Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
rudi32

war of northern aggression

Recommended Posts

I have to agree that the war was not started over slavery. It hurts most to admit it and they think its revisionist history. But its not, The war was started over states rights not slavery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='646746' date='Mar 27 2008, 10:58 PM']Dance, Christian!

(NSFW)
[/quote]

:o :mellow: :huh: :lol:

Wowwwwwww....

I don't think I could ever live in the South.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='slim15' post='668098' date='May 26 2008, 12:47 AM']I have to agree that the war was not started over slavery. It hurts most to admit it and they think its revisionist history. But its not, The war was started over states rights not slavery.[/quote]
I will agree with one part of one of your sentences...the War was fought over one state's right, in particular.
The right for a southern state to keep slavery legal.

Think about it this way: If it was just over "state rights," then why is it that only states where slavery was profitable became involved? Read over some of the Secession Proclamations issued by states like VA and SC, and you get a real idea about what [i]they[/i] were concerned with:
[size=1]"The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

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."
[/size]

This is taken verbatim from South Carolina's "Declaration", and its meaning is pretty clear.


Also, the entire course of the Civil War shows the Government in Richmond, VA was not supportive of State's rights. The Confederacy only had such sizable armies because they were the first government in American history to institute a forced draft, even in states like Kentucky and Missouri that had not allied themselves with the Confederate Government. What you have, basically, is a military dictatorship running the Confederate Government, kidnapping soldiers from border states.
Where do states rights factor into that?



I realize why "State's Rights" or any of this other nonsense is appealing-because Great-Grandaddy was a Colonel for the Grays or because you happen to live in an area that has fashioned itself as a previously-Confederate locale. If it helps you sleep at night, you can tell yourself that people were just following orders or were otherwise coerced into supporting the South, as this was often the case.

That doesn't mean, however, that you can say that the war occurred for any other reason than for the maintaining of the institution of slavery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='#22' post='668276' date='May 27 2008, 12:56 PM']I will agree with one part of one of your sentences...the War was fought over one state's right, in particular.
The right for a southern state to keep slavery legal.

Think about it this way: If it was just over "state rights," then why is it that only states where slavery was profitable became involved? Read over some of the Secession Proclamations issued by states like VA and SC, and you get a real idea about what [i]they[/i] were concerned with:
[size=1]"The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

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."
[/size]

This is taken verbatim from South Carolina's "Declaration", and its meaning is pretty clear.


Also, the entire course of the Civil War shows the Government in Richmond, VA was not supportive of State's rights. The Confederacy only had such sizable armies because they were the first government in American history to institute a forced draft, even in states like Kentucky and Missouri that had not allied themselves with the Confederate Government. What you have, basically, is a military dictatorship running the Confederate Government, kidnapping soldiers from border states.
Where do states rights factor into that?



I realize why "State's Rights" or any of this other nonsense is appealing-because Great-Grandaddy was a Colonel for the Grays or because you happen to live in an area that has fashioned itself as a previously-Confederate locale. If it helps you sleep at night, you can tell yourself that people were just following orders or were otherwise coerced into supporting the South, as this was often the case.

That doesn't mean, however, that you can say that the war occurred for any other reason than for the maintaining of the institution of slavery.[/quote]


B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Jamie_B' post='668288' date='May 27 2008, 01:55 PM']B)[/quote]


yes, did the land owners want to keep their slaves? of course they did, like today, they are the rich politicians that made the laws. Like today, i will give u an example.

The current US army fighting in Iraq. Do you think that most of them are fighting for the govt of Iraq or for the buddy next to them. Ask any soldier, (most), not all could care less about Iraq. They care about their buddy. They are there for them.

The soldiers of the south were fighting for their home, there family and friends. They could care less about slavery. The problem is, history has been distorted by almost 150 years of the winners writing history. The average southern soldier lived on a small family farm, and never owned a slave. The large plantions were run by the rich. There were millions of slaves in the south, but those millions were owned by the rich and not the common man who made up the southern army. I have read the SC articles of seccession, as u posted, and as I said, they were writing by the slave holders. The real tragedy was that the rich slave holders lead the poor into the war.

It was the idea of the southern states that they could leave the union if they felt the union wasnt going in the "direction" they wanted. and I contend that they were right to leave. Its like a bad relationship, if u want to leave you should be able to.

At least thats what they thought.

Did slavery have something to do with the war?, of course, I am not saying it didn't. I am saying it didn't have such a major cause as you stated above.

I will never forget the famouse quote by lincohn, I will paraphrase it, until I find it next week, He said If I could keep the union together and keep slavery I would. I believe it was made in 1862, a year before the eman proc. He cared about keeping the union together, not slavery, at least not till 1863, when he needed something to help the unions cause, with riots in NYC and the public calling for peace.

Its too easy to say the war was over slavery. Like today, wars are not over 1 thing, nor are they that simplified. so dont simplify the civil war, unless that helps you sleep at night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's the quote, Lincoln to Greeley in 1862:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."

Serious students of the Civil War tend to incline more towards 22's perspective, as they understand the point you are trying to make, slim: it wasn't that simple. Briefly, it was a fight over political economy in both broad and narrow terms: broad because of the philosophical debate about the nature of political economic practice, which was a fairly new "science" at the time. This caused much heated debate in the decades prior to the war and included various conceptions of human nature, human behavior, morality and ethics, as well as how humans ought to behave in community (or in "association," which was the vogue term then.) More narrowly, people then, as now, were susceptible to becoming "single issue zealots" and acted accordingly. Slavery tops the list from this period, as you almost acknowledge, though you seem to suggest that sectionalism holds the higher ground which animated people.

My advice to you (and anyone) would be to truly grapple with the "union" vs. "separatist" ideologies as they motivated people then, particularly from the perspective of political economy. This subsuming, top-down, orientation to understanding the 1820-1865 period would preclude many conceptual fallacies which are still commonly asserted from gaining traction, not the least of which is a form of "Southern romanticism" which, in many ways, continues to hold this nation back to this day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='669124' date='May 31 2008, 03:25 AM']Here's the quote, Lincoln to Greeley in 1862:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."

Serious students of the Civil War tend to incline more towards 22's perspective, as they understand the point you are trying to make, slim: it wasn't that simple. Briefly, it was a fight over political economy in both broad and narrow terms: broad because of the philosophical debate about the nature of political economic practice, which was a fairly new "science" at the time. This caused much heated debate in the decades prior to the war and included various conceptions of human nature, human behavior, morality and ethics, as well as how humans ought to behave in community (or in "association," which was the vogue term then.) More narrowly, people then, as now, were susceptible to becoming "single issue zealots" and acted accordingly. Slavery tops the list from this period, as you almost acknowledge, though you seem to suggest that sectionalism holds the higher ground which animated people.

My advice to you (and anyone) would be to truly grapple with the "union" vs. "separatist" ideologies as they motivated people then, particularly from the perspective of political economy. This subsuming, top-down, orientation to understanding the 1820-1865 period would preclude many conceptual fallacies which are still commonly asserted from gaining traction, not the least of which is a form of "Southern romanticism" which, in many ways, continues to hold this nation back to this day.[/quote]

Thank you for the intelligent response.

I agree that a leading cause was economic, that economics being slavery. I guess I get upset when people simply dumb down the war and say slavery..blah blah, union good confederate bad, with out really looking into the entire situation. What is hard for the educated and the uneducated is to look at the war through mid 19th century eyes. we, now living in the 21st century have different perspectives and views on life, be it from outside influences, technology etc. That makes it more difficult IMO. I try to be open and put myself back in that time. To see it from both a northern and southern POV.

I just started going back to NKU, I am a social studies education major. I will be a history teacher when I am done. Sadly it has taken me almost 35 years to come to this decision. I realized that history is my passion and I want to teach it, so I am changing my career. I can only go part time cause I have to work full time and support my family, but in app 5 years Ill be teaching, so Im excited. I guess I got off course, bit I am thankful for tis section and look forward to some good discussions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whoo-hoo! Score another one for historiography! You know, of course, slim, that by becoming a historian/teacher, you'll be pinching pennies for the rest of your life!

Seriously, though, best wishes on your endeavor. I hope you'll do well.

As complex as the causes for the Civil War were, it's also not a mistake to consider slavery as an excellent fulcrum to lift one's studies. That's because the institution opens so many doors with respect to deeper studies. The problem is when analysis remains at the superficial level.

For example, 22 showed a direct link between slavery and secession. Can't be denied. Following up on that wedge would open questions about the character of South Carolinian [i]mores[/i] insofar as the definition of what it means to be human is concerned. That thread of investigation would eventually lead any honest person to the straightforward and indisputable positions that are enshrined in the Declaration of 1776:

[quote]We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.[/quote]

So far, so good. Now, note the previous paragraph in the Declaration, as it is crucial:

[quote]When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.[/quote]

"...necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands...."

"..."separate and equal station..."

"...Laws of Nature and Nature's God..."

Consider this approach to be one facet of the drive for independence. It's the philosophical side. One could spend a lifetime just exploring here.

But also, consider the more mundane realm of day-to-day life. It begs questions about S.C. history, too. Is it an accident that the Revolutionary-era Tory hotbed of the South led the way to later secession? What about those "four score and seven" intervening years with respect to U.S. history? For example, in my case, way back when I was focused on these issues, I experienced some cognative dissonance. How was it possible for the 1776 expression of "separation" to be good policy while the 1861 version to be, well, pretty tainted? And that lead back to questions regarding the serious debate about the "Rights of Man" as Tom Paine put it. On these grounds, the answers are, once again, pretty straightforward--provided one delves deeply enough. At least so it seems to me.

Here's what happened in my course of studies in college. I had started with PolySci/English majors, but by the time I finished my sophomore year, I had shifted into History/Philosophy. As a frosh, I had written a paper for an English composition course to satisfy the "learn how to write an argument paper" meme, entitled: "The Causes of the Civil War." I've still got it and even 30 years later, I can see the worth of a few insights I discovered as I made my argument. But that's not what stands out to me now and I'm thankful that I recognized it then, too. It was not the content of my argument which left me unsatisfied, it was what I left out--which had been pointed out to me by the professor. It was, to display my age, a "thing that made me go, hmm."

More or less at the same time, one of the assigned readings in a PolySci class was a book by Garry Wills titled, [u]Nixon Agonistes[/u], which was a play on John Milton's great "Samson Agonistes." (Remember, this was in the wake of Watergate, about 5 years previous.) I was impressed by the Wills book and undertook a personal exploration which led me to his book on the Declaration of Independence, titled [u]Inventing America[/u]. His exploration of the "Enlightenment" background to the Declaration was instructive, but also left me with some questions--particularly around John Locke and the phrase "pursuit of happiness." Which also left me wanting to dig deeper as I wasn't fully satisfied. Eventually, I read Locke's, [u]An Essay Concerning Human Understanding[/u] and came to the conclusion that, "he ain't all that"--especially as an epistemologist. In fact, it was Locke's crappy empiricist epistemology which drove me into the "Continentalist" camp (and by that I mean the countervailing rationalist philosophy prevalent in Europe at the time.)

I'm pretty sure that 22 knows where I am going with all this rambling, but I'll make it explicit. There's no denying that John Locke had some influence on deliberations around the Constitutional debates, but more particulrly, he had some direct influence on the development of the Constitution(s) of the Carolinas. (His boss was a proprietor of the Carolina colony before it split into North and South, and Locke contributed to the 17th century pre-revolutionary "Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina.")

Of more importance, though, are the differing concepts about what was meant by natural law, which Locke also contributed to as a political philosopher. It is, in my opinion, the still ongoing debate over the meaning of this term which contributes greatly to the bipolar nature of U.S. political and social history. And at the essence of this schizophrenia are the simultaneous holding of contradictory notions: that all humans are created equal and that chattel slavery was acceptable.

Follow this thread through the period between 1776 and 1861 and a lot of wheat gets sorted from chaff. Some examples:

--what's the difference between the "pursuit of happiness" and the "pursuit of property?" (Locke's central formulation.)
--how was it possible for so many otherwise sane thinkers to entertain crazy arguments about whether or not Negroes were truly human? How much of this was just an argumentum ad absurdum following a bad axiom to its logical (and extreme) conclusions?
--what's the deal with Calhoun? Why the radical changes in his views during his career?
--more broadly, to what extent was the southern economy, hinged on slavery and based on the export trade, a factor in regional and national politics? Why did the south resist attempts at economic integration as put forth by many folks from the north then experiencing some rapid expansion, especially in Pennsylvania?

And, as I suggested earlier, perhaps the key question of them all: Why the confusion/conflation over the validity of arguments regarding political separation? Why was it good in 1776 and bad in 1861? (And it was good in 1776 and bad in 1861, I have never seen a good argument to the contrary, though many attempts have been made.)

Closely examining the institution of slavery will lead a diligent person in all these directions, not to mention numerous specific examples of the havoc and harm to individual slaves. And, in counterpoint, in many cases the heroic behavior of those enslaved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[url="http://www.tampabay.com/news/humaninterest/article551722.ece?75"]Speak of the devil and the political overtones of Southern romanticism...[/url]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Jamie_B' date='10 April 2010 - 10:26 PM' timestamp='1270952775' post='876598']
[media][url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJeyeIPNEiU"]http://www.youtube.c...h?v=zJeyeIPNEiU[/url][/media]
[/quote]

Fossil-digger-upper!

Zombie thread reviver!

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Bunghole' date='10 April 2010 - 10:48 PM' timestamp='1270954134' post='876602']
Fossil-digger-upper!

Zombie thread reviver!

:lol:
[/quote]


:lol:

Sorry just had an argument with my neighbor down the street about this stuff, because of the whole VA celebrating Confederate History Month. It reminded me of this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Jamie_B' date='10 April 2010 - 10:54 PM' timestamp='1270954457' post='876606']
:lol:

Sorry just had an argument with my neighbor down the street about this stuff, because of the whole VA celebrating Confederate History Month. It reminded me of this thread.
[/quote]

Well, since you are a current VA resident and I am a former one, then we can both agree that VA was on the right side of this blasphemous civil war, and that the Union was totally wrong, and that Lincoln was a fag with a beard.

**cracks whip**

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Bunghole' date='10 April 2010 - 10:56 PM' timestamp='1270954573' post='876607']
Well, since you are a current VA resident and I am a former one, then we can both agree that VA was on the right side of this blasphemous civil war, and that the Union was totally wrong, and that Lincoln was a fag with a beard.

**cracks whip**
[/quote]


what kind of homo has a beard with no mustache?

:ninja:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Jamie_B' date='10 April 2010 - 11:00 PM' timestamp='1270954826' post='876608']
what kind of homo has a beard with no mustache?

:ninja:
[/quote]

Now you're speaking the language of The South.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Bunghole' date='11 April 2010 - 01:31 AM' timestamp='1270963894' post='876628']
Now you're speaking the language of The South.....
[/quote]


:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...