Civil War Myths

[GNLaFrance]

This is a great thread.

It's the people making it great. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who's participated so far.

Currently listening to volume 3 of Shelby Foote's books. Just got through Sheridan delivering several defeats to Jubal Early.

Ah, yes, Little Phil and Old Jubilee. Two more colorful, irascible, bull-headed, foul-mouthed Irishmen would be hard to find. When I was reenacting, the Cedar Creek (Belle Grove) event in the gorgeous Shenandoah Valley was a favorite.

 

[The3clipser]

Slavery didn't even become an issue until Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation after Antietam. Lincoln needed a noble cause for the Union to rally around and ending slavery was a noble reason to focus the Union's efforts on because he feared the north would lose focus.

My take anyway.

It's probably been mentioned by someone else (didn't go through all 8 pages yet) but it was also a brilliant foreign policy maneuver. Lincoln knew that the Brits would not get behind a pro-slavery cause, and Europe would follow Britain. By keeping the Brits from supporting the Confederacy with armed forces, he kept Europe out as well. Just my opinion...

 

[KMK1862]

It's probably been mentioned by someone else (didn't go through all 8 pages yet) but it was also a brilliant foreign policy maneuver. Lincoln knew that the Brits would not get behind a pro-slavery cause, and Europe would follow Britain. By keeping the Brits from supporting the Confederacy with armed forces, he kept Europe out as well. Just my opinion...

The3eclipser, I think that's a pretty good opinion. Here's a link to a post I made in another thread regarding the Emancipation Proclamation.

http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?p=983837#post983837

 

[JOBU]

Myth: The South was fighting to save slavery

Fact: The South was fighting to save the south. After crippling taxes levied by the north, the south finally had enough.

Myth: The South never wanted to free the slaves

Fact: Many people, including generals and the president of the South, understood that slavery had to end. The north just did it first to get more man power.

Myth: The Civil War was based upon a disagreement on Federalism and incroachment into individual states rights.

Fact: The South fought to maintain slavery.

Read part of the South Carolina Declaration of Causes for Seccession below:

The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the *forms* [emphasis in the original] of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.

Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.

We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.

Adopted December 24, 1860

 

[Threeband]

Fact: The South fought to maintain slavery.

True. Just face it.

Funny thing, all this wishful attempting to re-write history, claims that slavery really wasn't important, that southern leaders wanted to end slavery, etc... such talk, I say, would have gotten you lynched, or at least tarred and feathered, back in the Old South.

Such talk would not be accepted. People were killed for such Yankee Abolitionist talk.

 

[jpk1md]

Each of these myths has been presented here as historical fact. We can argue details until kingdom come, but the basic truth, that they are no more than propaganda, cannot be denied.

1. The south seceded over state's rights.
2. Secession was about tariffs and taxes.
3. Most white Southerners didn't own slaves, so they wouldn't secede for slavery.
4. Abraham Lincoln went to war to end slavery.
5. The South couldn't have made it long as a slave society.

Five myths about why the South seceded

Lets put the brakes on this for a moment, I'm sorry but I've got to call ******** on this one.

On one hand, all hands on board constantly point out the biased ******** we see from the Washington Post..,,,but in THIS ONE CASE the Compost has managed to publish something that is brilliant, factually correct and historically accurate.

********.

Sorry GN, but I can't help but laugh at your use of the Compost when it suits you.

You can poo poo things all you want and attempt to discredit arguments by calling them "myths" but you can't dispute things like the 1860 elections.

Lincoln was SO UNPOPULAR that he didn't even get onto the ballot of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, North Carolina, Tennessee and Texas.

And in the Southern states he WAS on ballot like Maryland he only garnered ~2.5% of the entire vote. In Va Lincoln only got 1.1% of the ENTIRE VOTE.

If you look at the actual votes of each state and who was on the ballot you would think that you were looking at the elections for two separate and unrelated/unaffiliated countries....hence Secession......

Lincoln was elected solely by the north by carrying states like NY which had more electoral college votes than just about any 3 or 4 southern states.

Declaring Slavery to be the "Cause" of Secession/CIvil War is like calling Heart Failure the cause of death and ignoring the gunshot wound, blood loss and associated shock that caused it.

Secession and the Civil War quite simply was about Self Governance, Power, Control and Money/Wealth/Resources....the same thing ALL Wars are fought over....folks can argue till they're blue in the face but these are the least common denominators.

BTW, I like the new popeye avatar.

 

[jpk1md]

True. Just face it.

Funny thing, all this wishful attempting to re-write history, claims that slavery really wasn't important, that southern leaders wanted to end slavery, etc... such talk, I say, would have gotten you lynched, or at least tarred and feathered, back in the Old South.

Such talk would not be accepted. People were killed for such Yankee Abolitionist talk.

Actually, Lincoln imprisoned them.

He suspended Habeus Corpus during the war allowing folks to be imprisoned in the North WITHOUT A TRIAL.

This resulted in the arrest and imprisonment of literally tens of thousands of political opponents and newspaper editors.

Lets take Congressman Vallandigham for his speech on the floor of the House of Reps amongst other things condemning the Lincoln administration's "persistent infractions of the Constitution" and its "high-minded usurpations of power,".

Please do us all a favor and look up what Lincoln did to this Congressman.

If we're going to discuss history lets not just look at the "Rainbows and Puppy dogs" but the bedsores and festering warts.

 

[jpk1md]

It's probably been mentioned by someone else (didn't go through all 8 pages yet) but it was also a brilliant foreign policy maneuver. Lincoln knew that the Brits would not get behind a pro-slavery cause, and Europe would follow Britain. By keeping the Brits from supporting the Confederacy with armed forces, he kept Europe out as well. Just my opinion...

You're ABSOLUTELY correct.

 

[Threeband]

JPK do you realize I memorized all the stuff you've posted forty years ago?

I know all about Mayor Brown and Marshal Kane and The Beast Butler. I know about the burning of the bridges and the march to Annapolis Junction.

I know all about Habeus Corpus and Fort McHenry and Fort Warren. I know about the Fugitive Slave Act and the breakup of the Whig party. I know about John C. Fremont and Stephan Douglas.

I know about the suppression of the slave trade and John C Calhoun and the Gag Rule and Bleeding Kansas and Free Soil and 36-30 and the Trent Affair.

You keep twisting elementary irrelevancies and seem to think you're making a point. Example:

I said that talk about slavery being anything less than the necessary foundation of civilization could get you tarred and feathered in dear old Dixie. You respond with Lincoln and habeus corpus.

I was talking about peacetime civil society before the war, and the fact that you would not be permitted to speak against slavery as you have here. You bring up a wartime act which had nothing to do with slavery. Lincoln imprisoned secessionists. He had no problem with either slaveholders or abolitionists. Your reference to Lincoln is irrelevent.

You are a troll sir, just as Don said. Welcome to ignore.

 

[GNLaFrance]

So now you've run out of arguments and are reduced to vulgarity, ridicule, and ad hominem attacks. I'm sorry to see it. This part is especially telling:

You keep twisting elementary irrelevancies and seem to think you're making a point.

This is called "projection". It's a psychological defense mechanism where you unconsciously deny your own attributes, thoughts and actions, and ascribe them to me.

The reality is that I keep showing you the facts. That you can't deal with them is your problem, not mine.

 

[The3clipser]

The3eclipser, I think that's a pretty good opinion. Here's a link to a post I made in another thread regarding the Emancipation Proclamation.

http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?p=983837#post983837

Aaaaand that's what I get

 

[jpk1md]

So now you've run out of arguments and are reduced to vulgarity, ridicule, and ad hominem attacks. I'm sorry to see it. This part is especially telling:



This is called "projection". It's a psychological defense mechanism where you unconsciously deny your own attributes, thoughts and actions, and ascribe them to me.

The reality is that I keep showing you the facts. That you can't deal with them is your problem, not mine.

GN, the facts are the facts......and the above quote you attributed to me.....is threebands.

Lets get the facts straight ok?

The Washington Post isn't a reliable, unbiased source of information that even comes close to being historically accurate.

Wasn't it you that was poo poo-ing second hand info a couple pages ago?

A caveat: If you're going to post links, make sure they're links to original, period documents. Second-hand material can't be relied on.

So, what does that make the Compost article you referenced as fact? 43'rd hand info or simply "Tribal Knowledge"?

Threeband, you may have memorized a couple things I've posted but clearly it hasn't sunk in.

I know this is really tough for a lot of folks to swallow because its been rammed down your throats your entire lives but Lincoln was not a hero, He was a tyrant that violated the constitution, rights of citizens and bullied congress under threat of imprisonment to get them to do his bidding.

How many people know that Lincoln issued an arrest warrant for Chief Justice Roger B. Taney after he issued an opinion that only Congress could constitutionally suspend habeas corpus

How many people know that he deported his chief critic in the House, one Representative Vallandigham

How many people know that Lincoln jailed tens of thousands of political opponents and people that dared to oppose him?

How many people know about the NY City Draft Riots or the newspapers that Lincoln ordered shut down for voicing opposition to him.

This silly Straussian neocon/Union League propaganda GNLaFrance and threeband keep pushing ignores the facts and discourages folks from looking any further at the root causes.

These events and facts are littered throughout the historical record for anyone to read should they choose to.....but thats the problem....no one wants to recognize the oozing warts of this period of american history and attempt to take a simpleton approach and blame "Slavery".....slavery was nothing more than a symptom.

Secession and the Civil War quite simply was about Self Governance, Power, Control and Money/Wealth/Resources....the same thing ALL Wars are fought over....folks can argue till they're blue in the face but these are the least common denominators.

 

[T-Man]

Jpk -- It seems like you and they are arguing two completely seperate points.

You keep saying Lincoln was bad, not the shining example of virtue that he is made out to be. I think most people who take a deeper look at Lincoln would agree that he was at least abusive of the Constitution and is not as bright and shiny as made out to be with some even agreeing that he was the Beast that teh South portrayed him as duiring the Civil War and immediately thereafter.

That said, this point has nothing whatsoever to do with the point that is being argued -- Did the South leave over slavery?

Saying that the North did not fight the war over slavery also does not respond to the question.

Saying that the average Northerner was also racist is also besides the point as is the Liberia and Central American plans after the war.

All are interesting points and good debates themselves, but I have still not seen a response to the clear points made that documents produced by the main Southern leaders of the time at the time of secession clearly state that Slavery was a major issue that they seceeded over and fought about. Have you seen Alexanders Stephens' the VP of the Conferedacy's infamous speech -- Jefferson and the founders were wrong to believe that all people are created equal and the Confederacy was founded on the idea that whites are superior to blacks.

Were there other reasons, sure. Were some of them good, sure. But the legacy of the CSA will always be intertwined with slavery because thats how they chose to found it.

 

[case XX]

The property actually belonged to his wife Martha Custis, who was a granddaughter of Harry Lee, who had fought with George Washington.
That's my recollection anyway.

You are mostly correct in your comments. Actually Henry Lee, otherwise know as Lighthorse Harry Lee, was Robert E Lee's father. Mary Custis was not Henry Lee’s daughter however she was the step great granddaughter of George Washington and you are correct that Arlington belonged to her not Lee.

You are also correct that Lighthorse Harry fought under Washington during the Revolutionary war and the 2 became fairly close. It was Harry who at Washington’s funeral spoke the phrase "First in war, first in peace, first in the hearts of his countrymen".

The Lee family history is extremely fascinating and I would recommend the book "The Lee's of Virginia" if anyone would like to get a better understanding of how involved they were in the forming of our nation.

But I'm getting a little off topic here so..

 

[GNLaFrance]

GN, the facts are the facts......and the above quote you attributed to me.....is threebands.

Correct. I was careless. My bad.

Lets get the facts straight ok?

Does that mean you're sailing on a new tack?

The Washington Post isn't a reliable, unbiased source of information that even comes close to being historically accurate.

Wasn't it you that was poo poo-ing second hand info a couple pages ago?

So, what does that make the Compost article you referenced as fact? 43'rd hand info or simply "Tribal Knowledge"?

So, no, you're still on the same course.

You repeat your ad hominem attack? First of all, I laugh at your lecturing me about using second hand documentation. You have dodged and weaved and weaseled out of using any period documentation, and for a good reason: it doesn't support your assertions.

Second, there is not one point made in the Post article that you can debunk using period documentation. Not one. Everything in the article is based on actual, documented historical fact, and don't give me that nonsense about the "winners write the history", I've already proven that wrong.

You can do what you've done here all along, make your points loudly and frequently and with great emotional display, but they are still wrong.

I know this is really tough for a lot of folks to swallow because its been rammed down your throats your entire lives but Lincoln was not a hero, He was a tyrant that violated the constitution, rights of citizens and bullied congress under threat of imprisonment to get them to do his bidding.

Sit down before you read this.

While typically over-the-top, the basic point you make there is true. Lincoln did violate the Constitution and the rights of citizens. He did it as emergency measures to save the Union. He suspended habeus corpus in specific areas and for specific times, and on occasion, for specific individuals. But there is no instance you can show us where the suspension of rights was open-ended; it always had a date or condition when it no longer applied.

He did not "bully Congress under threat of imprisonment." At least, if he did, this is the first time I've read of it. Strange how other unsupported rhetorical rantings of Southern apologists seem to make no mention of it. Here's a good one, by one David Dieteman, who is basically a barking moonbat of the kind we all here love to disparage; I think that, if he had found anything about threatening Congress with imprisonment, he'd have mentioned it. A Guide for the Perplexed: What's the Matter With Abe Lincoln.

How many people know that Lincoln issued an arrest warrant for Chief Justice Roger B. Taney after he issued an opinion that only Congress could constitutionally suspend habeas corpus

How many people know that he deported his chief critic in the House, one Representative Vallandigham

How many people know that Lincoln jailed tens of thousands of political opponents and people that dared to oppose him?

How many people know about the NY City Draft Riots or the newspapers that Lincoln ordered shut down for voicing opposition to him.

Lincoln did what he had to do to save the Union. He did not go to war to destroy slavery, he did it to save the Union. He ordered the arrest of hundreds of people, not tens of thousands--more over-the-top from you there, wipe the spittle off your chin--and he did it to save the Union. He did not go to war to destroy your precious South, he did it to save the Union. Are you seeing a pattern here? No, of course not, silly of me to ask.

In any case, to put things in perspective, EVERYBODY knows these things. You're not talking to ignoramuses; you're talking to people who don't share your biases and prejudices.

This silly Straussian neocon/Union League propaganda GNLaFrance and threeband keep pushing ignores the facts and discourages folks from looking any further at the root causes.

Obscure literary allusions don't impress me. And that part about ignoring facts and "discouraging folks from looking any further at the root causes" is an outright lie. Threeband and I have been presenting facts all along; we have encouraged people to find them for themselves all along.

These events and facts are littered throughout the historical record for anyone to read should they choose to.....but thats the problem....no one wants to recognize the oozing warts of this period of american history and attempt to take a simpleton approach and blame "Slavery".....slavery was nothing more than a symptom.[/QOUTE]

"Slavery was nothing more than a symptom" is a wonderfully facile thing to say. The degradation of an entire people, their treatment as mere property, to be worked to death, whipped, mutilated, murdered, to have their children and loved ones sent away forever, never to be seen or heard from again, to grind them under the heel of permanent, backbreaking service, to deny them the skills to read and write, to advance themselves and make better lives for their children, etc. And all with the permission, even the approval, of the law, tradition, and culture.

"Come on, it was just a symptom, like a runny nose or a fever."

"I have always thought that all men should be free; but if any should be slaves, it should be first those who desire it for themselves, and secondly, those who desire it for others. When I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally." ~ Abraham Lincoln

I've read everything you've read, and more. I haven't, like you, only read books that support my prejudices; I've read books from both sides and made up my own mind, after changing it twice.

And everything above this line is completely beside the point. Here's the point that JPK of the 1st Maryland dares not even admit is a question, let alone answer it:

Secession and the Civil War quite simply was about Self Governance, Power, Control and Money/Wealth/Resources....the same thing ALL Wars are fought over....folks can argue till they're blue in the face but these are the least common denominators.

"How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of *****es?" ~ Dr. Samuel Johnson

That's the fourth time you've said that. Okay, one more time...

You're right. The South fought the War to preserve and defend all those things. But when you say that, you're dancing around the elephant in the living room. All the bloviating about Lincoln and habeus corpus and all that happy horse pucky is nothing more than a smoke screen to try to keep people from seeing that ponderous pachyderm sitting there, messing up your romantic fantasies.

The elephant, of course, is the reason why they fought for those things, and that was because their economic system, their wealth, their very way of life, were threatened.

And what was the foundation of their wealth? What was the basis of the economic system that made the South a land of mint juleps, cavaliers, and sybaritic ease?

All your ranting, roaring, foaming at the mouth, desperately trying to avoid the point, smoke and mirrors aside, the question is, "What was the cause of secession?"

I know you know the answer. Everyone reading this knows the answer.

The South had the honesty to answer the question 150 years ago.

Why don't you?

 

[Splitter]

I can't believe you all are still arguing about this so I am popping out to put in my two cents. Herein follows possibly the longest post in MDS history .

I am terrible with dates and names but I love history and have studied this subject, so take it for what it's worth.

The answer about the slavery question is yes and no.

Prior to the war, the south was in a bad situation politically. Because of population differences they were the minority in congress. If an "abolitionist" gained the White House and decided to put the screws to them, they were sunk.

Prior to the war, the north was in expansion mode. They were industrializing and had control of congress. Abolition was a fairly minor issue to them. Sure, the practice in the south was an embarrassment but they were not going to go to war to rid the country of slavery. It wasn't worth it to them.

Western territories were becoming states. The south wanted them to be slave holding states, the north wanted them to be "free". Which way those new states went would determine the future balance of power in congress.

Enter a tall, gangly westerner: Lincoln. He abhorred slavery but, like many in the north, he was not going to invade the south to save the slaves. He was elected by a narrow margin with total opposition from the south.

The south was in turmoil over his election because they knew the western states would be brought into the union as "anti-slavery" states. The south would be even more beholden to the decisions of the north. People in the south felt out of control of their own destiny.

The north calls it the Civil War, the south calls it the War of Northern Aggression or "The Second Revolution". Some southern states decided that rather then being subjected to such power in the north, they would take their ball and go home. But, Lincoln refused to "start" a war.

So, a few people in South Carolina decided to force the north's hand and laid siege to Ft. Sumpter. Lincoln and the north had two choices: let that federal fort fall and accept secession or re-enforce it. There really was no choice, they decided to re-enforce.

HAH! Said the people in power in the south. See what they have done? They have sent troops into the south to suppress us!

As these things usually go, the people in power in the south were mostly rich. Which meant that they owned slaves. They believed in slavery. They had to, their agrarian fortunes were based on slave labor.

The average southerner did not own slaves. The average farm boy that went to war did so to fight what they saw as an invading force.

See how the people in charge in the south had their own agenda hidden behind "liberty" and "freedom"?

The average soldier in the north probably thought slavery was wrong but was in no hurry to go to war over it. Preserving the union, bringing the south back into line, was a much more motivating factor.

Unfortunately for the north, that motivation was not enough. They had to go to great lengths, including the draft, to raise armies as the war progressed and more men were needed.

The average northerner's attitude could probably be summed up as, "Yes, we care, but not that much."

What every good war needs is a moral cause. The south had theirs in "northern aggression". The north cultivated both the preservation of the union and abolition. The Emancipation Proclamation was the "high point" in the north's effort to energize its' population.

Lincoln's advisers did not want him to make the proclamation. It was controversial because of the slave holding states in the north and mixed feelings on slavery in the west. Plus, it certainly energized the southern population! They now had even more proof, in their minds, of northern tyranny.

Never forget God in this whole process. Both sides thought God was on their side. To the southerns, God was freedom (I know, ironic). To the north God was the cause for the great American experiment that the south was trying to end. And, of course, slavery was against Christian values.

Make no mistake, Lincoln was a political animal. He was not only forced into a war with the south, he had to hold his cabinet together and ask the northern population to make sacrifices. Yes, he ran roughshod over the laws and the constitution. To preserve the union, he had to. How right or wrong that was is up for debate.

Also make no mistake that politicians and people of influence in the south wanted to preserve their power which meant preserving slavery.

So at best, the northern population and soldiers fought to preserve the union, because they were forced to, and then to abolish slavery. The southern population fought to drive the northerners out of "their states" and to have a say in the future of their new "country".

The differences that were most telling during the war were the north's higher population, higher degree of industrial capacity (especially artillery), better railroads, better telegraph, and far better navy.

For the south, their assets were motivation (unity), generalship, and terrain.

If earlier northern generals were more aggressive and competent, the war would have ended far sooner. McClellen was a great example in that he was an outstanding organizer and good motivator, but he fought to avoid a loss more than he fought to win.

Southern generals, except for a couple notable examples out west, tended to be excellent motivators and "game day" tacticians. Their organizations, however, were often chaotic and their logistics were poor given the southern inability to produce food and goods.

The south was doomed from the start and held on as long as it did only with fighting spirit and superior generalship. In the end, the superior numbers and equipment of the north won out.

The first great hope of the south was to be able to fight the north to a stalemate. If they could make the war costly enough, the north would give up. Second, if they could do well enough to be recognized (and supported) by France and England the north would find itself with much larger problems than losing the southern states. Slavery prevented Britain from ever being able to support the south and France would not move without Britain.

Lee invaded the north for supplies and to give southern diplomats the ability to say to foreign powers, "See? We can win this war.". His other reason was to take pressure off the south and southern food production. If he could threaten Baltimore and Washington, the north would have to pull forces to deal with those threats. He was partially successful. It seemed he was always fighting to make it through the year and into the winter months hoping spring would bring better options.

Yes, Lee could have won at Gettysburg. He could have won the battle earlier and he could have won on the day of "Picket's Charge". His subordinates let him down earlier and his artillery let him down on the day of the charge. He didn't recognize the ineffectiveness of the southern barrage and thus sent his men into what seems, in retrospect, a foolhardy charge.

Still, even if he had won in Gettysburg, the northern army would not have simply folded and vanished.

Lee's army, however, was also in danger of being cut off and wiped out several times. His retreats from Antietam and Gettysburg were prime examples where lack of aggression by northern generals saved him. Lincoln had to keep replacing his generals because of this and had to reach far to the west to find one that would fight.

So who caused the war? I say it was the Founding Fathers although they had no way around it. They punted on the question of slavery because if they had outlawed it, the southern states would never have signed on. Leaving such a large question unanswered set the stage for future conflict.

In the days leading up to the war, the north was dismissive of the south. They didn't need their votes and found the institution of slavery an embarrassment.

The south could have avoided the war by changing their economy which would have meant ending the most abhorrent practice of slavery. The north had even offered a "buy back" program for slaves in which the southern slaveholders would be federally compensated for their release.

The war was about power. The northern powers wanted expansion and a place on the world stage, the south stood in their way. The southern powers wanted to preserve their political influence and fortunes, which meant slavery.

In the end (which was the beginning of the war), the south forced the north to invade. With shouts of "just leave us be!", they did things that gave the north no choice but to send troops in order to preserve the union.

Now, imagine if the south had succeeded in secession and formed it's own country. Slavery would have lasted for decades, maybe into the twentieth century. The two countries would have fought over western territories at some point. Texas would be part of Mexico or drum roll, France. The south would have lost any future conflicts out west with the north and would now be another Mexico: poor.

The war could have been averted but in the same sense, it was inevitable because of slavery. However, slavery was not the moral cause to the war in that the north didn't care enough about the slaves to sacrifice. Slavery was not the moral cause for young southern men to fight, but it was the cause behind the cries of "freedom" for the people who had power in the south.

Here again, however, make no mistake that the ONLY thing that would have prevented the inevitable war was the abolition of slavery in the south, by the south. If the south had freed the slaves before 1860, there would have been no need for the war.

But when do people willingly give up power?

Splitter

 

[jjbduke2004]

<SNIP>

 

[pop-gunner]

 

[T-Man]

The differences that were most telling during the war were the north's higher population, higher degree of industrial capacity (especially artillery), better railroads, better telegraph, and far better navy.

For the south, their assets were motivation (unity), generalship, and terrain.

If earlier northern generals were more aggressive and competent, the war would have ended far sooner. McClellen was a great example in that he was an outstanding organizer and good motivator, but he fought to avoid a loss more than he fought to win.

Southern generals, except for a couple notable examples out west, tended to be excellent motivators and "game day" tacticians. Their organizations, however, were often chaotic and their logistics were poor given the southern inability to produce food and goods.

The south was doomed from the start and held on as long as it did only with fighting spirit and superior generalship. In the end, the superior numbers and equipment of the north won out.

Splitter, nice post generally, but this is also known as the "Lost Cause" myth that was created by the defeated Southern generals and politicians in the post war years. If you are interested, debunking of the Lost Cause myth and how it was created is pretty fascinating reading.

It also contains presented as fact the Southern generals are better argument, I won't call it myth because frankly I agree that they were better as a whole, but that can be debated until the cows come home.

 

[GNLaFrance]

Southern apologists claim that the South "just wanted to be left alone," but the South wasn't willing to reciprocate. The South demanded that:
- Northern citizens be required to pursue, capture and return runaway slaves (indentured service);
- Northern newspapers, preachers and state officials be forbidden to speak against slavery (free speech);
- Northern states not be allowed to pass laws against slavery (so much for "state's rights");
- Northern states in which a Southerner traveled with his slaves could not interfere with him if he chose to sell, beat, whip, or kill a slave, even in public (in most places citizens couldn't do this to an animal, but a slaveowner could do it to his "property.")