|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: American Civl War is still being fought
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
It's getting increasingly difficult as a foreigner to follow this thread, in ways which, to me, are confirming what I said earlier, that if the American Civil War is still being fought, it's the successors of the northern states that are as guilty of that as the southern ones.
If, for example, it's being argued that there would be something controversial about as person turning up at a fancy dress party dressed as a Confederate soldier, is that really true? And if so wouldn't it be equally controversial to turn up at a fancy dress party dressed as a Northern one? If not, why not? And if there is still perceived to be a difference, why? Does that perhaps represent an unacknowledged self-righteousness or triumphalism that still infects the winning side?
It would not be controversial here to dress up as a Royalist or a Parliamentary soldier. Re-enactment enthusiasts do it all the time. Admittedly, that's longer ago. But there's a country house near Newbury which has a complete set of Parliamentary uniforms hanging round the walls of its Great Hall which - except for a short period in the C20 when they were stolen - have been hanging there since 1649. The owner didn't even take them down when Charles II came visiting. There was a strong element among the aristocracy and gentry that had accepted the Restoration who thought it was a good idea to remind monarchs from time to time to be careful for their cervical vertebrae.
It's actually quite shocking, as a foreigner, to read people 150 years after your Civil War ended, still describing the losing side as rebels, and bemoaning the fact that the defeated generals weren't strung up as traitors.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Seriously, why doesn't the Klan get the same whitewash (if you'll pardon the term) as the Confederacy?
Because they are not really the same thing. Overlap, sure. Same thing, no.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
If, for example, it's being argued that there would be something controversial about as person turning up at a fancy dress party dressed as a Confederate soldier, is that really true? And if so wouldn't it be equally controversial to turn up at a fancy dress party dressed as a Northern one? If not, why not? And if there is still perceived to be a difference, why? Does that perhaps represent an unacknowledged self-righteousness or triumphalism that still infects the winning side?
It would not be controversial here to dress up as a Royalist or a Parliamentary soldier.
There is, of course, a more recent, real world example of someone turning up at a British costume party in the wrong uniform. It seemed pretty controversial at the time.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Seriously, why doesn't the Klan get the same whitewash (if you'll pardon the term) as the Confederacy?
Because they are not really the same thing. Overlap, sure. Same thing, no.
Given that both had as their end goal the establishment of a white supremacist police state, the similarities seem a lot more pronounced than the differences.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Seriously, why doesn't the Klan get the same whitewash (if you'll pardon the term) as the Confederacy?
Because they are not really the same thing. Overlap, sure. Same thing, no.
Given that both had as their end goal the establishment of a white supremacist police state, the similarities seem a lot more pronounced than the differences.
Your given is not a given for all and probably not even most. For many in the confederacy, the reason they showed up is because the union army was coming.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Seriously, why doesn't the Klan get the same whitewash (if you'll pardon the term) as the Confederacy?
Because they are not really the same thing. Overlap, sure. Same thing, no.
Given that both had as their end goal the establishment of a white supremacist police state, the similarities seem a lot more pronounced than the differences.
Your given is not a given for all and probably not even most. For many in the confederacy, the reason they showed up is because the union army was coming.
According to the 1860 census, about 40% of the population of the Confederacy "showed up" (curious phrase for belonging to a putative nation) because they were enslaved. I'm not sure you can get to a majority with those numbers. You'd need to stipulate support levels above 80% of the free population to get to a majority. Of course, if an enslaved person only counts as three-fifths, the math works out differently.
At any rate, goals of "the Confederacy" don't necessarily encompass the individual goals of all its constituent members (citizen or otherwise). Using that standard, we could just as easily argue that the American Revolution was fought in order for William Baker* to impress his sweetheart back in Connecticut and to give Irving Wilton* a chance to get out of his small farming town.
--------------------
*Fictional individuals invented for a bit of narrative color, though they doubtless had many real life analogs.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
There is, of course, a more recent, real world example of someone turning up at a British costume party in the wrong uniform. It seemed pretty controversial at the time.
Sort of fair comment, except that it has no bearing on the point I keep trying to get this thread to stop ducking.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Enoch:
Sorry, but you really have to pay attention to the history. Civil War history in popular culture has a bit of a blind spot for events post-1863, except perhaps Sherman's March to the Sea. The recent Lincoln movie was a refreshing change in that regard.
The Civil War in 1864 reached the stage of (a) total war against civilians (Sherman's March to the Sea) and (b) an outright race war. After the Emancipation Proclamation the Union Army began the enlist African-Americans as soldiers. The Confederacy reacted by proclaiming that captured black Union soliders would be tried as rebellious slaves and sentenced to death, as would their (white) officers. Then came the Fort Pillow massacre where the Confederate Army massacred black Union troops. The previous POW exchange system broke down over the position of black troops, and the last vestige of "controlled" warfare was gone.
At the end of the war came Reconstruction. Until the 1870's most former Confederate states had progressive Republican governments, but by 1896 all southern states had been won by "Redeemer" Democrats who instituted segregation. North Carolina was the last to go down this route.
The Redeemers are the old, conservative segregationist Southern Democrats we think in popular culture depictions of the Segregated South. They were in power until the late 1960's.
Along the way, the US Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which was struck down in 1886 by the Supreme Court. It was in many ways substantially similar to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which ended legal segregation.
So yes, the controversies generated during the Civil War still causing active civil protest within living memory.
And I think it rather unfair to compare the English Civil War and its aftermath to the violent and lethal racial politics of the US 1861-1970.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
If, for example, it's being argued that there would be something controversial about as person turning up at a fancy dress party dressed as a Confederate soldier, is that really true? And if so wouldn't it be equally controversial to turn up at a fancy dress party dressed as a Northern one? If not, why not? And if there is still perceived to be a difference, why? Does that perhaps represent an unacknowledged self-righteousness or triumphalism that still infects the winning side?
It would not be controversial here to dress up as a Royalist or a Parliamentary soldier.
There is, of course, a more recent, real world example of someone turning up at a British costume party in the wrong uniform. It seemed pretty controversial at the time.
Turning up a fancy dress party in Drogheda as Oliver Cromwell might be considered bad taste... And we're just past the date when chaps with orange sashes like to get het up about King Billy and the battle of the Boyne - I think it might be controversial to turn up dressed as King Billy on yer white horse or with your House of Orange supporting colours in the wrong part of Belfast. When people keep alive a prejudice by harking back to a historical conflict, so long as the group who are being targeted are still around, it can stay controversial and a live wire to touch for a good long time. The Americans aren't even close to the keeping a civil war grudge going since 1690 that some British communities manage. There racism is the juice which stops it become just another bit of history, and here anti-catholicism is the juice which has kept it going.
Also there are still people who get upset about the 1745 - try turning up at a Culloden memorial dressed as a Red Coat. There was someone who did and it didn't go down well. Butcher Cumberland is still a bit controversial in some quarters. It may be on the wane, but it's a lot older than Gettysburg.
[ 16. July 2015, 23:52: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
... For many in the confederacy, the reason they showed up is because the union army was coming.
Which came as a total surprise, having nothing to do with anything that the Confederacy had done. Naturally they rushed to defend their property, human or otherwise.
And by the way, I do think it was awful that the Union army destroyed people's homes, and I certainly understand why those people would be very bitter for a very long time. But that's what happens when the you pick a fight you can't win: you get your ass kicked. And it's nothing compared to what was inflicted on generations of slaves. Karma.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I fly the flags of other countries, including flags of countries the U.S. has been at war with—or declared independence from—and historical flags at my house all the time.
What do you get out of doing that, Nick? Are you a flag collector, or something? Is that just how you like to look at them?
Like Sheldon Cooper, my hobby is vexillology. I've studied and collected flags as long as I can remember. I have many books and many flags, and I always have one flying. I do get a kick out of switching them out regularly (France has been up this week for Bastille Day), and hearing that parents and kids who walk by enjoy trying to identify them.
quote:
quote:
And before anyone asks, I would never fly a Confederate flag, my UDC forebears notwithstanding. I am well aware of what the flag rightfully means to most people, including me, and I would never want to be associated with that or offend anyone by flying it.
If you are east of Mayberry, I take it you live here in NC. Do you actually see the cbf very often where you live? We live in Asheville and I might see it 3 or 4 times a year, if that much, usually flown from a vehicle.
Yep, I'm in NC, in the Raleigh area. I'd guess I see an actual Confederate battle fflag maybe 5 or 6 times a year, usually somewhere rural. I rarely see one in town.
quote:
quote:
But I know people for whom it is indeed cognitive dissonance—including the handful of African Americans I have known of who sometimes fly a Confederate flag. Weird but true.
If I hear that someone is standing somewhere holding the flag around here, it's a pretty safe bet it is HK Edgerton, former president of the Asheville chapter of the NAACP. I don't really get it, but it's his time and his flag.
Yes, I'm familiar with him, and he is one of the people of whom I was thinking.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It's getting increasingly difficult as a foreigner to follow this thread, in ways which, to me, are confirming what I said earlier, that if the American Civil War is still being fought, it's the successors of the northern states that are as guilty of that as the southern ones.
If, for example, it's being argued that there would be something controversial about as person turning up at a fancy dress party dressed as a Confederate soldier, is that really true?
Yes, it is true. If you want to do some reading, let me suggest you google "Kappa Alpha Order" and "Old South." KA Order is a college fraternity founded at Washington & Lee University when it was Washington College and Robert E. Lee was college president. "Southern tradition" runs deep in KA, including an annual formal dance called "Old South"—traditionally complete with Confederate uniforms and hoop skirts. (Here is what The Wiki has on KA, as a place to start.) The fraternity leadership actually banned use of the Confederate flag at fraternity events or on fraternity property some years ago.
If you really want a good read on how the Civil War and the Confederacy live on in various ways in the South today, I strongly recommend Confederates in the Attic: Dispatches from the Unfinished Civil War by Tony Horwitz.
[ 17. July 2015, 02:02: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
... For many in the confederacy, the reason they showed up is because the union army was coming.
Which came as a total surprise, having nothing to do with anything that the Confederacy had done. Naturally they rushed to defend their property, human or otherwise.
And by the way, I do think it was awful that the Union army destroyed people's homes, and I certainly understand why those people would be very bitter for a very long time. But that's what happens when the you pick a fight you can't win: you get your ass kicked. And it's nothing compared to what was inflicted on generations of slaves. Karma.
Being a North Carolinian, I'd encourage you to learn and understand when and why North Carolina finally seceded and why sentiment varied among the different regions of the state.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think the difference, Louise, other than perhaps in Nor'n' Ir'n', is that nobody is expecting any throw-back to 1690, 1715 or 1745 style violence to kick-off anytime soon, whereas in the US - at least on the online-osophere - I get the impression that there are people - on both sides of the North/South divide - who are almost itching for it all to start all over again ...
As Enoch says, it's pretty shocking to here 'northerners' stating that the Southern Generals should all have been hung -- just as it's shocking to hear Southern types saying, 'You just try to come down here and take our guns ...'
Some of the things I've seen Texans post online, for instance, have made my blood run cold ... but at the same time the kind of belligerance and almost racist-in-reverse attitudes I've seen some 'northern' types post is equally startling.
None of it bodes well from what I can see.
Emotionalism of any kind isn't the right basis for any policies or positions - and that's the issue I have with the SNP, for instance, as much as, in some ways, I welcome their opposition to the Tory government over here.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
... And by the way, I do think it was awful that the Union army destroyed people's homes, and I certainly understand why those people would be very bitter for a very long time. But that's what happens when the you pick a fight you can't win: you get your ass kicked. And it's nothing compared to what was inflicted on generations of slaves. Karma.
This sounds just the same as the characteristic Northern Irish assumption. Depending on who you are, there's no such thing as a good Prod or Taig.
And yes, perhaps our boys sometimes go a bit too far. But that's different. They're our boys. So that's all right. They were provoked.
Them on the other hand, though, they are utterly and totally beyond the pale (and yes, I do know the derivation of that expression). Everything they do is wrong. Allowing them any slack is compromising with Belial.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
No, that's not what I meant. What I meant was that if a society builds all its wealth and power by violence and exploitation, there will be a bill to pay. And this is true not just for the American South, but for nations around the world and throughout history.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
No, that's not what I meant. What I meant was that if a society builds all its wealth and power by violence and exploitation, there will be a bill to pay. And this is true not just for the American South, but for nations around the world and throughout history.
That observation has been made before.
quote:
Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
here's all they have left:
1. Klan getup
2. Confederate solder getup
3. Nazi soldier getup
Question 1: why have these all been left unrented?
Question 2: Which do you choose, and why?
Dressing up is sort of temporarily taking on something of someone else's identity.
I know very little about the Klan. The little I know suggests that there's not much there to like - nothing I would want to identify with. Why would anyone ? No surprise that nobody else wants this costume. But maybe I'm wrong...
Confederate uniform, on the other hand, has positive connotations. The whole Gone With The Wind thing - chivalry, manners, gentility, style, mint juleps and verandas and formal dancing and ladies and gentlemen being ladylike and gentlemanly. It's a romantic image.
The fact that with hindsight we know the Confederacy was doomed only heightens the tragic romance of it. As I understand it, they lost the war in part because their generals believed that wars were won by courage and honour and heroism and self-belief (rather than by using every advantage and taking every opportunity to kill the enemy more efficiently than he can kill you).
It's like the Confederacy was the last gasp of the pre-modern world.
I don't want to live (and fight and die) in a premodern world where many are slaves and serfs and peasants under the arbitrary power of an aristocracy. But dressing up to spend an evening recalling the best elements of such a world doesn't seem to me a bad thing.
The Nazis seem to me an in-between case. More evil and less romantic than the Confederacy, but still some scope for imagining oneself as a character one can in some way identify with - perhaps a villain from a WW2 spy story, a worthy opponent for the hero, someone ruthless and efficient but in his own way honourable.
Isn't that what actors say about playing a villain ? That you have to find the way that the character justifies to himself the evil that he does, play him as a human being rather than a demon-figure. Whilst not excusing his evil..
Best wishes,
Russ
Russ
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
... For many in the confederacy, the reason they showed up is because the union army was coming.
Which came as a total surprise, having nothing to do with anything that the Confederacy had done. Naturally they rushed to defend their property, human or otherwise.
And by the way, I do think it was awful that the Union army destroyed people's homes, and I certainly understand why those people would be very bitter for a very long time. But that's what happens when the you pick a fight you can't win: you get your ass kicked. And it's nothing compared to what was inflicted on generations of slaves. Karma.
Being a North Carolinian, I'd encourage you to learn and understand when and why North Carolina finally seceded and why sentiment varied among the different regions of the state.
And being a resident of Upper Canada (Ontario), I would point you to the example of escaped slaves in Upper Canada pre-1861. After the revised Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, Upper Canada became the destination of choice for escaped slaves. 30,000 settled in Upper Canada before the Civil War.
70% returned to the US after the war to participate in Reconstruction. Thousands were part of the 33,000 British North Americans who enlisted in the Union Army.
I'll see your local history, Mere Nick, and raise you mine.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Being a North Carolinian, I'd encourage you to learn and understand when and why North Carolina finally seceded and why sentiment varied among the different regions of the state.
And being a resident of Upper Canada (Ontario), I would point you to the example of escaped slaves in Upper Canada pre-1861... .
I'll see your local history, Mere Nick, and raise you mine.
Is it a contest to see whose history trumps whose? Your local history, while certainly relevant to larger issues of slavery and the Civil War, doesn't really seem relevant to the history Mere Nick is referring to—why one particular Southern state was slow to secede and was not of one mind in terms of supporting the Confederacy.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
No, Nick was citing his example as the "you're down here" argument, which I rebutted with the group who were on the opposite end of the spectrum.
Nick was trying to play down the slavery issue in the Civil War (again) and I called him on it.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
The fact that with hindsight we know the Confederacy was doomed only heightens the tragic romance of it. As I understand it, they lost the war in part because their generals believed that wars were won by courage and honour and heroism and self-belief (rather than by using every advantage and taking every opportunity to kill the enemy more efficiently than he can kill you).
Just how did you come to this understanding, if I might ask? (I think you're coming perilously close to calling the Confederate generals morons.)
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
No, Nick was citing his example as the "you're down here" argument, which I rebutted with the group who were on the opposite end of the spectrum.
Nick was trying to play down the slavery issue in the Civil War (again) and I called him on it.
Knowing the history he's referring to, I don't think you rebutted it all, nor do I think you called him out on trying to downplay the slavery issue because I don't think that's what he was doing. The reality that the Civil War was about preserving slavery and the reality that not at all who fought for the Confederacy personally benefited from slavery or were personally motivated by a desire to preserve slavery are not mutually exclusive realities. Neither are the realities that a state seceded and that sometimes substantial segments of the citizenry of that state continued to support the Union.
[ 18. July 2015, 02:59: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, as in any civil war the dividing lines are never clear cut. I only read recently that whereas Tennessee provided the most men per-capita of any State for the Confederate forces - an astonishing 100,000 I think - there were nevertheless a considerable number of 'Southern Unionists' there who fought on the Unionist side and the State was contested territory for much of the conflict ... not that my internal time-line of the progress and geography of the Civil War is particularly accurate I don't imagine ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Different causes and issues, but in a similar way during the English Civil War - or the Wars of the Three Kingdoms or whatever you wish to call them - the British Civil Wars of the 17th century - not everyone on the Parliamentarian side wanted to oust the King. Indeed, this certainly wasn't a 'war aim' at the outset - one of the Parliamentarian rallying cries was 'King and Parliament'.
I bet no-one on either side at Edgehill in 1642 could foresee the execution of Charles I in 1649 - nor would even have welcomed the prospect if they could.
There are attempts to mollify and excuse the level and style of Southern slavery - a bloke I came across online only yesterday (elsewhere, not here) was arguing that Southern plantation owners were motivated by 'love and care' rather than abuse - and because they were God-fearing they tended to treat their slaves well ... but he did acknowledge that slavery was wrong for all that ...
I don't think it 'does' to portray all Southerners as rapacious, sadistic bastards who'd go out and thrash their slaves before settling down to their evening meal or setting off for church each Sunday ...
That doesn't let them off the hook - but neither does it undermine Mere Nick's point that slavery wasn't the only issue. It became the predominant issue as the war progressed, but there were a whole range of other elements too.
If you'd been able to interview a cross-section of Parliamentarian or Royalist troops in the Civil Wars here you'd have probably heard a range of often conflicting reasons as to why they supported one side or the other - and plenty of them swapped sides too - several times in fact - depending on which way the wind was blowing.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
That doesn't let them off the hook - but neither does it undermine Mere Nick's point that slavery wasn't the only issue. It became the predominant issue as the war progressed, but there were a whole range of other elements too.
I think it's more accurate to say that slavery was always the predominant issue for the decision-makers, especially in the states that were earliest to secede. (For states that were late to secede, the practicalities of trying to remain part of the Union while being surrounded by Confederate states also became a major issue, which is the history Mere Nick is referencing for NC.) The desire to preserve slavery on one side and the desire to preserve the Union on the other side are unquestionably what led to secession and to the war.
But you and Mere Nick are right that just because it was the predominant issue on the state level doesn't mean it was necessariliy the predominant issue on an individual level, nor does it mean that the people of the state were necessarily of one mind.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid: No, Nick was citing his example as the "you're down here" argument, which I rebutted with the group who were on the opposite end of the spectrum.
For North Carolina, especially the lower class folks who had repeatedly turned down earlier efforts at secession, it was "you're down here" after Ft. Sumter and Lincoln's demand we supply him with troops.
quote:
Nick was trying to play down the slavery issue in the Civil War (again) and I called him on it.
Again? I've not done it the first time. Someone isn't playing down slavery, imo, until they try to show me that there would have been a civil war even if not one slave ever walked upon North America.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, as in any civil war the dividing lines are never clear cut. I only read recently that whereas Tennessee provided the most men per-capita of any State for the Confederate forces - an astonishing 100,000 I think - there were nevertheless a considerable number of 'Southern Unionists' there who fought on the Unionist side and the State was contested territory for much of the conflict ... not that my internal time-line of the progress and geography of the Civil War is particularly accurate I don't imagine ...
Often times the dividing line cut across kitchen tables and through congregations. The appalachian area of east TN and WNC was pretty much a mess of confederates, dissidents (those who didn't want to fight for either side and deserters), unionists and folks who were simply looking for an opportunity to settle scores with long time local enemies.
The Battle of Asheville didn't have casualties. The bloodiest event of the war that I'm aware of was the Shelton Laurel Massacre.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Why is it surprising, Mere Nick?
I must admit, I wasn't expecting it to be in Trafalgar Square but I'm not surprised that there's a statue of Washington in London somewhere. I think there are also memorials - but not statues - to him in whatever part of the country his ancestors originated from - I'm sure I could find out if I looked it up.
Ex-pat British people I know who live and work in the US chuckle when they've told me how earnest New Yorkers etc have tenatively broached the subject of the War of Independence (Revolutionary War) as if they're expecting us all to be smarting about it after all these years ...
They think it's rather sweet that they are so concerned ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Whoops - that reply about the statue of Washington was from a while back ...
On the bloodiest event of the war - I take it you are referring to the bloodiest event of the War in North Carolina not more widely...
The Lawrence or Quantrill Massacre was a lot bloodier than the one you've described ... and the casualties at Shiloh and some of the other set-piece battles were immense on both sides.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Whoops - that reply about the statue of Washington was from a while back ...
On the bloodiest event of the war - I take it you are referring to the bloodiest event of the War in North Carolina not more widely...
The Lawrence or Quantrill Massacre was a lot bloodier than the one you've described ... and the casualties at Shiloh and some of the other set-piece battles were immense on both sides.
Yes, that's right. I'm talking about the bloodiest civil war event in Western North Carolina that I'm aware of, not the entire war.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Someone isn't playing down slavery, imo, until they try to show me that there would have been a civil war even if not one slave ever walked upon North America.
IMO, someone is downplaying slavery when they suggest it was only the politicians and/or rich who cared about that and the common folk were only about defending their land.
That households and congregations were split demonstrates that people were not just defending their homes but that they were discussing the reasons why.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Households are always split in civil wars. There are also people who change sides and others like the Clubmen of the English Civil War who wanted to stay out of it and who sought to fend off rapaciousness from both sides. In Glamorgan there was the so-called Peaceable Army which sought to be neutral.
I don't think it downplays the seriousness of slavery to suggest that not all the Confederates saw it as THE issue. That said, there are right-wing apologists for it but I don't think that's what Mere Nick is up to. I don't like that kind of polarisation.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
...
The fact that with hindsight we know the Confederacy was doomed only heightens the tragic romance of it. As I understand it, they lost the war in part because their generals believed that wars were won by courage and honour and heroism and self-belief (rather than by using every advantage and taking every opportunity to kill the enemy more efficiently than he can kill you).
At several points in the war, the Confederates might have won a stalemate.
The battle of Fort Stevens, Gettysburg were near things. Before Grant, the Union Generals were often looking to avoid defeat rather than seek victory.
It is true that in the latter part of the war, the greater resources of the Union, men, manufacturing and control of the water made it unlikely the Confederacy would prevail. But it took a long time to get there.
As for the notion of noble actions that lost the war, that pretty much was severely corrupted around the time of Bleeding Kansas.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
I suspect if the Confederacy had gotten the support of some of the European powers, they might have been able to force a stalemate. I know many in Britain had mixed feelings (and then there was the Trent affair) especially for some who weren't sure whether the war would end slavery (the announcement of the Emancipation Proclamation did convince one of my relatives into opposing the UK intervening in any way on the South's side, and, I suspect he wasn't alone).
The Confederacy did what they could. I've been reading a bit about Patrick Neeson Lynch, Catholic Bishop of Charleston, who was sent to Europe in an attempt to persuade the Catholic powers to support the Confederacy. I don't think they tried sending any Episcopal prelate to Britain to try the same (though Bishop Leonidas Polk of Louisiana became a Confederate General and was killed in 1864). James Mason who they did send does seem to have been a Virginian Episcopalian.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
There was certainly some sympathy in the UK towards the Confederate cause and considerable numbers of troops were sent to Canada to bolster its defences 'just in case' ...
That said, popular feeling was very much against slavery and 'Uncle Tom's Cabin' had been a best-seller ... and I've already mentioned the principled stance taken by Manchester millworkers and others against the importation of Southern cotton.
It's hard to get a complete handle on British attitudes at that time ... there seems to have been a degree of 'romantic' sympathy with the South on account of its 'chivalry' and dash ... but by the same token slavery as an institution was universally deplored by that time.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Households are always split in civil wars.
I'm sure that's true. But it seems to me that civil wars vary in how strongly the two sides are aligned with different regions of the country.
To the extent that the US civil war was North vs South, I'd expect there to be fewer split households. And more difficulty in reconciliation afterwards, because people will always have an identification with their home locality.
To the extent that there was no underlying reason why any county of England should be more strongly for Parliament than for the King, I'd expect more split households, but easier reconciliation because there's no inherent reason why later generations should grow up with a sympathy for one side rather than the other.
I know that reality is complicated, and both wars fall somewhere on a spectrum rather than at the extremes.
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
That said, popular feeling was very much against slavery and 'Uncle Tom's Cabin' had been a best-seller ... and I've already mentioned the principled stance taken by Manchester millworkers and others against the importation of Southern cotton.
It's hard to get a complete handle on British attitudes at that time ... there seems to have been a degree of 'romantic' sympathy with the South on account of its 'chivalry' and dash ... but by the same token slavery as an institution was universally deplored by that time.
However until the Emancipation Proclamation it wasn't clear that the United States government was that against slavery (though the Confederacy was certainly for it) as it was to preserve the Union (in other words even if the North won would the slaves be freed). The announcement that there would be a proclamation freeing all slaves in rebel states unless fighting was ended by January 1, 1863 was on September 22, 1862. The Manchester millworker's vote of solidarity came on the eve of the actual proclamation and as a direct result.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
However until the Emancipation Proclamation it wasn't clear that the United States government was that against slavery
I was going to to links to the various pre-war fights on the issue, but it belatedly dawned that your statement did not make sense. If one party is cares about an issue and the other doesn't, there is rarely a fight.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
There was certainly some sympathy in the UK towards the Confederate cause and considerable numbers of troops were sent to Canada to bolster its defences 'just in case' ...
That said, popular feeling was very much against slavery and 'Uncle Tom's Cabin' had been a best-seller ... and I've already mentioned the principled stance taken by Manchester millworkers and others against the importation of Southern cotton.
It's hard to get a complete handle on British attitudes at that time ... there seems to have been a degree of 'romantic' sympathy with the South on account of its 'chivalry' and dash ... but by the same token slavery as an institution was universally deplored by that time.
I suspect also quite a lot of people might have felt unsympathetic towards one part of a state trying to force another part to continue to belong to it when they clearly didn't want to - irrespective of the reasons why they didn't want to.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
Indeed - if the EU ever becomes a club that no-one's allowed to leave, you can bet there will be people up in arms about it...
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
However until the Emancipation Proclamation it wasn't clear that the United States government was that against slavery
I was going to to links to the various pre-war fights on the issue, but it belatedly dawned that your statement did not make sense. If one party is cares about an issue and the other doesn't, there is rarely a fight.
I think at least some of what Net Spinster is referring to is this well-known Lincoln quote, taken from a letter to newspaper Horace Greely:
quote:
My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. 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.
link
Lincoln's views, and the Union cause as a whole, were more complex than "free the slaves!", just as the South's reasons for war were more complex than "preserve slavery!". While it is certainly true that slavery was a major issue in the war, it was not the only issue - reducing the conflict to that simple binary does a disservice to understanding the war.
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
However until the Emancipation Proclamation it wasn't clear that the United States government was that against slavery
I was going to to links to the various pre-war fights on the issue, but it belatedly dawned that your statement did not make sense. If one party is cares about an issue and the other doesn't, there is rarely a fight.
A party may not care about the key issue but care deeply about a dependent issue. The key issue in the war was slavery and it was to preserve and expand slavery that caused the initial southern states to leave. Their perception was that the United States was heading towards abolition (correct but probably not in the near future for the current slave states if they had remained in the Union). The remaining United States reasons for going to war was more mixed but certainly included opposition to this secession (which only happened because of a desire to maintain slavery).
The UK and France were affected by the US embargo of the Confederacy (the cotton mills and shippers in Britain). They were deeply offended by the Trent affair when a US Naval ship seized Confederate emissaries off a British merchant ship (they were eventually released). There was the perception that it was hypocritical of the US to hold that the 13 original colonies leaving English control was legal and just but then to prevent their own states from leaving the Union. On the other hand it was clear that the Confederacy left to maintain slavery and many in both countries were by now deeply opposed to slavery. However the Union still had slavery (the border states, Washington, D.C.). It wasn't until April 16, 1862, a year after the start of the war, that slavery was abolished in D.C. (and this was by compensation so took some time to take effect).
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
For North Carolina, especially the lower class folks who had repeatedly turned down earlier efforts at secession, it was "you're down here" after Ft. Sumter and Lincoln's demand we supply him with troops.
I'm not following the logic here. Federal troops could be found all over the southern states pretty much from the Revolution onward. What was it about the Confederacy's decision to open fire on federal troops that suddenly made North Carolinians realize "they're down here"? And how exactly does "you're down here" apply to the attempted invasion of Pennsylvania? That seems pretty far from "down here".
Also, I'm not sure why this particular instance of an American president exercising his constitutional authority as commander in chief was so objectionable. North Carolina didn't seem to mind when asked to contribute troops to the War of 1812 or the Mexican War. Nor did it mind terribly using its troops to put down rebellions in other states, since they'd contributed a number of militia units to suppress the Nat Turner rebellion in 1831. Of course, Nat Turner's rebellion had a somewhat different complexion than the Confederate revolt.
At any rate, could you expand on why the Confederate decision to start shooting at federal troops and the U.S. president exercising his constitutional authority were considered adequate grounds for treason by North Carolina?
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Often times the dividing line cut across kitchen tables and through congregations. The appalachian area of east TN and WNC was pretty much a mess of confederates, dissidents (those who didn't want to fight for either side and deserters), unionists and folks who were simply looking for an opportunity to settle scores with long time local enemies.
The fact that some used the general background of war as a cover for settling old scores doesn't really change the motives of the Confederacy or make the Confederacy "about" settling those old scores.
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
I suspect if the Confederacy had gotten the support of some of the European powers, they might have been able to force a stalemate.
I'm dubious about this. It was always a Confederate strategy to use their agricultural output (mostly cotton) to buy industrial goods they couldn't produce themselves from friendly European powers, but this was a futile strategy in the absence of the ability to break the Union blockade. In order for European support to make a difference there would have to be enough support for a major European power to break the blockade themselves, starting a naval war with the United States, or supply the Confederacy with sufficient naval vessels that they could break the blockade on their own. I don't see that level of support from any major European power as realistic.
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
Lincoln's views, and the Union cause as a whole, were more complex than "free the slaves!", just as the South's reasons for war were more complex than "preserve slavery!". While it is certainly true that slavery was a major issue in the war, it was not the only issue - reducing the conflict to that simple binary does a disservice to understanding the war.
Yes and no. Yes the Union's view on its goals for the war were fairly complex and evolved as the war progressed, but no, the Confederacy always saw the war a struggle to preserve slavery and white supremacy. Trying to evade, avoid, or conceal this fact is what "does a disservice to understanding the war". Attempt to cast the Confederate cause as being about something other than slavery and white supremacy has been a century-long project that started pretty much as soon as the war ended and in a lot of ways the U.S. is still dealing with the fallout of this deception today.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
... There was the perception that it was hypocritical of the US to hold that the 13 original colonies leaving English control was legal and just but then to prevent their own states from leaving the Union. ...
Viz my point above.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
Lincoln's views, and the Union cause as a whole, were more complex than "free the slaves!", just as the South's reasons for war were more complex than "preserve slavery!". While it is certainly true that slavery was a major issue in the war, it was not the only issue - reducing the conflict to that simple binary does a disservice to understanding the war.
Yes and no. Yes the Union's view on its goals for the war were fairly complex and evolved as the war progressed, but no, the Confederacy always saw the war a struggle to preserve slavery and white supremacy. Trying to evade, avoid, or conceal this fact is what "does a disservice to understanding the war". Attempt to cast the Confederate cause as being about something other than slavery and white supremacy has been a century-long project that started pretty much as soon as the war ended and in a lot of ways the U.S. is still dealing with the fallout of this deception today.
I don't think anyone is disputing (I'm certainly not) that for many Confederate leaders, and for many of their followers, slavery/white supremacy was a major reason to go to war - but it wasn't the only cause. This isn't an "either or"; rather, it's a "both and".
Individual Confederate soldiers had a spectrum of reasons they fought, from preserving slavery and their own supremacy to blacks, to simply defending home and hearth from pillage and destruction by troops from the North (cf. Gen. Sherman's march through Georgia), and everything in between. On the Union side, there were soldiers who weren't pro-abolition; the Draft Riots of 1863 saw free blacks attacked because, in addition to other reasons, they were seen as competition for jobs by poor whites.
Again, with feeling - trying to reduce the conflict to a simple binary about slavery is simply incorrect. The roots of Southern discontent with, and eventual rebellion against, the Union go back long before the election of Lincoln (who, as mentioned previously, was not particularly committed to ending slavery in any case). The Nullification Crisis of 1832-33 was an early "trial run" for South Carolinian defiance of the Federal government - nearly thirty years before the Civil War, and having only the most tenuous connection with the institution of slavery itself. One could argue that the seeds of conflict stretch back even further, to the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1788-89.
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Good point.
In stead of the usual one, "why did the south fight?", let me ask the obverse of the same simple question. Why did the north fight? Why didn't they just let the states that wanted to secede, go?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
I don't think anyone is disputing (I'm certainly not) that for many Confederate leaders, and for many of their followers, slavery/white supremacy was a major reason to go to war - but it wasn't the only cause. This isn't an "either or"; rather, it's a "both and".
Other than the related cause of white supremacy, the preservation of slavery seems to be the only cassus belli mentioned in any official Confederate document I'm familiar with. (There are a couple that mention Lincoln's 'tyranny', but since seven of the states that would form the Confederacy seceded before Lincoln even took office, this seems spurious at best.) You have a few citations you were thinking of?
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
Individual Confederate soldiers had a spectrum of reasons they fought, from preserving slavery and their own supremacy to blacks, to simply defending home and hearth from pillage and destruction by troops from the North (cf. Gen. Sherman's march through Georgia), and everything in between.
As I pointed out earlier we don't usually examine the motives of individual soldiers to determine why wars are fought. How many American soldiers had truly strong feelings about Kuwaiti independence before August 1990? How many had even heard of Kuwait before then?
Usually when people start drilling down to the individual motives of those far from the reins of power it's either a broad-based sociological study or an attempt to obscure an obvious yet inconvenient truth.
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
The roots of Southern discontent with, and eventual rebellion against, the Union go back long before the election of Lincoln (who, as mentioned previously, was not particularly committed to ending slavery in any case). The Nullification Crisis of 1832-33 was an early "trial run" for South Carolinian defiance of the Federal government - nearly thirty years before the Civil War, and having only the most tenuous connection with the institution of slavery itself. One could argue that the seeds of conflict stretch back even further, to the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1788-89.
One could try to pass off the attempted secession of the Confederacy as a continuation of earlier crises, or one could simply take them at their word when they claim that "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery -- the greatest material interest of the world" and similar other phrased from the various Declarations of the Causes of Secession. Interestingly several of these declarations actually come out against nullification, calling out several free states for passing laws impeding the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.
Why is it so hard to take the Confederate government at its word?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Good point.
In stead of the usual one, "why did the south fight?", let me ask the obverse of the same simple question. Why did the north fight? Why didn't they just let the states that wanted to secede, go?
Most likely because the Confederate government decided to start shooting at them. Most nations regard the artillery bombardment of their troops to be an act of war.
This seems to be one of the biggest differences between Lincoln and his Confederate counterparts. Although he was very aware of the importance of symbolism, Lincoln did not make large policy errors to get rid of purely symbolic irritants (like a small federal garrison flying the stars and stripes at Fort Sumter).
[ 20. July 2015, 17:04: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
For North Carolina, especially the lower class folks who had repeatedly turned down earlier efforts at secession, it was "you're down here" after Ft. Sumter and Lincoln's demand we supply him with troops.
I'm not following the logic here. Federal troops could be found all over the southern states pretty much from the Revolution onward. What was it about the Confederacy's decision to open fire on federal troops that suddenly made North Carolinians realize "they're down here"? And how exactly does "you're down here" apply to the attempted invasion of Pennsylvania? That seems pretty far from "down here".
Lincoln demanded we supply troops to help put down the rebellion. We weren't allowed to sit it out so we were the last state to finally secede and join up with all the surrounding states. The question about Pennsylvania is completely irrelevant to the discussion about when and why we seceded since that wouldn't be for a another couple of years.
quote:
Also, I'm not sure why this particular instance of an American president exercising his constitutional authority as commander in chief was so objectionable. North Carolina didn't seem to mind when asked to contribute troops to the War of 1812 or the Mexican War. Nor did it mind terribly using its troops to put down rebellions in other states, since they'd contributed a number of militia units to suppress the Nat Turner rebellion in 1831. Of course, Nat Turner's rebellion had a somewhat different complexion than the Confederate revolt.
The Mexican War and the War of 1812 were not wars against other US states. Nat Turner's rebellion was probably not seen as a potentially massive war that would bring severe hardship to NC.
quote:
At any rate, could you expand on why the Confederate decision to start shooting at federal troops and the U.S. president exercising his constitutional authority were considered adequate grounds for treason by North Carolina?
If Lincoln had not insisted that we take part in his dispute with the former members of the union then it is less likely we would have seceded.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Often times the dividing line cut across kitchen tables and through congregations. The appalachian area of east TN and WNC was pretty much a mess of confederates, dissidents (those who didn't want to fight for either side and deserters), unionists and folks who were simply looking for an opportunity to settle scores with long time local enemies.
The fact that some used the general background of war as a cover for settling old scores doesn't really change the motives of the Confederacy or make the Confederacy "about" settling those old scores.
Of course not, but it would also depend on the state, region, and sometimes valley, too.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
