"Civil War" or "War of Northern Aggression"

[AndreusMaximus]

Iffy. Using my marriage analogy above the south told their "spouse" they wanted a divorce and no longer wanted them in their part of the "house", the north said heck with that and tried to move more of their buddies into that part of the house and supply them with pizza and beer. If that happened in a marriage would you fault the spouse that took a bat to the offending spouses buddies? Even if the spouse wanted a divorce for what is an abhorrent reason.

Well, if the federal government was actually being abusive, it changes my logic significantly, but so far, unless I've missed it, I haven't really seen any significant evidence of that.

If we're using a marriage analogy*, I think a fair analogy would go something like this: Mrs. South and Mr. North get married, and sign a pre-nuptial contract that says they'll combine all their income and split it evenly. Now Mrs. South is working a much higher paying job, and after several years of it she goes to Mr. North and says, "I'm sick of you getting so much of my money while you bring in hardly anything, so I'm divorcing you, and I'm also taking our 3 children and sending them to work in a factory so I can take their wages." Mr. North says, "No way I'm letting you do that. Oh, and that guestroom upstairs that we agreed my buddies could stay in, I'm having more of them move in to help stop you." So Mrs. South grabs her pistol, goes upstairs, and tell his buddies to clear out or start dodging bullets, and when they refuse, she makes good on her threat.

(*I'm also not sure I like the marriage analogy, either, because while marriage vows are permanent with no escape clause, I have to say that despite my persistent objections to what I view as an illogical reading of the 10th Amendment, there is still other evidence out there that leads me to at least somewhat question the notion that the Constitution was meant to be perpetually binding and irrevocable.)

 

[Timjoebillybob]

It may just be me, but when I read that the impression I get is "In my official capacity as president of the US, my only goal is to preserve the Union. My personal goal of freeing the slaves hasn't changed, though."

Lincoln truly felt that, as president, he didn't have the authority to go to war for the sake of freeing slaves. It was still a personal goal of his, though, and something he ended up doing through the Emancipation proclamation, which if I'm being honest, does look sort of hypocritical given that he always maintained the line, AFAIK, that freeing the slaves was outside his authority as president.

I'd say your impression if not spot on is pretty close.

But I have to disagree with you on what Lincoln thought of his authority. IMO his actions during the war showed what he thought his authority was. He acted in many unconstitutional and tyranical ways, and when slapped down by the Supreme Ct. he was going to have the Chief Justice arrested iirc he had an arrest warrant sworn out but it was never served. He had sitting congress critters seized on the floor and "deported" to their states, he burned down newspaper buildings and had the publishers arrested if they dared to disagree with him, he censored the telegraph system to stop bad press regarding him and the war. And that's just for starters.

If he was trying to free the slaves he was quite slow about it, and acted in some ineffectual ways. The Confiscation acts of 1861 and 1862 gave him the authority to seize the property of anyone participating on the confederate side including slaves. He had generals that refused to allow escaped slaves to serve when they were specifically required to under those acts and never told them not to.

 

[Leadeye]

I don't believe that further punishment of the south was going to be productive after the war. With the conflict coming to a close some in southern leadership wanted to continue fighting a guerilla war. To his credit, Lee saw this as degenerating into nothing more than armed bandit groups like the free companies in medieval France. When approached by Porter Alexander about this he said that the army needed to be surrendered as a whole and the troops returned home. To Lincoln and Grant's credit, they also understood this and laid out terms that achieved it.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Well, if the federal government was actually being abusive, it changes my logic significantly, but so far, unless I've missed it, I haven't really seen any significant evidence of that.

If we're using a marriage analogy*, I think a fair analogy would go something like this: Mrs. South and Mr. North get married, and sign a pre-nuptial contract that says they'll combine all their income and split it evenly. Now Mrs. South is working a much higher paying job, and after several years of it she goes to Mr. North and says, "I'm sick of you getting so much of my money while you bring in hardly anything, so I'm divorcing you, and I'm also taking our 3 children and sending them to work in a factory so I can take their wages." Mr. North says, "No way I'm letting you do that. Oh, and that guestroom upstairs that we agreed my buddies could stay in, I'm having more of them move in to help stop you." So Mrs. South grabs her pistol, goes upstairs, and tell his buddies to clear out or start dodging bullets, and when they refuse, she makes good on her threat.

(*I'm also not sure I like the marriage analogy, either, because while marriage vows are permanent with no escape clause, I have to say that despite my persistent objections to what I view as an illogical reading of the 10th Amendment, there is still other evidence out there that leads me to at least somewhat question the notion that the Constitution was meant to be perpetually binding and irrevocable.)

The abuse would be high tariffs specifically the Morrill Tariff of 1861 which work started in Congress in 1859 and passed the House in 1860 that helped the industrialized north and harmed the more agricultural south. And the belief by the south (with good reason imo) that the north intended to eliminate slavery which would further harm them.

Tariffs and the American Civil War - Essential Civil War Curriculum

www.essentialcivilwarcurriculum.com

A closer analogy of the prenup would be imo Mr and Mrs North and South agreed that a portion of their income would go towards maintaining a duplex with each having half, and that North could use part of the South's duplex. But then North was attempting to severely cut into South's income to raise their own so South said I want a divorce and get your buddies out of my half. North instead attempted to fortify and supply their buddies and so the South attempted to forcibly evict them.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

The abuse would be high tariffs specifically the Morrill Tariff of 1861 which work started in Congress in 1859 and passed the House in 1860 that helped the industrialized north and harmed the more agricultural south. And the belief by the south (with good reason imo) that the north intended to eliminate slavery which would further harm them.

Tariffs and the American Civil War - Essential Civil War Curriculum

www.essentialcivilwarcurriculum.com

A closer analogy of the prenup would be imo Mr and Mrs North and South agreed that a portion of their income would go towards maintaining a duplex with each having half, and that North could use part of the South's duplex. But then North was attempting to severely cut into South's income to raise their own so South said I want a divorce and get your buddies out of my half. North instead attempted to fortify and supply their buddies and so the South attempted to forcibly evict them.

I guess the only issue that I take with your analogy here is that it leaves slavery out of the equation. The evidence seems to suggest that, for the South at least, slavery was a bigger motivation, even then tariffs, for seceding. Other than that I guess it's a fair analogy.

Even though the North was playing by the rules as written out and agreed to in the Constitution, I suppose it's fair enough to say that they were abusing those rules for their benefit. The thing is, I don't think these abuses had reached a point that justified a violent response, especially one that was aimed at a location that would be in dispute over just who should keep ownership of it. Just as in the analogy, I wouldn't think it's right, even if North was doing some shady dealings to cut into South's income, for South to walk in on the buddies staying in that half of the duplex and say, "Okay, I know I told you guys you could stay here before, but I've changed my mind now, so get out or I'm gonna start shooting." It's significant enough of a wrong, in my opinion, to place the blame for the fight clearly on the South.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I guess the only issue that I take with your analogy here is that it leaves slavery out of the equation. The evidence seems to suggest that, for the South at least, slavery was a bigger motivation, even then tariffs, for seceding. Other than that I guess it's a fair analogy.

Even though the North was playing by the rules as written out and agreed to in the Constitution, I suppose it's fair enough to say that they were abusing those rules for their benefit. The thing is, I don't think these abuses had reached a point that justified a violent response, especially one that was aimed at a location that would be in dispute over just who should keep ownership of it. Just as in the analogy, I wouldn't think it's right, even if North was doing some shady dealings to cut into South's income, for South to walk in on the buddies staying in that half of the duplex and say, "Okay, I know I told you guys you could stay here before, but I've changed my mind now, so get out or I'm gonna start shooting." It's significant enough of a wrong, in my opinion, to place the blame for the fight clearly on the South.

I didn't leave out slavery, I specifically mentioned it. With slavery the tariffs would have been onerous but bearable, without not so much in their view.

The violent response was in response to the attempt to reinforce the fort. Prior to that the south was peaceful. They had agreed to let them place the fort while they were part of the union, they were no longer in their view a part of it. And it's arguable they were in fact no longer a part of the union, considering they had conditions placed upon them for them to rejoin it. Specifically the requirement that they ratify the 13th Amendment among others.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

I didn't leave out slavery, I specifically mentioned it. With slavery the tariffs would have been onerous but bearable, without not so much in their view.

The violent response was in response to the attempt to reinforce the fort. Prior to that the south was peaceful. They had agreed to let them place the fort while they were part of the union, they were no longer in their view a part of it. And it's arguable they were in fact no longer a part of the union, considering they had conditions placed upon them for them to rejoin it. Specifically the requirement that they ratify the 13th Amendment among others.

Yes, sorry, I did see that you mentioned slavery, I was talking only about the updated analogy you offered, and I didn't notice anything in it that paralleled the issue of slavery.

I guess in my view, if the South attacked Fort Sumter because they didn't think it belonged to the Union anymore, and they didn't think it belonged to the Union anymore because they had left he Union, and the justification for leaving the Union was that the Union was being abusive with imposing tariffs and threatening to end slavery, then doesn't it still come back to tariffs and slavery in the end? Reinforcing the fort was just a single move in a chain of events, but ultimately the justification for attacking the fort has to go back to those two main issues, doesn't it?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Yes, sorry, I did see that you mentioned slavery, I was talking only about the updated analogy you offered, and I didn't notice anything in it that paralleled the issue of slavery.

I guess in my view, if the South attacked Fort Sumter because they didn't think it belonged to the Union anymore, and they didn't think it belonged to the Union anymore because they had left he Union, and the justification for leaving the Union was that the Union was being abusive with imposing tariffs and threatening to end slavery, then doesn't it still come back to tariffs and slavery in the end? Reinforcing the fort was just a single move in a chain of events, but ultimately the justification for attacking the fort has to go back to those two main issues, doesn't it?

To a degree yes. But compare the Civil war to the Revolutionary war. The Colonies seceded from GB for what in their eyes (and mine) were just reasons and did so in a peaceable manner, GB started the aggression afterward. Was taxation without representation the cause of the Revolutionary war, or was it GB refusal to agree to an amicable separation? In my opinion it was the latter.

And I forgot to mention one other thing, when the south feared that the union was going to abolish slavery there was no mention of remuneration to the slave holders for loss of their "property". Slaves at that time were worth between 60-200k each in today's dollars with an average for unskilled labor of a bit over 100k. Imagine what the reaction would be today if the govt was instituting policies that would harm the farmer for the benefit of the processors and then were going to "free" all their tractors and combines and such without pay. Average slaves owned was between 4-6 per owner, and a decent chunk (about 10%) of them were not farmers. Between 1/4-1/3 of whites in the south were looking to lose on average about a half a million each just in freed "property". And that doesn't include non white slave owners.

 

[foszoe]

Yep it was written and he had read a draft of it to his cabinet right at a month before he penned that letter. But I wouldn't say that his mind was made up, especially since he waited over 4 months after he wrote that letter before he issued it. But that letter also goes to prove my point that the war wasn't over the abolition of slavery, it was to "save the union" and that Lincoln would do whatever was necessary to do so. As he proved many times in IMO a tyrannical manner.

I don't know if his mind was made up or not. Also plausible to wait for the right timing.

Slavery had to go. Life is full of ambiguity. That's why most of us enjoy a good vigilante.

When I weigh slavery vs Lincoln, I'll take ambiguity and Lincoln for the win.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I don't know if his mind was made up or not. Also plausible to wait for the right timing.

Slavery had to go. Life is full of ambiguity. That's why most of us enjoy a good vigilante.

When I weigh slavery vs Lincoln, I'll take ambiguity and Lincoln for the win.

Yeah he could have been waiting for the right time, but he had the authority to do so for what at least a year? Not to mention not making some of his generals accept runaway slaves into their ranks.

And yes slavery had to go, but weighing slavery for most likely a short while longer(it was ending all around the world in "civilized" countries) which would have ended up with no war, IMO better race relations at the time and quite possibly much after, along with precedents that Lincoln set and the ones the war itself set...

But none of that goes against the point that the war wasn't about slavery.

 

[oze]

To a degree yes. But compare the Civil war to the Revolutionary war. The Colonies seceded from GB for what in their eyes (and mine) were just reasons and did so in a peaceable manner, GB started the aggression afterward. Was taxation without representation the cause of the Revolutionary war, or was it GB refusal to agree to an amicable separation? In my opinion it was the latter.

And I forgot to mention one other thing, when the south feared that the union was going to abolish slavery there was no mention of remuneration to the slave holders for loss of their "property". Slaves at that time were worth between 60-200k each in today's dollars with an average for unskilled labor of a bit over 100k. Imagine what the reaction would be today if the govt was instituting policies that would harm the farmer for the benefit of the processors and then were going to "free" all their tractors and combines and such without pay. Average slaves owned was between 4-6 per owner, and a decent chunk (about 10%) of them were not farmers. Between 1/4-1/3 of whites in the south were looking to lose on average about a half a million each just in freed "property". And that doesn't include non white slave owners.

You'll get no sympathy from me and you don't advance your argument when you refer to human beings as property and compare them to tractors, for God's sake.

Imagine the financial toll to human traffickers if all of their juvenile sex slaves were suddenly set free.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

You'll get no sympathy from me when you refer to human beings as property and compare them to tractors, for God's sake.

Imagine the financial toll to human traffickers if all of their juvenile sex slaves were suddenly set free.

If you notice I put quotes around property. At the time that is what slaves were. And for the farmers and such they were the equivalent of modern farm machinery both in work done and value. I'm not condoning or approving of it or looking for sympathy, just stating facts.

Human trafficing is illegal in every country right now. Slavery then not so much. There were quite a few countries where slavery was legal after the slaves were freed in the US. The last country to criminalize slavery was just a handful of years ago, Chad crimalized it in 2017. Heck look at the Magdalene laundries in Ireland.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

You'll get no sympathy from me and you don't advance your argument when you refer to human beings as property and compare them to tractors, for God's sake.

Imagine the financial toll to human traffickers if all of their juvenile sex slaves were suddenly set free.

I think the fact that he put "property" in quotes indicates pretty clearly that he isn't making this as his own argument, just explaining how things looked from the perspective of the South.

 

[BigRed]

lincoln "saving the union" is like the abusive husband who, upon learning his wife was walking away, beat her to death and then claimed he "saved the marriage".

 

[AndreusMaximus]

lincoln "saving the union" is like the abusive husband who, upon learning his wife was walking away, beat her to death and then claimed he "saved the marriage".

Only if you add that the wife wanted the divorce so that she could get full custody of the kids and send them to a factory to work in inhumane conditions while she kept all the wages, and, after stopping her from divorcing, the husband was trying to work out a good place for them to stay where they wouldn't be abused by the wife, but before he could do so he was killed by one of the wife's boyfriends.

 

[oze]

I thin the fact that he put "property" in quotes indicates pretty clearly that he isn't making this as his own argument, just explaining how things looked from the perspective of the South.

Nevertheless, how were the 1%-ers able to justify actually owning another human? "Property". Yes, that was the perspective of many in the South, and how dare the North or anyone else consider giving the "property" its freedom? That supports the position that the Civil War, started by rich plantation owners, boils down to their "right" to own slaves.

I read Sherman's autobiography, and he was clear about why he intended to "make Georgia howl". He saw the war as a product of rich Southern plantation owners wanting to protect their human "property". They were insulated from the carnage and destruction, while sending the poor to fight their war with misbegotten ideas of southern pride and defending their homes. Sherman brought the war to these privileged high-society people, and oh, how they howled.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Nevertheless, how were the 1%-ers able to justify actually owning another human? "Property". Yes, that was the perspective of many in the South, and how dare the North or anyone else consider giving the "property" its freedom? That supports the position that the Civil War, started by rich plantation owners, boils down to their "right" to own slaves.

I read Sherman's autobiography, and he was clear about why he intended to "make Georgia howl". He saw the war as a product of rich Southern plantation owners wanting to protect their human "property". They were insulated from the carnage and destruction, while sending the poor to fight their war with misbegotten ideas of southern pride and defending their homes. Sherman brought the war to these privileged high-society people, and oh, how they howled.

Yes, I certainly agree with your conclusions, but I do think we need to be careful in how we describe some things. While there is some truth in the "1%-er" argument, it's not really the full picture, as plantation owners were not exactly the very top tier of either wealth or social status, and if we try to make our argument about them being the rich, corrupt people at the top pulling the strings, it plays into the other side who can easily point out that the railways owners, politicians, etc, of the time, were far higher up the social ladder, and far more wealthy and corrupt.

But, yes I absolutely agree with you on how abhorrent it is that they tried to call human beings property, and treat them as such, which, again, is why I ultimately believe that the North was clearly in the right with regards to the War.

 

[Leadeye]

Getting rid of slavery and providing remuneration in some form in the 1850s would have gone along way towards stopping the death and destruction that either way both sides would suffer. We can't see slaves as agricultural machinery through the modern lens and many people were revolted by the idea of it in the 1850s, that doesn't change the fact that they were an integral part of the southern economy and the leadership in the south did not want to give them up. Cooler heads might have offered southern leadership investment by the federal government in things like manufacturing cloth from cotton domestically, infrastructure construction, and standardization of rail gauges. It was a prideful and stupid mistake on the part of southern leadership to link states rights and slavery politically as much as it was short sighted for northern leadership to not provide some exit ramp for people who felt their backs were against the wall economically.

At the end of the day leadership on both sides thought that a short term "ass whuppin" would be enough to get what they wanted and so condemned hundreds of thousands of Americans to death and caused terrible damage. Really bad decisions.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Nevertheless, how were the 1%-ers able to justify actually owning another human? "Property". Yes, that was the perspective of many in the South, and how dare the North or anyone else consider giving the "property" its freedom? That supports the position that the Civil War, started by rich plantation owners, boils down to their "right" to own slaves.

I read Sherman's autobiography, and he was clear about why he intended to "make Georgia howl". He saw the war as a product of rich Southern plantation owners wanting to protect their human "property". They were insulated from the carnage and destruction, while sending the poor to fight their war with misbegotten ideas of southern pride and defending their homes. Sherman brought the war to these privileged high-society people, and oh, how they howled.

1%ers? Between 1/4-1/3 of white southern families owned slaves, a majority either owned, had owned, or intended to own them. And that is not counting non whites that owned them. Most were not rich plantation owners.

A lot of people didn't consider them human. Heck Lincoln arguably was one of them. He didn't believe they should hold office, vote, or serve on juries for starters. He also didn't believe they were of the same social stature of whites. Abolitionists were actually the minority at the time. Here is a quote from Lincoln during the Douglas Lincoln debates.

“I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is physical difference between the two, which in my judgment will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality.”

 

[oze]

1%ers? Between 1/4-1/3 of white southern families owned slaves, a majority either owned, had owned, or intended to own them. And that is not counting non whites that owned them. Most were not rich plantation owners.

A lot of people didn't consider them human. Heck Lincoln arguably was one of them. He didn't believe they should hold office, vote, or serve on juries for starters. He also didn't believe they were of the same social stature of whites. Abolitionists were actually the minority at the time. Here is a quote from Lincoln during the Douglas Lincoln debates.

But only if you "owned" at least 20 slaves were you exempt from the draft as of October, 1862:

Confed. Twenty Negro Law | Civil War on the Western Border: The Missouri-Kansas Conflict, 1854-1865

civilwaronthewesternborder.org

And yeah, while some people ( I've read that it was less than 20%) not from southern high society "owned" one or two slaves, abolishing slavery would not result in nearly the economic impact on them as it would on those few who had plantations full of slaves. It was a rich southerners' war, fought by the poor.