Civil War

[Jerome Hanby]

Maybe some moderators need to step in and lock this thread, Posts like this one are likely to generate some observations about intelligence...

Dad the south had their way, the 'gentlemen' farmers of the day would have expanded their definition of slavery to include indentured servitude of caucasians, catholics and immigrants as well.

Lincoln wrote to Joshua Speed in 1855:

How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes." When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty — to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be take pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.

The war was about slavery. But it was not just about freeing blacks, it was to prevent the enslavement of whites. This is a matter that has been obscured over the past 150 years. But history tends to shade any event over time.

[Charlie Reals]

Joe, I believe that's a term used in jest, not a serious one. Living in the Capital of the Confederacy my entire life, I can tell you that it's not much more than a joking phrase used when talking to people from up north. It's a button pusher and almost always gets a reaction, just like in this case.

Just my opinion.

My Mother used it to push buttons lol. She was from Cullman co. Alabama which was named after a Colonel Cullman, a Yankee officer who ended up with a vast tract of land and sold it to Yankee soldiers for $1.00 an acre. My fine upstanding southern family is in fact mostly Yankee blood.

[Kent A Bathurst]

I think it would be more accurate to say that the election of Abraham Lincoln was the start of the War of the Rebellion.

Heh-heh-heh. Well.......... in 1832-33 Andy Jackson made very clear his intention to send in the Army + Navy to straighten things out in South Carolina, after they passed laws saying, in effect, that the constitution and laws of South Carolina took precedence over the constitution and laws of the United States.

This issue was called "nullification" in the young country's argument of Jeffersonian States Rights politics v. Madison's Federalists - did the Constitution of The United States represent the supreme law of the land, or was it a political document that was to be continually at risk from actions by the several states individually [ie - "nullified" by state laws]. That had more-or-less been cleared up in the early 1800s, primarily by the remarkable skills of John Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, but there was still a lot of probing and pushing for soft spots by the hard-core.

South Carolina - shocked that the adamantly states-rights Jackson would take that Federalist position, and aware that Jackson knew very well how to kick some serious butt when he wanted to, said "ooops - never mind" and reversed their laws. But they seethed with anger, and were itching for a states rights fight - especially when they perceived a clear and present danger to the engine of their economic prowess - cheap labor.

So - yes - The election of Lincoln was the tipping point, just like a lit match would be to rockets that were already built, aligned, and fused.

[Bill Edwards(2)]

Joe, I believe that's a term used in jest, not a serious one. Living in the Capital of the Confederacy my entire life, I can tell you that it's not much more than a joking phrase used when talking to people from up north. It's a button pusher and almost always gets a reaction, just like in this case.

Just my opinion.

And that "button pushing" will become "sabre rattling" in a heart beat.

[Dave Anderson NH]

Jerome and the rest of you fine folks,

As long as things don't deteriorate, I'll let this discussion continue since we are talking history rather than current politics. Having said that though, the minute things start to become contentious and get into any of the SMC prohibited areas I'll either lock or delete this thread.

Kent has offered a simplified version of the roots of the Civil War. The seeds were sown all the way back at the Constitutional Convention which produced the US Constitution. It was not only states rights, it was a basic philosophical difference over how strong a central government we should have. There was a strong feeling on the part of the "Jeffersonians" that some rework and tweaking of the Articles of Confederation was adequate and that a wholly new constitution was unnecessary. This was opposed by Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists. In many ways it was a split along a geographical North vs South line and also of merchant vs agrarian. This too is a simplification, but the roots of the war preceed the event by over 70 years.

[Keith Outten]

The war was about slavery. But it was not just about freeing blacks, it was to prevent the enslavement of whites. This is a matter that has been obscured over the past 150 years. But history tends to shade any event over time.

Greg,

The Civil war was not about slavery, this may be what your history teacher told you but it is far from the truth.
From a Southerners point of view the Civil War was about States Rights, which we are supposed to be guarenteed by the Constituton.
.

[Lee Schierer]

Greg,

The Civil war was not about slavery, this may be what your history teacher told you but it is far from the truth.
From a Southerners point of view the Civil War was about States Rights, which we are supposed to be guarenteed by the Constituton.
.

True, but one of the BIG states rights issues of the time was the right to own slaves. There are those who claim the old market in Charlestown, SC was just a market and the fact that slave auctions were held there isn't important.

[Montgomery Scott]

The war was over the issue of slavery. The north pushed for containment and the eventual ending of slavery and the south resisted it because it was all about the money. The south was able to be economically viable because of slavery. The issue of states' rights ties right back into the issue of slaves and the ownership thereof.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_W...s_of_secession

[Jerome Hanby]

Slavery was and is a moral failing. Women are the nominal keepers of morality in our society. And if you think they wouldn't have put an end to slavery (and all the Tom Foolery in which many of their husbands were engaging) then I suspect you have never been married. There were some evil folks that would have continued in the practice as long as it was profitable, but that issue, like so many others, was about to be settled by capitalism. James Watt effectively ended slavery. The practical steam engine was the harbinger of all manner of mechanical devices to revolutionize agriculture. Illiterate, ignorant slaves beaten with whips to keep them in line don't keep maintenance records, they can't be trusted with expensive/dangerous equipment, and will eat you out of house and home tending your fields by hand when your neighbors are operating combines and tractors and producing for a fraction of your cost.

Slavery was an issue that could be used to divide groups of people. Since two Democratic candidates were splitting the vote and the new Republican party was benefiting from being the only other choice when the Whigs and No Nothing parties pretty much folded, Lincoln seized on the issue of slavery and rode it into the White House. Same thing happens Today, look what we've had in the White House in current and past years. How many times does some vocal "minority" group of people (like the Moral Majority, Tea Party, or Move On) supply the issues to which that some savvy politician hitches their star. I'm not saying that these minority voices are always wrong, but I think it's more about what's expedient than it is about what is right.

[Kent A Bathurst]

...Kent has offered a simplified version of the roots of the Civil War....

Dave - perhaps over-simplified.........I've just found it intriguing that Andrew Jackson, the fire-breathing-Jeffersonian, took a 180 [well, maybe a 135] once he was in the Office of the President. His "base" was dismayed and appalled at his actions in the "Nullification Crisis", and at the moderate Jeffersonians and moderate Federalists he appointed to the Supreme Court.

I recently finished an outstanding biography: John Marshall - Definer of a Nation. He served under Washington at Valley Forge, he served the state of Virginia in various important roles - in both the Virgina legislature and the House of Representatives - and, via his role on the Supreme Court, he defined the nation's constitutional government as we know it today. He was in the middle of a very important period in the growth of a new nation.

[Kent A Bathurst]

Greg,

The Civil war was not about slavery, this may be what your history teacher told you but it is far from the truth.
From a Southerners point of view the Civil War was about States Rights, which we are supposed to be guarenteed by the Constituton.
.

Keith - I'll not take a public position on this one, but you will probably find this article from the Washington Post either [a] informative or [b] very, very aggravating. To "over-simplify" once again, they basically say that the story "from a Southerner's point of view" has undergone significant political spin since the actual events.

And - yes - it is the Washington Post - the far-left mouthpiece . But, I always try to read well-written articles by people with different views that mine - to see what the other side of the story looks like.

Five myths about why the South seceded: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...010703178.html

Regards,

Kent

[Rick Potter]

Please folks, don't let my initial post go sour. I just thought it was an interesting fact which beared mention. As others have already said, all the casualties were ours.

I have taken quite a few tours of Civil and Revolutionary war battlefields (sometimes hard to remember which is which, since they are so close. As a Californian, they are very sobering, especially since we don't get much schooling on the war.

One noteable man lived his later life in my area, George Foster, was the recuperating soldier given 'light' duty as bodyguard for Secretary of State Seward. He saved his life in the assassination attempt(s), and was given the Congressional Gold Medal, a $5000 reward, and was made paymaster for the army.

We have several soldiers from both sides buried in the local cemetary. They are all honered on Memorial day.

Rick Potter

[Dave Anderson NH]

Kent, Given the strong opposition of views between John Marshall and Thomas Jefferson, it is interesting to note that they were cousins and because of politics almost never spoke to each other. Bit of a lesson there.

Rick,

In our little town of Chester NH the Civil War monument was not erected until 1904 when they could afford to pay for it. The names of veterans were in raised lettering on the granite base. In 2004 we rededicated the monument and based on further research added almost 2 dozen names by attaching a bronze plaque. The names had been left off when the monument was built. The names were known, but because the men were paid substitutes for prominent locals who bought their way out of service, they were never properly honored. No one in power apparently wanted a reminder of their less than honorable actions.

[Kent A Bathurst]

Kent, Given the strong opposition of views between John Marshall and Thomas Jefferson, it is interesting to note that they were cousins and because of politics almost never spoke to each other. Bit of a lesson there.

From what I've read, it appears that the politics reinforced a deep-seated disgust they both held for each other, dating way back to their early days. They were cousins, indeed - from the Randolph clan - the uppermost of the upper tier of Virginia aristocracy - except the big money descended down Jefferson's side of the family, while Marshal's Dad took the family to the western "frontier" of Virginia, and was of very modest means.

So, they didn't like each other at all as just family, and then the whole political thing on top of that - probably didn't trade many Christmas cards, eh?

[ray hampton]

While I may not agree with every comment about the civil war, I am glad that the truth were spoken by the rebels and yankee