Posted on 12/27/2010 10:31:54 AM PST by trumandogz
The Civil War is about to loom very large in the popular memory. We would do well to be candid about its causes and not allow the distortions of contemporary politics or long-standing myths to cloud our understanding of why the nation fell apart.
The coming year will mark the 150th anniversary of the onset of the conflict, which is usually dated to April 12, 1861, when Confederate batteries opened fire at 4:30 a.m. on federal troops occupying Fort Sumter. Union forces surrendered the next day, after 34 hours of shelling.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
The civil war, like the Iraq war, was fought for many reasons. Dubya’s personal motivation was clearly “nation building” and the hope that the less fundamentalist Iraq could be turned into a democracy as an example to other Muslims.
But Dubya recognized that his personal motivation would not win over Congress. So, without lying, he alluded to the British intelligence reports of Sadam seeking uranium in Africa. The Dems bought into the WMD scare. Many Dems made it their reason for supporting the adventure in Iraq.
For others “oil” was the motivation.
The same is true of the civil war. Some had motivation A, some motivation B, some motivation C to engage in war. Only when a sufficient number were motivated did war happen.
My abolitionist ancestors were for ending slavery by any means necessary, including violence. Abolitionist militia were organizing in abolitionist churches. Some of my Amish-Mennonite uncles consciously chose to switch to Wesleyan or similar abolitionist church a la Reagan’s favorite movie “Friendly Persuasion” about Quakers itching for war. The religious fervor on abolition was that strong. They forced Lincoln’s hand. Some in the South saw it coming and were pro-active in peparing for it.
Possibly a few were motivated by economic explanations. A few, like Lincoln, were motivated to “preserve the union”.
Not everyone has the same motivation. The same is true in politics. Not everyone votes for a candidate for the same reason. Campaigns lose when they think that one-size-fits-all. Historically, the reason Dems win at elections but lose at governing is that in campaigns they oppose one-size-fits-all and build coalitions. But in governing they push programs that are one-size-fits-all.
lol - yup - right at 3 inches...:-)
Back at ya:
I’m a Good Old Rebel
Oh, I’m a good old Rebel
Now that’s just what I am.
For this Yankee nation
I do not give a damn.
I’m glad I fought agin her,
I only wish we’d won.
I ain’t asked any pardon
For anything I’ve done.
I hates the yankee nation
And everything they do,
I hates the declaration
Of independence, too;
I hates the glorious union-
’tis dripping with our blood-
And I hates their striped banner,
I fought it all I could.
I rode with Robert E. Lee,
For three years, thereabouts.
Got wounded in four places
And starved at Point Lookout.
I caughts the rheumatism
A-camping in the snow.
But I killed a chance of Yankees
And I’d like to kill some mo’.
Three hundred thousand Yankees
Lie stiff in Southern dust
We got three hundred thousand
Before they conquered us.
They died of Southern fever
And Southern steel and shot.
I wish they were three millions
Instead of what we got.
I can’t take up my musket
And fight ‘em now no more,
But I ain’t going to love ‘em,
Now that is certain sure;
I don’t want no pardon
For what I was and am,
I won’t be reconstructed
And I do not give a damn.
I am not now, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or political equality of the white and black races. I am not now nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriages with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and the black races which will forever forbid the two races living together on social or political equality. There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white man.
Lincoln in his speech to Charleston, Illinois, 1858
My goodness, firing up that wacky wayback machine once again, I see, darkly attributing some vaguely Hitlerian concept, a century prior to the advent of Nazism.
There was no "whole southern society," as if it or anyplace else was some sort of monolith. There were entire regions of the south that did not embrace slavery.
I suggest you make the attempt to move beyond the bizarre pop history taught in public school and actually read a little. Quakers, Moravians, Republican strongholds in the Appalachians opposed to the point of actually splitting off (West Virginia) or attempting to do so (the abortive attempt to revive the Free State of Franklin) ... all that means nothing when you buy into the whole, oddly hypnotic and historicist "slave power" mythos that was handed to you on a silver platter.
You've bought into the revisionism, hook line and sinker, have demonized an entire people on that basis, and have the temerity to prattle about the "master race." Do you ever listen to yourself?
It's about the Constitutional Convention and gives pretty good detail on the discussions that virtually predicted secession over slavery in the south.
Some points:
Slavery was legal both north and south.
The argument arose over expansion of slavery in the new territories and was present in 1782 although not in the same regions as prior to actual secession.
The framers sort of danced around state sovereignty because they were still getting over the failure of confederated states to ante up and pay off the revolution...it wasn't clear and that was probably intentional.
Virtually all of the states' representatives likely considered secession to be legitimate.
The 3/5 compromise, like much of the slavery issue, revolved around property (a stated right) and congressional power. It was part and parcel of what we now generally call the "big states - small states" or "farm - Industrial" or "rural - urban" debates. (Are slaves property, does property equal population as well as wealth? Also note that a lot of the discussion involved basing representation on wealth OR population and slaves could represent either one.)
As to the actual "war of 1861" (I like that description):
There was a vocal antislavery movement in the north.
Southern leaders DID consider slavery their own business based on sovereignty of the states - united OR confederated.
Lincoln and most in the north did NOT consider the holding of slaves to be a deal breaker (Dred Scott) but Republicans DID consider leaving the union a crime.
Confederates (Beauregard I believe) fired on Sumter after secession and after Lincoln reinforced and tried to resupply the federal forces sitting in the middle of a Confederate harbor.
Secession itself is a dissolution of partnership and not an act of war - is reinforcing troops on someone else's land an act of war or is firing on them an act of war?
Lincoln clearly stated that his goal was maintaining the union and not ending slavery. His actions throughout the war, and those of the federal government after his death, support that claim.
And, now I'm out of this, can't stand the standard FR bloodletting over the issue.
Pure fantasy.
The treasonous tantrum of the south was not even recognized by the Union. Secession was a hiccup in the history of the United States, but a necessary hiccup. After the war, any state that joined the union realized that statehood was for ever.
Cute novelty song.
First of all, Stephens was totally right about how an anti-slavery government would effect the South. The 13th Amendment—which BTW—was barely passed despite all that had gone before—literally destroyed that part of the South economy not ruined by northern invasion. The Southern ruling class,the southern mercantile class was totally ruined, the whole hierarchy of southern society was affected. Slaves were just turned loose to fend for themselves, except for insufficient efforts by the Army and the Freedman’s bureau. To imagine something comparable, imagine if all our prisons were opened and the prisoners set free to rove at will. To be sure, the Southern secessionist were blind to the realities of geography. Lincoln could not allow the secession of the border states ,let the Mississippi be controlled by a foreign government, and Washington be surrounded by foreign territory.
“...Secession was a hiccup in the history of the United States...”
-
That was one hell of a hiccup.
You must call an alligator a lizard.
I guess we'll see. The USA was designed as republic with a weak Federal Govt. and semi autonomous states with powers equal to the Federal. Through bloodshed and progressive indoctination, it has morphed into a Constitutional Dictatorship, the exact opposite of the orignal intent.
Pretty good summary.
It has become what the Anti-federalists predicted.
Excellent post, thanks.
Indeed.
Thanks for that post, very good.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.