Civil War

[Belinda Barfield]

I haven't seen anyone mention Robert Redford's new film, "The Conspirator". It takes place in post-Civil War America. A woman is accused of being a conspirator in the Lincoln Assassination.

Now, I understand that being a Hollywood movie from Robert Redford, some might expect this film to take a particular political position, play loose with facts and involve lots of hyperbole. But based on what I've read and heard about this movie, it's very well done and actually assumes the audience has some intelligence. The screenwriter did over a year of research.

Anyway, it seems interesting to me. No doubt Redford is releasing it now in conjunction with the Civil War anniversary. And I'm pretty sure it was filmed in Belinda's back yard. Maybe she's an extra.

Yep, Conspirator was filmed right here in my backyard. Well, in Savannay anyway. I wasn't selected to be an extra. I did stand in line for an hour to submit my head shot and paperwork though. A lot of the others in line were reenactors and came in full gear from uniforms to hoop skirts. I haven't taken the time to see the movie yet, and I didn't watch any of the filming.

[Kent A Bathurst]

I have pics! Here in Canada we are still fighting the civil war. Grave yard here in this village has several veteran's who fought in the war. Their tombstones bear a bronze star. Once a year a re enactment takes place , even the wifes and kids dress the part. They come from all over Canada and the US to take part. I never knew this was taking place, just 20 miles from me. Community is Otterville, Ontario, and at one time had over 200 escaped slaves living here.

Did not realize that, either. Thanks for helping in that war. All is forgiven for burning the White House in 1814.

[Keith Outten]

The first picture is the Navy Yard in Norfolk Virginia.
The last four are the Capital of the Confederacy, Richmond Virginia

[Kent A Bathurst]

Atlanta, 1865

As my Dad used to tell me: "Don't let your mouth write any checks your [butt] can't cash."

[Brad Knight]

Just real quick - first of all, the victors always write the history books. If the south had won, we would be reading about the second American Revolution instead of a war about slavery. Second, has anyone considered the fact that both sides are actually correct... but just like modern times... neither side is actually listening to what the other is actually saying. To the north, it may have been about slavery - and they were willing to send hundreds of thousands of young men to their death to impose their will on those in the south, and at the very same time those in the south believed that the northern states didn't have the right to impose their beliefs.

Now, what I've always been confused about is, acocording to EVERY piece of evidence I've ever ready, the institution of slavery was on a steep decline. It was just cheaper and more efficient, after the advent of the industrial revolution, to us machinery to do the work that slaves had done in the past. And, just as Washington had found out 60 years before, slave labor forces were difficult to manage and paid paid workers were more efficient... Yet there was a moral question about what to do with the generations of blacks that were illiterate, dependant and frankly seen as somewhat sub-human by people in the north and south.

So, my confusion is... If slavery was dying, then why the sacrifice of so man young men?

[Brad Knight]

Just a quick note - a modern example of what I'm talking about is sawstop- one side is arguing for safety - the other arguing for free market capitalism - one side accusing the other of wanting people to cut their fingers off and the other is accusing the other side of being fascists.

If 150 years from now, historians were to write about the sawstop, they could write a story about how some people opposed this wonderful safety technology...

... But that wouldn't be an accurate representation.

As far as the Civil War... didn't Lincoln say that his motivation was to hold the Union together? To listen to Lincoln - it was a war against southern cessation - which is why the Emancipation Proclamation came only 18 months after the beginning of the war.

[Keith Outten]

I doubt that anyone will question that Lincoln's motives were to preserve the Union but the Slavery issue was used to gather support for the war. I doubt that the majority of people who lived in the Northern States cared if the South seceded from the Union so Lincoln had to have something to get the Northern people motivated to support a war. Slavery was just a pawn in the real game that involved the Union losing half of the Eastern Seaboard and a major food source at the time. In the early days of the war it was thought that it would be over real quick but the number of casualties on both sides started rising fast and Lincoln had to do something as it was evident that he had a fight on his hands.

In the Southern States the situation was very similar, the majority of the common people didn't care about slavery but they were scared of a Federal Government that seemed to be getting way to powerful. The Southern aristocrats and elected officials were a small group but they had the public platform and they motivated the people to support secession from the Union to protect their States Rights. The aristocrats and politicians didn't defend slavery directly, they pushed the States Rights issue as the primary issue. So the common man in the South really believed that his right to govern himself was being threatened and that was worth the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives.
.

[Mike Henderson]

I doubt that anyone will question that Lincoln's motives were to preserve the Union but the Slavery issue was used to gather support for the war. I doubt that the majority of people who lived in the Northern States cared if the South seceded from the Union so Lincoln had to have something to get the Northern people motivated to support a war. Slavery was just a pawn in the real game that involved the Union losing half of the Eastern Seaboard and a major food source at the time. In the early days of the war it was thought that it would be over real quick but the number of casualties on both sides started rising fast and Lincoln had to do something as it was evident that he had a fight on his hands.

In the Southern States the situation was very similar, the majority of the common people didn't care about slavery but they were scared of a Federal Government that seemed to be getting way to powerful. The Southern aristocrats and elected officials were a small group but they had the public platform and they motivated the people to support secession from the Union to protect their States Rights. The aristocrats and politicians didn't defend slavery directly, they pushed the States Rights issue as the primary issue. So the common man in the South really believed that his right to govern himself was being threatened and that was worth the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives.
.

To help me better understand your position, what states rights were the federal government trampling on at that time? Especially to the point of driving the southern states to secede? And if the federal government was trampling on states rights, why was it only the southern states who felt the trampling to point of seceding? Why were northern states not as incensed as the southern states?

Southern politicians were quite powerful in both houses of congress at the time so they had ways to block legislation which would be unacceptable to them.

One possible answer is that slavery only existed in the southern states. Movement to limit slavery, especially in new states, would have threatened the southern states because they could feel that eventually the restrictions would extend to them. Also, as non-slave states were added to the union, it would dilute the power of the southern states in congress, and could eventually lead to laws that would restrict slavery.

Mike

[Kent A Bathurst]

.......as non-slave states were added to the union, it would dilute the power of the southern states in congress, and could eventually lead to laws that would restrict slavery.

No doubt about that, IMO. See the Congressional laws: Missouri Compromise and the Kansas-Nebraska Act. The latter led to a big influx of people into Kansas from both sides of the issue, attempting to load up the population in anticipation of the vote on free v slave state.

[Brad Knight]

Mike, the thing to remember is that up until the Civil War all rights belonged to the States except those granted to the Federal Government according to the 10th Amendment. The United States were 'These' United States.

It's hard to remember now 150 years after the fact - but the divide between the north and south ran deeper than slavery. If you remember correctly the reason that Washington DC is where it is, is because at the founding there was a divide - and that was when slavery was accepted throughout the states. Remember also that during the constitutional debates - the deciding lines were drawn more along the norther states desires for a stronger federal government and the southern states desire for stronger independent states. That's how we wound up with the house who was supposed to represent the populous - and lean more towards the populous northern states - and the senate who was intended to represent the individual states.

So - if you take just a moment and try to view it from another perspective - it wasn't as much about slavery as it was about who's right it was to decide the issue of slavery.

[David Weaver]

- it wasn't as much about slavery as it was about who's right it was to decide the issue of slavery.

That's sort of like saying a war isn't about resources, but instead about who decides who gets the resources.

[David Weaver]

you never said what type of work you are involve in but I am glad that you got hard workers, hope that you pay them a good day wages

Technical consulting, hours based (time and expense billing) sort of like a law firm works.

Everyone was exempt except the clerical folks (and they weren't *allowed* to work OT, because the company didn't want to pay it).

I guess the pay was OK, but if you split it up by the hours it wouldn't have been. It was more about giving people the hope of lots of pay in the future and seeing how hard they'd work to get there. It was pretty lucrative for the shareholders and some of the freeloaders - I generally billed about 4-6x my pay and benefits. Those days of having that much business to work on are coming to an end, and have ended in a lot of places.

Back then, i thought everyone should work every waking hour if any client wanted anything. I identify with the southern folks now, I think they had the right idea - do your work, be reasonable and don't be rude and ridiculous to someone who doesn't want to work 365 days a year. And that's not to say, also, that I haven't seen plenty of lazy folks here in the north. I'd bet when it comes to how much work folks do, it evens out in the end (as in every region does about the same). It's probably a little easier to be a freeloader in the north.

[Brad Knight]

That's sort of like saying a war isn't about resources, but instead about who decides who gets the resources.

Perhaps - if the resources are in your house and I'm trying to tell you how to use them...

[David Epperson]

To help me better understand your position, what states rights were the federal government trampling on at that time? Especially to the point of driving the southern states to secede? And if the federal government was trampling on states rights, why was it only the southern states who felt the trampling to point of seceding? Why were northern states not as incensed as the southern states?
Mike

The North had imposed tariffs on goods from France that the South were a bit dependent upon. Yet the proceeds of those tariffs were going to the further advancement of technology (factories) in the North. The South was not benefiting from the monies that they were being required to pay. This left them in the position that they could not take advantage of the very "stuff" that had allowed the North to get away from using slave labor. This left the South in that "Catch 22" situation - they had to continue to use Slave labor in order to pay the tariffs that he North had imposed so that they could avoid using slave labor. I think in today's terms that would be akin to an "unfunded mandate".

[Kent A Bathurst]

........all rights belonged to the States except those granted to the Federal Government according to the 10th Amendment...........

Sorry, Brad, but - nice try. That's being a bit disingenuous, because the body of the Constitution itself has specific language on the federal powers.

The Federal Gov't has two big haymakers they can - and do - throw in the state's rights arguments - and those two have always been the fundamental basis of the argument over state's rights v federal powers:

The "Commerce Clause" : [The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes...

and, the "Necessary and Proper Clause": The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States...."

And therein lies the rub. The Supreme Court, starting in the early 1800's, decided that the Necessary and Proper clause included "implied powers", or, in other words [mine] - well now, if Congress has to make this whole thing work, the powers that have been spelled out specifically clearly must carry with them implied powers that allow them to enact laws to make that other stuff happen.

In the words of Supreme Court Chief Justince John Marshall in an 1819 Court ruling: ".....all must admit, that the powers of the Government are limited, and that its limits are not to be transcended. But we think the sound construction of the Constitution must allow to the national legislature that discretion with respect to the means by which the powers it confers are to be carried into execution which will enable that body to perform the high duties assigned to it in the manner most beneficial to the people."

That last hook - "to the people" was another instance of Marshall hammering home the principle - which was a continual theme in unanimous Court rulings in his long tenure - that the people are sovereign, the states are not sovereign. The Constitution is of the people, by the people, and for the people - and the state's ain't in that.

You can certainly argue - as many have done before you - that this is not a proper interpretation - that those words do not mean what the Supreme Court has said they mean, or that a specific case is different than those that have gone before. And - that exact argument will soon be back in the Court again - because of certain provisions in the health care bill. We'll see how those clauses, and the "implied powers", stack up on that case. I honestly dunno, and I'm not taking a stand on the issue - I'm just pointing out that this self-same argument you raise continues unabated since virtually Day One - and it is not a 10th Amendment fight.

Interesting side note - James Madison, as the author of the Federalist Papers, argued strongly about the essential nature of the Necessary & Proper clause in the proposed Constitution. But, he ended up fighting against it in 1791 [over the formation of a National Bank]- and Hamilton had Madison's words from the Federalist Papers read on the floor of Congress. Hamilton won the argument before the Court.