US in the 19th century

[Cybrweez]

Every book I read about antebellum or Civil War era is amazing. It just seems like such a fascinating time, and crazy time too. Almost done "Battle Cry of Freedom", another good one.

So, one reaction I usually have is anger over the southern states. What a bunch of idiots. Imagine what would have been...

Anyway, I'm in the camp that says slavery was the top, and almost, really, only reason for the Civil War. If slavery never existed in US, there would be no Civil War. But one thing that stands out to me, the hypocrisy the south had in order to defend slavery.

First of all, the idea that they were fighting for liberty. I know, everyone in a war probably uses that line so that the guy actually getting shot at feels he's dying for a reason. But really, liberty? For whites, not for blacks. Certainly, some were honest about it, admitting blacks were inferior and therefore not worthy of liberty. But did they actually believe that?

But a more subtle hypocrisy is the idea of defending states' rights. B/c when the issue was related to slavery, the south was unified that other states had no rights, they must give up slaves regardless of their own laws. Property rights were universal, trumping state's individual rights. So, the federal govt should have all the power needed to enforce Fugitive Slave Act, but, for instance, had no power to enforce liberty for all. Total BS!

I'm also in the camp that thinks the War was not unconstitutional. Lincoln said what kind of govt is created that has no power to enact its own govt? It's nonsense. So if states decide they don't like result of an election, they can't decide they're outta here. That would mean there is no national govt. It's a farce, and that was not the intent of founding such a govt. BTW, the more I learn of Lincoln, the more badass I think he was.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

I concur--the Southerners who thought they were fighting for "liberty" were only rationalizing their continued use of and dependece upon slave labor, which grossly violates human rights. As odd as it may seem to us, though, they really did believe in the entire "racial heirarchy" stuff--many leading intellectuals of the day believed it, too.

I will disagree, though, that States do not have the right to secede. The fact that the States are the primary governmental entities is built into the very name of the country: The United States of America. At the end of the Civil War, the only reason the Confederate States were rejoined to the Union was because the North had more guns. These days, of course, trying to secede, while politically viable and still an option, would be too problematic to implement. Secession would require printing currency, establishing diplomatic relations with the United States (what is left of it) as well as other countries, vying for formal recognition, organizing a military, securing borders and airspace, returning property that rightfully belongs to the United States (military equipment)...unless it gets "nationalized", etc. The problems associated with secession are insurmountable enough that no one wants to undertake that endeavor, even in Alaska, Hawaii, and Texas (the three States with the strongest secessionist subcultures).

[Cybrweez]

I don't think so. That's why secession never had a foothold until the south didn't want to lose slavery. Even the idea of nullification didn't really come up til slavery brought it up during Jackson's presidency, and Jackson, the slaveholder, thought nullification was nonsense and unconstitutional. It makes no sense to say this govt has these powers, then when they exercise such powers, say, I'm leaving.

And I hope your not basing the argument on the name of the country? Why states, why not counties? Towns? Communities? Just one household?

I guess you sum it up well in the end tho - whoever has more guns determines what's constitutional. But, I think the case that the US has the power to enforce (or execute) its laws is pretty strong.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

No, I am merely noting that the name of the country shows that States are the primary sources of power, not the Federal Government, whose job is--should be--very limited to military, interstate highways, postal system, foreign treaties, etc.

People always the right to tell their government "we have had enough and so we are leaving to make our own way in the world". If this is not the case, then we owe England a serious apology and we should resubmit ourselves to the sovereignty of the Crown right now.

Suppose you were in a seriously disastrous marriage. Would you want your friends and relatives telling you "tough it out, it will be okay--things will get better if you just give it some time" even though with effort you realize that things are not improving and are not going to improve in the forseeable future? At that point, wouldn't you want to leave?

The Constitution is a contract between the Federal Government and the citizens. If the Federal Government stops honoring its commitments that are clearly defined in the contract, should not the citizens have a recourse other than the Federal Government? Even if the citizens file grievances with a Court, won't that Court, as an extension of the Federal Government, side with the Government's best interests over the citizens?

In theory, secession should--must--always be an option. In practice, it will never happen unless Hollywood-movie-like extreme circumstances occur, which is extremely unlikely.

[Avatar]

Slavery may have been an issue on the Confederate side, (in other words, one of the reasons they wanted to secede), but the Union didn't go to war to end slavery. They went to war to "preserve the Union."

--A

[Cybrweez]

Yea, I agree. That may have changed throughout the war, or at least grew in a reason why for north, but at first, I don't think so.

Av, seems weird to me that you are/may be knowledgeable about US Civil War. Is that common in other countries, to keep up w/civil wars, even when 150 years old? Is it the American only?

[I'm Murrin]

Cultural saturation for the most part, I expect.

Do Americans know who Oliver Cromwell is?

[High Lord Tolkien]

Slavery may have been an issue on the Confederate side, (in other words, one of the reasons they wanted to secede), but the Union didn't go to war to end slavery. They went to war to "preserve the Union."

--A

I agree.

It's an interesting question.
And the answer for the cause can be answered a thousand different ways.
Here's mine:

I read about the Civil War often.
My favorite now are letters written by those that were there at the time.
Fascinating stuff.

95% of people in the South didn't own slaves (not sure the exact % but it was pretty high).
So to say they fought for slavery seems pretty odd or a weak argument.

The number of people in the Southern State governments at the time that actually voted to Secede were shockingly few.
I think in total there were less than a few hundred votes.
Cast mostly by wealthy slave owners that wanted to keep things going.
There was no popular vote cast.
And I think in a few cases Southern States were quite tricky in legally getting the votes needed.
I think one State voted to Secede with only 15 votes cast in the middle of the night or some kind of crazy thing like that.

All the letters written by Southern soldiers in the field show clearly that they were fighting for their own State because the North was trying to control them.

The "control" was the expansion of slavery into other Territories and future States which would equal votes in the Senate and House so......yeah, those in the South were fighting for slavery.......kinda.
But if you read individual accounts and memoirs it was all about the control thing so that's where the whole fighting for "Freedom" and "Liberty" comes from in the Southern point of view.

And the North was fighting to preserve the Union.
Ending slavery was only a by-product.

But slavery was the spoken or unspoken thread that went through every reason for Southern Succession.
If there was no slavery then there would very likely have never been a Civil War.
But for most of the people at the time going to war wasn't to free the slaves, imo.

[High Lord Tolkien]

I just finished reading:
The Devil in the White City: Murder, Magic, and Madness at the Fair That Changed America

www.amazon.com/The-Devil-White-City-Mad ... 0375725601

It deals with the Worlds Fair in Chicago in 1893, how it was built and the people involved.
Fascinating time and a great read.
There's also a secondary story about a murderer that also reveals a lot about the way things were at that time in America.
I was very factual, the author used letters and court documents and other data to make the story as accurate as possible.
(he had to make a few educated guesses about the murder's motivations but it doesn't distract or mar the timely recreation the book captures.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Do Americans know who Oliver Cromwell is?

Some of us do, yes, and his actions, especially towards Ireland were...over the top...which is the clean way of saying it.

[Cybrweez]

Murrin, in general, probably not. But then, in general, I'm not sure Americans know who Ulysses S Grant is. They probably know about as much of both men equally. History, in general, is boring for people. The Kardashians is better. Ok, I'm ranting.

HLT, I agree, most southerners weren't fighting to keep slavery. But I distinguish b/w soldiers and govt. The govt goes to war, soldiers fight it. Each soldier fights for various reasons, but the govt decides to go to war. And the south (specifically, the Confederacy) went to war (ok, seceded, knowing war would come - same thing) to protect and expand slavery (interesting to know their plans for Caribbean, taking Cuba and Mexico for more slave labor). The Union went to war to keep the states in the Union, although I think that changed during the war. The Abolitionist movement was strong thru '50s, but really gained strength thruout war so that it could be a valid reason of not just the Union, but soldiers of the Union.

EDIT: BTW, speaking of large percentage of southerners w/o slaves, is another anger spot. What a bunch of morons. They were for the most part poor, and I know of letters from southern soldiers talking about rich farmlands during PA invasion. They couldn't put 2 and 2 together - their supporting large slave-holders was keeping them depressed. The wealthy, powerful slave holders did a great job using race (like fears of race war, and fear of blacks raping white daughters) to their advantage.

[sgt.null]

HLT - excellent book. unfortunately that murderer came from NH, just as I did.

it's too bad that someone blew up his brownstone before we could find all of it's secrets.

[Avatar]

Av, seems weird to me that you are/may be knowledgeable about US Civil War. Is that common in other countries, to keep up w/civil wars, even when 150 years old? Is it the American only?

Hahaha, I have no idea how common it is in general. I mean, I guess most people know that the US Civil War happened, and that most people would say it was because of slavery. I doubt most people could name figures like Lee or Grant, or know what happened at Appomattox or Manassas.

My father however was very into history, especially military history, so I got a good grounding in the subject, and was surrounded by books on the topic, from Clausewitz to Longford to Foote and everything in between.

--A

[Cybrweez]

Ah, your lucky. You didn't build your history knowledge, it was given to you...

[Avatar]

Hahaha, not quite, but I was given an environment in which it was easier to build it.

--A

[Cybrweez]

Reading more in McPherson's "Battle Cry of Freedom".

To follow up on reasons why north fought the war. Lincoln's preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, given in Sept 1862, was not well received. There was still a feeling that abolition should not be a part of war effort, and did not have strong backing. The elections of that year correspondingly went to Democrats, who used poor military situation and the race card to gain seats national and state wide.

A year later, however, the tide had turned. Military situation much improved after Gettysburg and Vicksburg, but also abolition could be said to have become majority position. Republicans regained seats on all levels, including Ohio (a blowout) and PA governors, which were crucial indicators.

McPherson points to 2 events that helped quicken the change to support of abolition - draft riots in NYC and battle for Ft Wagner. The reality of unchecked racism hit home when blacks were lynched in NYC and the Colored Orphan Asylum was burnt to the ground. A few days later, the papers reported on a battle in Charleston where the 54th Mass, a colored regiment, fought w/courage in futile endeavor, w/over 50% casualties. There was one quote about when the Proclamation was first given, it did not sit well, but a year later, the majority supported it, and even further action.

So, I think the case that it did become about freeing the slaves can be made later in the war.

Another thing that stands out to me - Lincoln's leadership. The Proclamation was not popular, his cabinet was against it (if I remember, 1 person thought it was good idea), yet he went ahead, suffering politically short term. But, a year later, did it have some influence as well in changing public opinion? Hard to say, but you can't argue he [EDIT: didn't make] a stand and lead the way. Badass.

And he was conscious of the Constitution, and I agree that this was fine, b/c executive order, and could fall under military purview, and being that the Confederate states at the time considered themselves another country, they weren't under jurisdiction of Constitution anyway.

[Avatar]

I think it became about freeing the slaves as a matter of public opinion perhaps, and of keeping the war "popular" insofar as possible. However, Lincoln would have left them their slaves if they had agreed not to secede.

I don't think much of the liberal tendencies of the Union either...considering Blacks didn't get the vote for another 100 years, despite being "free."

--A

[Cybrweez]

True. In general, it seems, in the north, that slavery was becoming morally wrong, and a cancer, but that didn't mean blacks were equal socially or politically w/whites.

[Avatar]

Agreed.

And reconstruction was no picnic for blacks or whites if they were southern.

--A

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Agreed.

And reconstruction was no picnic for blacks or whites if they were southern.

--A

Reconstruction caused decades of outright hatred between what was supposed to be a restored Union. There are still places in the South today where "yankee" is a derogatory insult. Had Lincoln not been shot, he would have argued against Reconstruction--he didn't want to punish the South...which some researchers think was one of the reasons he was killed.