annexation of Texas in particular was a goal of Southern Democrats as it would lead to the expansion of slavery. In response, the Wilmot Proviso made its way through Congress, which although not passed, would have prohibited the expansion of slavery in territory acquired by the MAW. This in turn lead to the compromise of 1850.

You first part doesn’t make any sense and actually serves to prove my argument. Your whole premise is based upon the fact that the ordinary southern man wanted to make it big time. The only way he could do that in the southern economy was to make the leap forward to owning slaves so he could grow cash crops and join the aristocracy. It certainly sounds to me that if the upper segment of society is holding fast to an economic system of slavery and the lower segment is aspiring to join that class - by owning slaves - that this is ample justification for rousing and going to war. And yes it would not have been in their best interest as slaves lowered the cost of the labor for the elite at the expense of the working poor.

But the problem is that you give the "working poor" no will or voice of their own. In your argument they are there to be manipulated and have no control over what happens. Common people can egt angry on their own, there doesn't have to be a planter standing in front of them rabble rousing.

See below issue regarding gradual and compensated emancipation. Your argument holds no water.

That's alright neither does yours. You are basing your entire explanation on the premise that slavery would have been emancipated gradually and with compensation. That never even came close to happening. The most ardent abolitionists never wanted anything but absolute and immediate emancipation. Lincoln didn't just up and decide one day that he'd throw emancipation in the mix. There was tremendous pressure all around him.

Using a quick search I found for all 4 documents that there were ZERO mentions of tariffs, 1 mention of taxes and 82 mentions for slaves. Call me crazy, but I think the guys had slaves – not taxes or tariffs – on their minds when they drafted those documents. You would think that these documents, establishing the reasons for secession and an airing of grievances (cue the Seinfeld references…), would mention taxes and tariffs more than ONCE in four separate documents if they were truly the root cause of the problem. By interesting contrast, the Declaration of Independence actually mentions taxes once, to equal the mention of those four ordinances.

I never said it wasn't, so you're piling on an argument to bolster your overall position, I guess? Also, since when do official documents represent what every person thinks?

Lincoln’s primary goal was to end the war. The EP was issued in two-parts, one Sept 1862 and another on Jan. 1, 1863. Slavery was at an end, but Lincoln was giving the south an out and was willing to consider compensated and gradual emancipation. That was his primary objective at that point. Shelby Foote covers this in his CW Narrative, it is at the end of the first volume. And I am not jesting, in hindsight the south lost far more by fighting than it would had it accepted a deal in late fall 1862 to return to the Union with compensated/gradual emancipation.

Shelby Foote isn't the authority he once was. Scholarship has gone way past that. Every academic I've seen positively loathes him as the centerpiece of Ken Burns' documentary. And here again, you go on a premise that has absolutely no proof. Gradual and compensated emancipation was never even close to offered formally. So it's not solid ground to compare to. Plus, you're saying that the North would have been gracious victors when it was they who torched most of the South on purpose? There is no way they could have anticipated that level of destruction being thrust upon the populace - destruction which arguably has crippled the entire region ever since. What Lincoln wanted was rarely exactly what happened.

The whole point of “Manifest Destiny” from the southern perspective was to continue to add slave states to ensure – at worst – a stalemate in the Senate and continued southern dominance of the Supreme Court. The spread of slavery was important for the South – if states could not be added free/slave at a 1-1 ratio, the south would not be able to maintain that delicate balance in the Senate. Once it became apparent in 1860 that Southern dominance in national politics was at end, they decided to pick up their ball and go home.

As for the Mexican-American War – the annexation of Texas in particular was a goal of Southern Democrats as it would lead to the expansion of slavery. In response, the Wilmot Proviso made its way through Congress, which although not passed, would have prohibited the expansion of slavery in territory acquired by the MAW. This in turn lead to the compromise of 1850.

That seems a good stretch to include the MAW. However, the South had a comparably tiny population compared to the North (2/3rds being case in point). Why was it wrong for Southerners to worry about losing representation for their point(s) of view? They did not necessarily have to "dominate" politics, hence all the 1:1 moves. Seems to me they were more afraid of having their ideas and whatnot trampled on by a veritable flood of representatives in the North. If, in their eyes, the system of government was no longer willing or able to represent them fairly, in their eyes, then they sought to break away from that and attempt to fashion a nation more true to what they perceived as the true ideals of the Declaration/Constitution/Revolution etc. It may have been foolhardy, but it wasn't the action of "taking their ball and going home". I think there again you err in being pejorative with your terminology and thereby oversimplify the matter terribly.

I suppose, thinking about it, that in those terms, it's more like saying the whole game sucks and we're going home.