"Civil War" or "War of Northern Aggression"

[AndreusMaximus]

Why couldn't Tennessee leave the Union of the CSA then?

Why did the Union of the CSA prohibit a state from prohibiting slavery?

Wait, couldn't they? Did any of them try? Where was it prohibited?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Wait, couldn't they? Did any of them try? Where was it prohibited?

Have you read the CSA constitution?

Recommended: Amazon product ASIN 0743234995

 

[Kirk Freeman]

In the 1970s the Koch Brothers twisted the history of the Confederacy into some Libertarian fantasy. It was not. Read Look Away and understand that the South fought tooth and nail to own others. The slavocracy was nothing to admire and everything to loathe and burn.

 

[HoughMade]

It's almost like there was a concerted effort to recast the cause of the confederacy into a noble lost cause of some sort.....

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Have you read the CSA constitution?

Recommended: Amazon product ASIN 0743234995

As far as I can tell the confederate constitution forbids outlawing slavery in territories that are not yet states, and forbids the confederate government from outlawing slavery, but I don't think it forbade states themselves from outlawing slavery? I'm not sure on this. Of course, though, the confederate constitution, like virtually all the writings and speeches from both sides at the time, make it abundantly clear that the foremost purpose of the confederate states in seceding was to preserve and protect slavery, but I think that's something that everyone has acknowledged at this point, and we're just debating the legalities of secession itself. And on that note, since the confederate constitution makes no mention of secession, and their argument at the time was supposedly that since the USA constitution doesn't mention secession it must be one of those powers left to the state, I guess the same would apply to the confederate states? It would have been real interesting to know what would have happened if one of them had tried it, though...

 

[Kirk Freeman]

It's almost like there was a concerted effort to recast the cause of the confederacy into a noble lost cause of some sort.....

That's another book, written by an IU professor.

Amazon product ASIN B00DU7HPQ2

 

[Leadeye]

Why could counties in the Southern states not leave the CSA?

Why could a Southern state not leave the CSA?

Why could a Southern state not prohibit slavery?

West Virginia did leave the state of Virginia quite early in the war. Union campaigns headed by George McClellan made that a reality quickly. There were cultural and economic differences between those two parts of the state in addition to the problem of geography.

 

[Leadeye]

I don't see Lincoln as tyrant, but more as a politician in a new party being carried away by foolish rhetoric and not having the courage or maybe the ability to change direction. He did speak to the best military man available and sound his opinions. Winfield Scott understood early on that the war would be long and costly, just based on the logistics involved in projecting the power needed to achieve victory into the southern states. He also understood that it was going to have a huge butchers bill, just looking at the people involved and the advances in military technology. That Lincoln chose to follow the advice of abolitionists who thought that the war was just going to be a matter of marching to Richmond and planting a flag was one of the many tragic mistakes of the conflict.

I would like to think that he learned something as the war went on and that it had an affect on his decision to simply bring the vanquished southerners back into the union rather than persecute them for treason. I see him as a rather poor president early in his term, but improving.

 

[rob63]

It's almost like there was a concerted effort to recast the cause of the confederacy into a noble lost cause of some sort.....

The writings of the Southern Historical Society get quoted verbatim by people that I doubt even know where it all originated. Jubal Early would be proud.

 

[jamil]

Why couldn't Tennessee leave the Union of the CSA then?

Why couldn't Jones County secede from Mississippi?

Why did the Union of the CSA prohibit a state from prohibiting slavery?

Because only when associated with the US did states actually have states rights. Under the confederacy there was no such thing.

But even before the civil war, the legislation the south proposed violated the ideas of states rights. To the proponents of slavery, the only states rights were to allow slavery. When it came to states rights in the north, the pro-slavery legislators didn't give a flying **** about those state rights. And the north wasn't any better. They all fought against other states having rights they didn't like.

But I mean, if we're keeping score, fighting in congress against states that wanted to end the ability for some humans to own other humans, is a pretty ****** states' right to give a **** about. Of all the states's rights they could complain about, it was that one which occupied so much politicing. So in terms of a moral justification to not give a **** about states' rights, I'd give the moral edge to the North in theirs.

 

[rob63]

I don't see Lincoln as tyrant, but more as a politician in a new party being carried away by foolish rhetoric and not having the courage or maybe the ability to change direction. He did speak to the best military man available and sound his opinions. Winfield Scott understood early on that the war would be long and costly, just based on the logistics involved in projecting the power needed to achieve victory into the southern states. He also understood that it was going to have a huge butchers bill, just looking at the people involved and the advances in military technology. That Lincoln chose to follow the advice of abolitionists who thought that the war was just going to be a matter of marching to Richmond and planting a flag was one of the many tragic mistakes of the conflict.

I would like to think that he learned something as the war went on and that it had an affect on his decision to simply bring the vanquished southerners back into the union rather than persecute them for treason. I see him as a rather poor president early in his term, but improving.

The influence of the abolitionist on Congress's Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War is often overlooked when evaluating Lincoln. It was powerful enough that even the Union Generals pretty much caved into its demands. I tend to agree with you that as the war went on, he learned quite a bit and also grew in stature to the point that he could counterbalance the more radical elements in Congress. Ironically, Booth put them back in the driver's seat to fashion reconstruction which only led to further problems down the road.

 

[Leadeye]

For me the only lost cause of the south was their agrarian economy being left behind by technology and society. They needed to change direction and needed assistance in doing that. Regardless of the moral aspect of the "particular institution" slaves were simply agricultural machinery, an asset paid for by the plantation owner to do a job. Getting past the fact that slaves were human beings they were to the southern economy the same thing as a tractor or combine today. Keeping the moral question in mind, northern leadership before Lincoln really should have approached this by helping Americans living in the southern states to change their economy rather than demonizing the group as a whole as not everybody owned slaves or were involved in that business. Once states rights was linked to slavery by John Calhoun, this became much harder.

While it's easy to say why should northerners help southerners change thier backward economy, we have to consider that a long, bloody, expensive war was the alternative. Only American lives were lost, and only American property was destroyed.

 

[jamil]

For me the only lost cause of the south was their agrarian economy being left behind by technology and society. They needed to change direction and needed assistance in doing that. Regardless of the moral aspect of the "particular institution" slaves were simply agricultural machinery, an asset paid for by the plantation owner to do a job. Getting past the fact that slaves were human beings they were to the southern economy the same thing as a tractor or combine today. Keeping the moral question in mind, northern leadership before Lincoln really should have approached this by helping Americans living in the southern states to change their economy rather than demonizing the group as a whole as not everybody owned slaves or were involved in that business. Once states rights was linked to slavery by John Calhoun, this became much harder.

While it's easy to say why should northerners help southerners change thier backward economy, we have to consider that a long, bloody, expensive war was the alternative. Only American lives were lost, and only American property was destroyed.

It would take some exceptional leaders to have done that but I think you’re right about that as an outcome. The aristocrats conned the poor southerners into fighting for slavery under the guise of states rights.

 

[BigRed]

I am not convinced Calhoun's argument for states rights was based upon slavery.

I do think Calhoun understood the folly of expecting a central state to adhere to its limited delegated powers.

He made his position quite clear in his "A Disquisition of Government" which is well worth the read and study.

 

[jamil]

I am not convinced Calhoun's argument for states rights was based upon slavery.

I do think Calhoun understood the folly of expecting a central state to adhere to its limited delegated powers.

He made his position quite clear in his "A Disquisition of Government" which is well worth the read and study.

John Calhoun started his political career by hitching his wagon to big government proponents like John Quincy Adams. It wasn’t until he was criticized by Southern leaders tjat he decided his career needed a change, and then he became an advocate of states rights out of necessity.

Calhoun spent time arguing in support of states rights, yes, but not until it became clear he’d lose his prominence as a leader if he didn’t. He dropped his fantasy of big government like a used rubber because of political expedience and not because he was a true believer in states rights. He also argued in the senate that slavery was a benefit to all. He was pro slavery and fiercely defended it.

John Calhoun didn’t give a rat’s ass about states rights other than the South’s “right” to allow rich men to own people.

 

[BigRed]

John Calhoun started his political career by hitching his wagon to big government proponents like John Quincy Adams. It wasn’t until he was criticized by Southern leaders tjat he decided his career needed a change, and then he became an advocate of states rights out of necessity.

Calhoun spent time arguing in support of states rights, yes, but not until it became clear he’d lose his prominence as a leader if he didn’t. He dropped his fantasy of big government like a used rubber because of political expedience and not because he was a true believer in states rights. He also argued in the senate that slavery was a benefit to all. He was pro slavery and fiercely defended it.

John Calhoun didn’t give a rat’s ass about states rights other than the South’s “right” to allow rich men to own people.

While I may disagree, what does that say for big government?

 

[rob63]

While I may disagree, what does that say for big government?

If you would drop your incessant support of the slave-owning Confederacy and all the "Lincoln was a tyrant" nonsense and just argue your basic points against big government, you might find that there are a great many of us that despise big government every bit as much as you. We are just too well versed in the actual history of the Civil War to fall for the small government Confederacy fantasies that you endlessly push.

There are a great many genuine issues with how the Federal government under Lincoln prosecuted the war. The gradual shift from a conciliatory policy to one of a hard war is well documented and makes for fascinating reading. I'm not sure I even agree with the idea that restoring the Union was worth the cost in the first place; it kind of falls into the realm of how many people are you willing to kill while on a morale crusade? Questions that are tough to answer even in hindsight. It is what makes history so enjoyable to study.

Understanding it all also requires recognizing that policies shifted gradually so what is difficult to understand in hindsight wasn't necessarily clear at the time where it was headed. There was no shortage of CYA written after the war, by both sides. Historians often pick and choose facts to support a narrative, as well as repeat old fallacies without doing enough research. Consequently, it is well worth reading a great many histories of the same incidents written from different perspectives. I have been studying this conflict my entire life and I am still learning new things all of the time with each book I read. I make no claim to knowing it all and would love to have actual discussions of this topic with other people that are interested in it, my own perspective has changed many times over the years. In fact, there was a time when I believed much of the lost cause myth stuff myself.

However, the first step into any valid discussion of such things has to include recognizing the overwhelmingly predominant role of slavery in bringing about secession and the Confederacy. The primary source evidence written at the time is simply too strong to just brush aside in favor of the post-war lost cause myth.

States' Rights was a real issue at the time, but it is necessary to admit how it was linked to slavery. Yes, there were also other issues like tariffs, but slavery was the issue that drove secession. That fact saddles the term States' Rights with a legacy that can't be ignored when discussing it. Likewise, the Confederate government did things like end Habeus Corpus in 1864 and started jailing anyone that spoke out against the war. The exact same things that were controversial in the Lincoln government and put to a stop there, were taken up by the Confederates at a later date. The Confederacy is just simply a really poor starting point for discussing the value of limited government! Their actions before and during the war don't support their words written after the fact.

 

[jamil]

While I may disagree, what does that say for big government?

We both agree that big government sucks.

 

[jamil]

There are a great many genuine issues with how the Federal government under Lincoln prosecuted the war. The gradual shift from a conciliatory policy to one of a hard war is well documented and makes for fascinating reading. I'm not sure I even agree with the idea that restoring the Union was worth the cost in the first place; it kind of falls into the realm of how many people are you willing to kill while on a morale crusade? Questions that are tough to answer even in hindsight. It is what makes history so enjoyable to study.

As I've studied the civil war I have pretty much struggled with the same question. ~600K men died either directly or indirectly, over half were Union. It kept the nation together, but at the cost of some state sovereignty. It ended slavery, but embittered southerners against the North and against black people for over a century. Slavery would have ended, likely within 20 years, anyway, as technology was making slave labor obsolete. I'm not sure a forced end of slavery made that bloody shortcut better than it ending naturally.

But they did what humans do at the time. No amount of hindsight now aids the decisions they made at the time. Leadeye is absolutely right that the whole thing could likely have ended peacefully, naturally, much sooner, if the Abolitionists would have looked for ways to supplant the need for slave labor in the South decades prior to the civil war. If they'd have worked as hard to bring industrial growth to the population centers in the South, I think the South would have ended it on their own like Northern states did 6 decades earlier.

You're absolutely right about sources. Players and historians have all had different reasons to emphasize some facts over others, or promote or neglect altogether. It's like filling in the pieces of a mosaic to bring about a more detailed picture. Lost cause ideologues use just the pieces that make the picture look good for the south. We can bring out facts that debunk it, but those facts are ignored. The people on that side are convinced they're right. That it had nothing to do with Slavery. Their own heroes betrayed them with their own words. Jefferson Davis himself especially. But those damning words are stricken from the record in the minds of people ideologically favorable to the idea of secession.

 

[jamil]

I think there's no right or wrong side. Humans have a nature and reality is not always compatible with having the ability to override some instincts and not others. So I think I prefer saying there was a righter and wronger side over saying the right or wrong side.