PDA

View Full Version : American Civil War - which faction was right?



Drömmarnas Stig
Wednesday, February 9th, 2005, 07:31 PM
Although I'm German, this war fascinated me ever since I was a little boy.
I played "North and South" on my old Amiga, loved the TV-series of the same name. Even bought a book about equipment for 20 dollars when I was twelve years old...

In other words, besides World War 2, this conflict interests me most in military history.
From the beginning I favoured the grey over the blue.
I always had a heart for underdogs.

This conflict must have been the best example for David vs. Goliath in all modern history.

North: 21 million people
South: 5 million plus 4 million slaves

As if this fact wouldn't be enough, even more important was the total superiority of industry.
All confederate states combined produced only one quarter of goods of the state of New York alone. In a modern war that's a lost cause.

Shelby Foote once said: I believe the South never had a chance...


If they had a chance (defensive doctrine, decisive battles...), there are a lot of different opinions how the South could have won the war, this is not the question.
Although, if you wish, we can discuss this as well!

My question is: Which faction do you favour?

I once wrote a four-page topic in a German forum about this war with detailled battle descriptions. Unfortunately I can't find it anymore. If I do, I will translate it and post it in this thread.
-------------------------

My opinion:

Please bear in mind that this war was never about slaves. As Lincoln himself said, "if I could save the union without freeing one slave, I would do it...".
Only when victory was certain in 1863, he talked about slaves.

If the confederate states would have known that once they enter this union they were never allowed to leave it again, they would have never entered it.
All they did was leaving the union which they thought would be their democratic right.
Lincoln refused to acknowledge that and thus provoked the war by not withdrawing union forces from confederate territory.

Also remember that slavery was allowed in all states of the USA then. It was not a southern invention nor did they plan to have slavery forever.
It's just that an agricultural nation is much more dependent on slaves than an industrial one.
The south would have abolished slavery within a few decades, but Lincoln wanted it to happen at once.
He provoked this war.

At last, keep in mind that the greatest war criminal on both sides was William Tecumseh Sherman who left behind scorched earth in Georgia on his infamous march to the sea.

Fraxinus Excelsior
Wednesday, February 9th, 2005, 07:58 PM
My question is: Which faction do you favour?Since my family fought for the North, and I've spent my entire life in the South surrounded by American Civil War cemeteries, historical groups (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=31050), etc., I'm undecided as to which side I would view to be correct.

All I can say is, I can see how the South would want to leave the Union, but I can also see how the North wouldn't want to let the South leave.

Drömmarnas Stig
Wednesday, February 9th, 2005, 08:15 PM
All I can say is, I can see how the South would want to leave the Union, but I can also see how the North wouldn't want to let the South leave.
First of all:
Your background is pretty much what fascinates me about this war. There was no clear enemy, after all, they were brothers and sister.
In German medieval times we had a 30-year long war over frickin' religion which devasted the country and led to nothing.

You can understand both causes, fine by me.
But! This was not the question. If by a margin, please try to estimate which side was right in your opinion. Think of yourself as a judge in a too close to call trial. :D

Agrippa
Wednesday, February 9th, 2005, 08:48 PM
The Yankees had just luck and too much ressources, as always. They weren't the better soldiers, as always.

Anyway, for the world it would have been better if the North would have lost and the dark path of America would've been prevented - so the desastrous influence on Europe.

Allenson
Wednesday, February 9th, 2005, 09:13 PM
An interesting question and from a German no less! ;)

I am from the North (but not the urban, industrial North) and I have one ancestor who fought for the Union, losing his left arm and also being shot through his left brest according the family lore. I can personally attest to the left arm as I have seen old photos of him sans arm... So, in many ways, my heart is with, what we call, the Northcountry (the Adirondaks, Vermont, NH & Maine)....

....However, from a political standpoint and from the standpoint of the notions of freedom and independence which at one time were the cornerstones of America, I have sympathies for the Confederacy and I can not help but wonder about the state of affairs in the world today had the South won the war.

Tripredacus
Wednesday, February 9th, 2005, 09:58 PM
I am also not sure which to pick, but from the research I have done on the Civil War, I feel that the South would have won if Lee had taken Jackson's warnings to heart.

Also, I have no family ties during the Civil War since my family had come over from Europe on "the boat." :)

Drömmarnas Stig
Wednesday, February 9th, 2005, 10:00 PM
First of all, thank you all for your interest!

I would like to clear things regarding a confederate victory.
This couldn't have been a total victory, they couldn't have annexed the union. That was never their intention nor would it have been possible.
Harry Turtledove describes it better than I ever could.

I couldn't tell how long the CSA would have existed. I am sure though that the world would have been a better place.
Just for one reason, the USA would have never become the undisputed power in the world.
It would have been weakened by the loss of its agricultural sector.

Therefore it couldn't have tipped the scale in "The Great War", therefore we would have never seen WW2 because Germany would have won WW1.

Anywho, history is written by the winners (please don't shoot me for this stretched phrase).
Lincoln is the greatest president of all time :~(
Jefferson Davis is the impersonation of the devil...

The south did not only lose, it was annihilated, it was raped.
It completely ceased to exist and fell prey to carpetbeggars and other scum.
It was a total defeat despite the noble cause.

I doubt that southerners were racists who fought for the preservation of slavery. Heck, who really owned slaves in the south? A minority, yet the majority wanted to fight the Yanks.
Why?
Because they denied them the right of freedom, the right choose whether they wanted to stay in the union or not.
They chose as free men to leave it, they fought as free men for their liberty, they died and were defeated as free men...

Fraxinus Excelsior
Wednesday, February 9th, 2005, 11:09 PM
First of all:
Your background is pretty much what fascinates me about this war. There was no clear enemy, after all, they were brothers and sister.
In German medieval times we had a 30-year long war over frickin' religion which devasted the country and led to nothing.

[QUOTE=Nibelung]You can understand both causes, fine by me.
But! This was not the question. If by a margin, please try to estimate which side was right in your opinion. Think of yourself as a judge in a too close to call trial. :D OK, then I would say the Union was right; the South's (successful) secession would have been economically damaging to both the USA and the CSA.

Anyway, the South would probably have returned to the USA within 25-50 years.

JoeDas
Wednesday, February 9th, 2005, 11:42 PM
My question is: Which faction do you favour?I favor the Union side. Allow me to sum up my position by quoting these excerpts from Lincoln's Gettysburg Address:

"Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure.
...
we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."


Only when victory was certain in 1863, he talked about slaves.The Emancipation Proclamation was issued before the battle of Gettysburg and before the fall of Vicksburg. Victory was definitely not a certainty for the North at that point.


Also remember that slavery was allowed in all states of the USA then.Actually this is incorrect. Every state north of the Mason-Dixon had long since abolished slavery when the rabid Roman Catholic P.G.T. Beauregard attacked Fort Sumter. Only a few border states that did not secede had slaves.


The south would have abolished slavery within a few decades, but Lincoln wanted it to happen at once.
He provoked this war.The Southern states started the war by seceeding in the first place and then attacking a federal fort in South Carolina.

Just for one reason, the USA would have never become the undisputed power in the world.
It would have been weakened by the loss of its agricultural sector.The Midwest (a solidly Northern area), had the capacity to produce more food than the South did.

Appalachian
Wednesday, February 9th, 2005, 11:59 PM
The number of the Confederate States has increased to eleven, and their Government is firmly established and consolidated. Maintaining in the field an army of 200,000 men, the war became for them but a succession of victories. Disclaiming any intention to invade the Northern States, they sought only to repel invaders from their own soil and to secure the right of governing themselves. They claimed only the privilege asserted by the Declaration of American Independence, and on which the right of the Northern States themselves to self-government is founded, of altering their form of government when it became no longer tolerable and establishing new forms for the security of their liberties.

Throughout the Confederate States we saw this great revolution effected without violence or the suspension of the laws or the closing of the courts. The military power was nowhere placed above the civil authorities. None were seized and imprisoned at the mandate of arbitrary power. All division among the people disappeared, and the determination became unanimous that there should never again be any union with the Northern States. Almost as one man all who were able to bear arms rushed to the defense of an invaded country, and nowhere has it been found necessary to compel men to serve or to enlist mercenaries by the offer of extraordinary bounties.

. . .

In States which still adhered to the Union a military despotism has displaced the civil power and the laws became silent amid arms. Free speech and almost free thought became a crime. The right to the writ of habeas corpus, guaranteed by the Constitution, disappeared at the nod of a Secretary of State or a general of the lowest grade. The mandate of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was set at naught by the military power, and this outrage on common right approved by a President sworn to support the Constitution. War on the largest scale was waged, and the immense bodies of troops called into the field in the absence of any law warranting it under the pretense of suppressing unlawful combination of men. The humanities of war, which even barbarians respect, were no longer thought worthy to be observed. Foreign mercenaries and the scum of cities and the inmates of prisons were enlisted and organized into regiments and brigades and sent into Southern States to aid in subjugating a people struggling for freedom, to burn, to plunder, and to commit the basest of outrages on women; while the heels of armed tyranny trod upon the necks of Maryland and Missouri, and men of the highest character and position were incarcerated upon suspicion and without process of law in jails, in forts, and in prison-ships, and even women were imprisoned by the arbitrary order of a President and Cabinet ministers; while the press ceased to be free, the publication of newspapers was suspended and their issues seized and destroyed; the officers and men taken prisoner in battle were allowed to remain in captivity by the refusal of their Government to consent to an exchange of prisoners; as they had left their dead on more than one field of battle that had witnessed their defeat to be buried and their wounded to be cared for by Southern hands.


I have often been moved by this passage, and consider it to be among one of the most important historical documents in American history. Though others have made similar statements even more eloquently, the document from which this passage was extracted effectively shatters many myths.

What group issued this scathing indictment of the Lincoln government and the supporters of Unionism? Not the slave-owning aristocracy of the Southern plantations; not racist, backward, evil men (as today's teachers of "history" would have us believe; not White men bent on maintaining their domination of the south. No, this document was issued by the Cherokee Nation in their Declaration by the People of the Cherokee Nation of the Causes Which Have Impelled Them to Unite Their Fortunes With Those of the Confederate States of America (http://www.freedomunderground.org/cherdeccause.html). This Indian nation, along with the other nations making up the "Five Civilized Tribes" (Creeks, Seminoles, Choctaws, and Chickasaws), could see the danger posed by the Lincoln government as clearly as any White man of the South. Thus, they broke their treaties with the United States and allied themselves with the Confederacy.

This one document alone exposes countless lies told by those who still seek to denigrate the people of the Southland and the cause of Southern Independence.

Appalachian
Thursday, February 10th, 2005, 12:28 AM
Lincoln:
"...we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."


But it has, and Lincoln's rule was the start of a long decline.


The Emancipation Proclamation was issued before the battle of Gettysburg and before the fall of Vicksburg. Victory was definitely not a certainty for the North at that point.

The Emancipation Proclamation did not affect any territories not "in rebellion against the United States." To be precise, it affected only the following territories:

Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James, Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans), Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth)


Actually this is incorrect. Every state north of the Mason-Dixon had long since abolished slavery when the rabid Roman Catholic P.G.T. Beauregard attacked Fort Sumter. Only a few border states that did not secede had slaves.

Yes, and Lincoln's father-in-law and Ulysses Grant both owned slaves in those states. Of course, they weren't set free by Lincoln's proclamation. Additionally, Lincoln himself had formulated a plan to confiscate all Southern slaves freed by his proclamation as "contraband property" and use them as forced labor for the Unionist war effort.

BTW, I doubt Beauregard's Catholicism had much to do with his disdain for the abuses of the Lincoln government.

Oskorei
Thursday, February 10th, 2005, 11:37 AM
OK, then I would say the Union was right; the South's (successful) secession would have been economically damaging to both the USA and the CSA.

Anyway, the South would probably have returned to the USA within 25-50 years.
I think not. The South was being economically exploited by Northern bankers, being one of the complaints against the Union. Also the customs policy decided upon by Northern interests, was harmful to the agricultural South (the North was trying to build an industry of their own behind heavy customs and tariffs to protect it from British competition. The South, as an agricultural producer/exporter would have gained more from free-trade with Britain, which also explains the British support for the CSA).

Secession would have harmed the North economically, but probably not the South (it is difficult to know of course, since the after-war "reconstruction" hit the South so hard).

As might be guessed, my sympathies are with the CSA ;)

Spartacus74
Thursday, February 10th, 2005, 01:11 PM
ON one side there was a traditional european -like society based upon human activities as agricolture and stock farm, a society non economicistic and pretty pacific.

On the other side there was the prototype of Aggressive globalizing usurarian system, based upon the mass draft of an Army of slaves, with future anger wage, or forced immigrants.

The choice is natural for a man of Tradition.

CSA was the first, since that time we had Europe, East Asia and Middle East.

Huzar
Thursday, February 10th, 2005, 02:05 PM
Nobody of the two parts was clearly right. I mean, the war itself was an interest fact either for union either for confederates. Everyone, had his own economical or political advantage to do what happened, not ideal reasons. Of course, confederate objective was only the defence of their secessed states; U.S. constitution, instead european countries constitutions, gives to every state a large automony, so, i imagine , confederates states separated themselves thinking to do a LEGAL action(almost). In their perspective, at least, they were right, legally (if has any sense telling of "legality", referring to a conflict). In the same time ,in this perspective, Union government is a sort of capitalistic wolf, ready to assault the traditonal, pacific, southern gentleman. Another interesting historical hypotetic scenario : a confederate victory : in this case , i agree with re union, after some decades. Although southern victory, slavery would has finished after 40-50 years, and so the point of discordance between north and south.

ulphila
Thursday, February 10th, 2005, 03:08 PM
It's tempting to say the Confederacy, but lest we forget its economy was headed towards collapse. It never had a chance of continuing on its own with that system into the 20th century, and I'm pretty sure all economists agree on that.

Slavery wasn't the real issue, but it was used by the North as one, so lets focus on it. Albeit slavery helped the southern economy bloom, it was a mistake. It brought millions of Africans to a predominantly white society. Were they really a necessity? couldn't the white population manage on its own?

The white race was the master, whereas the Negro was the slave. But we have learned from history that slaves don't stay that way forever. They are always emancipated at a certain point, and they mix in the forming enslaving society. This was the case in America as well.
No one wanted to to the nasty jobs then, and no one want's to do them taday. Then they were slaves, today they are gastarbeiter. the result is the same.
The concliusion is, it's better that less educated whites do the the dirty jobs, than to bring coloured people to do them, because their children or grandchildren eventually demand equality, and mix into white society. And what happens after that? more people of colour come. In America in was Blacks and now it's Mexicans, Haitians etc. We all know what's going on in Europe, and for tose of you who don't, here's a challenge: goto Lonon, Berlin, Paris. Let's see if you can guess in what countries those cities are.

Racial Philosopher
Thursday, February 10th, 2005, 04:52 PM
Both North and South were financed by the bank of Rothchild - one by the London branch, the other by the Paris branch. The plan was to bunkrupt both sides and put them in dept to the Rothchild family. One side was to be destroyed and the winning side would have a huge dept and would be easily manipulated - creation of the Federal Reserve and on...

Appalachian
Thursday, February 10th, 2005, 06:15 PM
Albeit slavery helped the southern economy bloom, it was a mistake. It brought millions of Africans to a predominantly white society. Were they really a necessity? couldn't the white population manage on its own? Many of the Southern states had already banned the importation of slaves and were on their way to taking steps toward repatriation.


The white race was the master, whereas the Negro was the slave. This is not necessarily the case. While free Whites could own slaves of any race -- Black, Indian, or White (as indentured servants) -- free Blacks and Indians could own slaves of any race except White. It's estimated that around 1/4 of the people sent westward during the Indian purges commonly called the "Trail of Tears" were negro slaves owned by the Indians. 28% of the free negroes in the city of New Orleans were slaveowners.



The concliusion is, it's better that less educated whites do the the dirty jobs, than to bring coloured people to do them, because their children or grandchildren eventually demand equality, and mix into white society. I agree wholeheartedly.

Fraxinus Excelsior
Thursday, February 10th, 2005, 07:35 PM
I think not. The South was being economically exploited by Northern bankers, being one of the complaints against the Union. Also the customs policy decided upon by Northern interests, was harmful to the agricultural South (the North was trying to build an industry of their own behind heavy customs and tariffs to protect it from British competition. The South, as an agricultural producer/exporter would have gained more from free-trade with Britain, which also explains the British support for the CSA).

Secession would have harmed the North economically, but probably not the South (it is difficult to know of course, since the after-war "reconstruction" hit the South so hard). Exactly. That is why the Union had to be preserved; for all we know, the CSA might have joined the British Commonwealth for assistance.

That would be enough for me (if I was the Union) to oppose secession.


As might be guessed, my sympathies are with the CSA ;)Just as my sympathies are split. :|

Allenson
Thursday, February 10th, 2005, 08:11 PM
the Southern states...........were on their way to taking steps toward repatriation.


If only this had come to fruition, eh? We'd likely be a lot better off now.... :(

Fraxinus Excelsior
Thursday, February 10th, 2005, 11:27 PM
Many of the Southern states had already banned the importation of slaves and were on their way to taking steps toward repatriation.
Wasn't Lincoln planning something similarly on those lines (repatriation), until he was assassinated?

USS Dixiecrat
Friday, February 11th, 2005, 12:39 AM
Who voted for the North?!?!? :thumbdown :burst :burn :grind :50cal: :rocket

SouthernBoy
Friday, February 11th, 2005, 01:18 AM
Who voted for the North?!?!? :thumbdown :burst :burn :grind :50cal: :rocketDixiecrat, wasn't Penn. a Union state?

(Dixiecrat lowered my reputation for this post. LOL. Can someone help a brotha' out and give me a positive rep. point for it. :D )

SouthernBoy
Friday, February 11th, 2005, 01:26 AM
I have atleast twenty ancestors that fought for the confederacy; elisted from Georgia, South Carolina, and Tennessee. I think the South was "righteous" to some extent, as it was indeed their right to secede from the United States. I don't think propagating old hatreds is neccesary, except perhaps for the sake of discussion ;). I wish the North and South would have been reconnected through diplomatic decisions and not through the blood of our people, and am less than happy over the "former-slave" condition the south is in now. I voted for the south. :D

Theudanaz
Friday, February 11th, 2005, 02:34 AM
I could care less. I voted for the north just to piss people off.:D Personally I think the whole thing begins with the error of trying to expand too rapidly too soon by using large numbers of slaves to effect instant wealth. This is too much quick cash type of progress. I wouldn't blame north or south, just wish the africans had never been brought over at all. That is the main problem that plagues us today. Imagine how great the country would have been. Repatriation could have started after Whitney's cotton 'gin reduced the need for slaves, but no, the mind was always for more progress, more expansion, more profit--and in the end too much. I wouldn't mind seeing the US divided into seven to twelve countries under a looser confederacy, and the CSA would have provided a good model for that.

Fraxinus Excelsior
Friday, February 11th, 2005, 02:49 AM
I could care less. I voted for the north just to piss people off.:D Personally I think the whole thing begins with the error of trying to expand too rapidly too soon by using large numbers of slaves to effect instant wealth. This is too much quick cash type of progress. I wouldn't blame north or south, just wish the africans had never been brought over at all. That is the main problem that plagues us today. Imagine how great the country would have been. Repatriation could have started after Whitney's cotton 'gin reduced the need for slaves, but no, the mind was always for more progress, more expansion, more profit--and in the end too much. I wouldn't mind seeing the US divided into seven to twelve countries under a looser confederacy, and the CSA would have provided a good model for that.You might like this then: The Antifederalist Papers (http://www.constitution.org/afp/afp.htm). :D

Appalachian
Friday, February 11th, 2005, 01:15 PM
Exactly. That is why the Union had to be preserved; for all we know, the CSA might have joined the British Commonwealth for assistance.

While they may have allied with the British, I seriously doubt they would have gone back into the commonwealth. There were still men alive at the time who remembered making war on the British in 1812, and even some for whom our struggle for Independence was within living memory.

Appalachian
Friday, February 11th, 2005, 01:19 PM
If only this had come to fruition, eh? We'd likely be a lot better off now...

No doubt.



Wasn't Lincoln planning something similarly on those lines (repatriation), until he was assassinated?

Indeed. I think the plan was to send them to Liberia, which had been founded in previous decades expressly for that purpose. Unfortunately, the actor got to him before he was able to carry it out.

Drömmarnas Stig
Friday, February 11th, 2005, 04:16 PM
Indeed. I think the plan was to send them to Liberia, which had been founded in previous decades expressly for that purpose. Unfortunately, the actor got to him before he was able to carry it out.
Too bad that Mr. Booth shot Lincoln, I always have to cry when I think of that. :~(

Of course Lincoln couldn't have done a worse job than his successorsin rebuilding the south. I would also dare to say that he wasn't the devil in person and he had a heart.
I think he wouldn't have raped the confederate states, but then again, he was still the asshole who waged war against the liberty loving southern states.
May he rot in hell, if I might say that...

Draco
Tuesday, February 15th, 2005, 01:40 AM
First of all:
Your background is pretty much what fascinates me about this war. There was no clear enemy, after all, they were brothers and sister.
In German medieval times we had a 30-year long war over frickin' religion which devasted the country and led to nothing.

You can understand both causes, fine by me.
But! This was not the question. If by a margin, please try to estimate which side was right in your opinion. Think of yourself as a judge in a too close to call trial. :D


I have no personal "dog in the fight". None of my family were in America at the time. However, I am a born and raised New Yorker, and thus have no connection to the South.

The way I see it, only the wealthiest Southerners had anything to gain by maintaining slavery, which displaced the White working class. The White underclass which fought and died were used for their benefit, similar to the kids from poor families which make up most combat units dying in Iraq for the benefit of Halliburton now.

I am opposed to slavery because it inevitably leads to race-mixing, not for moral reasons; America should have never let one slave be purchased or brought to our shores.

Yes, I am aware other issues, such as states-rights were also a priority, but that was more or less just a code for "we want to keep slavery".

While the North definately provoked actual hostilities, did you really think the Federal government was just going to let the country split in two?

I'll put this in the perspective as I see it:

The year is 1941, three years after the Anschluss. Österreich decides they don't want to be part of the Reich anymore, perhaps claiming it is their right to harbor jews, bolshevists, and criminals, and it is morally wrong of the Reich to tell them they have to put them in jails or surrender them to Germany for arrest. They tell Berlin in no uncertain terms where they can stick their heads, and declare themselves Neu Österreich (or whatever).

What would the Reich do? And are they justified in doing so?

I side with the North based on my belief the South had no moral or legal right to secede.

By the way: Cool thread/poll! Fostered some good discussion.

Draco
Tuesday, February 15th, 2005, 01:47 AM
I don't think propagating old hatreds is neccesary, except perhaps for the sake of discussion ;). I wish the North and South would have been reconnected through diplomatic decisions and not through the blood of our people

I feel exactly the same way. Wasted white lives are always tragic, be it the American Civil War, World War 1, the German Thirty Years War, the French Wars of Religion, or the many English Civil Wars.

Oskorei
Tuesday, February 15th, 2005, 01:48 AM
The way I see it, only the wealthiest Southerners had anything to gain by maintaining slavery, which displaced the White working class. The White underclass which fought and died were used for their benefit, similar to the kids from poor families which make up most combat units dying in Iraq for the benefit of Halliburton now.

I am opposed to slavery because it inevitably leads to race-mixing, not for moral reasons; America should have never let one slave be purchased or brought to our shores.Good point (quite similar to Tom Metzgers BTW). On the other hand, this argument can be turned against the North as well. The average Yankee soldier had nothing to gain by dying for the wealthiest Northerns, who only wanted to turn the Blacks slaves and poor Whites into wage slaves, and have free access to the resources of the South (and deny those resources to Britain).

And not only "pure" slavery leads to race-mixing. The will of rich Capitalists to import cheap labour can have the same effect.

It could also be argued that the average Southern soldier did have an interest in winning the war, mainly to avoid racial integration, and Northern exploitation. Native elites may not always be very charming, but they are at least better than foreign occupying elites. The quick spread of the KKK after the war would indicate that.

Draco
Tuesday, February 15th, 2005, 02:01 AM
Good point (quite similar to Tom Metzgers BTW). On the other hand, this argument can be turned against the North as well. The average Yankee soldier had nothing to gain by dying for the wealthiest Northerns, who only wanted to turn the Blacks slaves and poor Whites into wage slaves, and have free access to the resources of the South (and deny those resources to Britain).

Excellent point. If you think about it, the poor dying for the benefit of a tiny select few is actually the rule, not the exception concerning human warfare, regardless of time or place. Americans fighting the British in 1776, or Germans attacking the Soviet Union are the first two exceptions that come to mind for me.


And not only "pure" slavery leads to race-mixing. The will of rich Capitalists to import cheap labour can have the same effect.

Yeah, the "big business" importing Mexicans here (Turks or Algerians in your case my European friend) have a need for cheap labor which will also have an inevitable race-mixing consequence. Like slavery, it boils down to greed.


It could also be argued that the average Southern soldier did have an interest in winning the war, mainly to avoid racial integration, and Northern exploitation.

A valid point, but the South has always had the highest percentage of blacks demographically. Like Saint-Domingue/Haiti, this was a ticking time bomb.

I don't see how the North would really exploit the agrarian South...they fed us, we gave them manufactured goods. Manufactured goods will almost always fetch higher prices than agriculture, due to the fact they cost more to make. The GDP of the North would have been higher than the South no matter what.


Native elites may not always be very charming, but they are at least better than foreign occupying elites. The quick spread of the KKK after the war would indicate that.

Yeah, the KKK responded much like the Iraqi insurgent of today, and rightfully so! The North deliberately sent in Negro soldiers to humiliate the South, similar to how the French sent their colonial Negro soldiers into the Rhineland to humiliate Germany after WW1.

Appalachian
Tuesday, February 15th, 2005, 04:24 AM
Yes, I am aware other issues, such as states-rights were also a priority, but that was more or less just a code for "we want to keep slavery".


You've made some good points in this thread, but I'm not sure that the above is really the case. I have a sneaking suspicion that the inclination to to see things this way is the product of a.)modern "education" and b.)a Northern upbringing. :)


I'll put this in the perspective as I see it:

The year is 1941, three years after the Anschluss. Österreich decides they don't want to be part of the Reich anymore, perhaps claiming it is their right to harbor jews, bolshevists, and criminals, and it is morally wrong of the Reich to tell them they have to put them in jails or surrender them to Germany for arrest. They tell Berlin in no uncertain terms where they can stick their heads, and declare themselves Neu Österreich (or whatever).

This is a very different scenario.

Firstly, your analogy doesn't hold, since in this case it was the Northern states who suddenly decided that slavery was morally wrong and sought to impose that morality on the South, despite having entered the Union as slave-holding states themselves. This is pretty much the opposite of the picture you've painted above.

Secondly, we must consider the following:


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. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

I know it's difficult to understand from our current, post-War-of-Northern-Aggression ;) perspective, but up to the time of secession, it was still commonly held that the states very much had the right to secede. There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent a state from leaving the union, and indeed the right to do so is very much in keeping with the spirit of the Nation's founding.

Oskorei
Tuesday, February 15th, 2005, 12:02 PM
I don't see how the North would really exploit the agrarian South...they fed us, we gave them manufactured goods. Manufactured goods will almost always fetch higher prices than agriculture, due to the fact they cost more to make. The GDP of the North would have been higher than the South no matter what.
But they would have had better terms-of-trade with more industrialized Britain than the North. The US of that era is a good example of what is called the "infant industry"-argument of economy, where a country with a young industrial sector uses tariffs to protect its industry from more effective and competitive countries. Only in this case, it was good for the Northern industry, but did harm the Southern agriculture. Since they had to buy the more expensive Northern goods.

Anyway, I agree with you that the South had an impossible social structure in the long run. They were basically in the same situation on the global market as many developing countries are today, and their socio-racial structure would have made structural change next to impossible. There is an alternate history (I think it is by Turtledove) where the CSA does win freedom, only to later be hit by social revolution because of this.

Draco
Tuesday, February 15th, 2005, 03:34 PM
But they would have had better terms-of-trade with more industrialized Britain than the North.

But shipping from Britain would have taken longer and costed even more than buying domestically from the North. British merchants would also not want to bother paying tariffs which raises their goods prices to compete with equivalent and cheaper Northern goods.


The US of that era is a good example of what is called the "infant industry"-argument of economy, where a country with a young industrial sector uses tariffs to protect its industry from more effective and competitive countries. Only in this case, it was good for the Northern industry, but did harm the Southern agriculture. Since they had to buy the more expensive Northern goods.

But no one forced the South to rely on agriculture. They chose to keep the life their colonial ancestors kept, while Northerners chose industralization. "Cotton is King" afterall :) but they could have built more factories and no one would have stopped them. They just didn't. Maybe it was this attitude:


In 1858 Senator James Henry Hammond of South Carolina replied to Senator William H. Seward of New York:

"Without the firing of a gun, without drawing a sword, should they [Northerners] make war upon us [Southerners], we could bring the whole world to our feet. What would happen if no cotton was furnished for three years? . . England would topple headlong and carry the whole civilized world with her. No, you dare not make war on cotton! No power on earth dares make war upon it. Cotton is King."

Perhaps this is a good example of putting all your eggs in one basket?


Anyway, I agree with you that the South had an impossible social structure in the long run. They were basically in the same situation on the global market as many developing countries are today, and their socio-racial structure would have made structural change next to impossible. There is an alternate history (I think it is by Turtledove) where the CSA does win freedom, only to later be hit by social revolution because of this.

It is interesting to imagine what would happen if the CSA had won.

Would they have stormed the North and burned Washington D.C.?

Would the slave population continue to rise, and while the white man, accustomed to his slave doing everything, grew soft and fat, while their slaves grew strong and bold? This is what happened in Haiti.

Would the North have simply attacked again 5 or 10 years later?

The South was fighting a defensive war with no real industrial base and limited manpower. The Union soldier had the Spencer cartridge rifle and Colt repeating rifle, the CSA soldier still had his muzzle loading rifle. The Union had access to the hundreds of immigrants coming into New York daily to bolster their ranks. The Union had more people, and weapons able to put more than one round into a packed enemy formation where accuracy isn't even that important.

The South really never had a chance to win the war, although they handled themselves well in many battles. Based just on logistics and demographics, a CSA victory was impossible. A non-military solution would have been best for both sides. Of course, hindsight is 20/20.

Draco
Tuesday, February 15th, 2005, 03:55 PM
You've made some good points in this thread, but I'm not sure that the above is really the case. I have a sneaking suspicion that the inclination to to see things this way is the product of a.)modern "education" and b.)a Northern upbringing. :)

Well, like I said, none of my ancestors came off the boat yet, so I have nothing personal. However, my English relatives did own a sugar plantation in Barbados, though I believe slavery was outlawed before they bought it. As for "modern education", if I swallowed all of the anti-White swill, I'd be attacking the "evil madness of Hitler" and shedding tears over those poor slaves and how we should give them reperations. Incidentally, I'm curious though; how do Southern schools teach kids about the Civil War? Here in New York, it's the predictable "we were morally right to beat them, they were evil racist white males", but of course, history is written by the winner, which leads to lies being taught as fact. :(

I approach history objectively, I examine facts, and make my decision. The topic is, "which faction do you feel was right" and I felt the North was right. I don't care about constitutions or morals, human civilization runs on one constant: power.

The Union couldn't simply just let half their country up and leave and take their agricultural sector with them. So they stopped them by force. Was it ethical? Nope. Is the South part of the Union 140 years later? Yes.




This is a very different scenario.

Firstly, your analogy doesn't hold, since in this case it was the Northern states who suddenly decided that slavery was morally wrong and sought to impose that morality on the South, despite having entered the Union as slave-holding states themselves. This is pretty much the opposite of the picture you've painted above.


I know it's difficult to understand from our current, post-War-of-Northern-Aggression ;) perspective, but up to the time of secession, it was still commonly held that the states very much had the right to secede. There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent a state from leaving the union, and indeed the right to do so is very much in keeping with the spirit of the Nation's founding.

You really think so? The roles may have been reversed, but the key point was the right of a state (and Austria became a German state) to secede and how the federal government can and should react to secession. The Basques are trying to split from Spain, the Chechens from Russia. In both cases, they are denied. It's not just an American thing obivously, and the general approach to secession by even foreign governments is to crush it and maintain their union by force.

Might makes right after all.

Thing is, me, personally, if I could not have reached a diplomatic solution (I would have given the CSA a "phase out" period of 20 years to deport their slaves and incentives to develop mechanization via grants and tax breaks) the only recourse would sadly have been war.

I still feel the Union was justified in maintaining the United States, just as you feel the CSA was justified in leaving. ;)

Oskorei
Tuesday, February 15th, 2005, 05:19 PM
But shipping from Britain would have taken longer and costed even more than buying domestically from the North. British merchants would also not want to bother paying tariffs which raises their goods prices to compete with equivalent and cheaper Northern goods.
This belongs more properly in the Economics Forum, but the North would not have needed protective tariffs if British goods weren't cheaper, transportation included. What the young Northern industry encountered was a problem often elaborated upon in economy, the fact that the already established competitors were more effective and cheaper, and would out-compete any new competition. Therefore they chose to protect their own industries with tariffs, making British goods artificially more expensive. This is called the "infant industry"-argument against free trade, and has been used by several industrializing countries, with various luck. After this initial period, the tariffs were dismantled, and the US started to impose free trade on the rest of the world.


But no one forced the South to rely on agriculture. They chose to keep the life their colonial ancestors kept, while Northerners chose industralization. "Cotton is King" afterall :) but they could have built more factories and no one would have stopped them. They just didn't. Maybe it was this attitude:

Perhaps this is a good example of putting all your eggs in one basket?
No one forced them, but once you've become a supplier of cash crops it is usually very difficult to get out of that role. It has to do with specialization, terms of trade, and comparative advantages; many developing countries are in this unlucky situation today.


The South really never had a chance to win the war, although they handled themselves well in many battles. Based just on logistics and demographics, a CSA victory was impossible. A non-military solution would have been best for both sides. Of course, hindsight is 20/20.
I agree that a military invasion of the North was probably impossible. A more realistic goal would have been to make the occupation of the South too costly, and be allowed to leave that way.

fenriSS_
Tuesday, February 15th, 2005, 05:36 PM
South! i think i got some sort of school stuff about the civil war, let's see if i can find it..oo here it is:) Wroted by myself when i was 14:D.

Drömmarnas Stig
Tuesday, February 15th, 2005, 06:02 PM
Thank you all for the great discussion. I think I was able to learn many new things about both sides.

Is anyone interested in discussing the question:
How could the South have won the war?

If so, I will start with some thoughts:

1. Shelby Foote's theory (if I recall correctly):
The CSA never had a chance because this might have been the first major war that was purely decided on industial capacity.
If you think of weapons like the Spencer repeating rifle which wasn't used until 1964 because commanders thought that soldiers were already shooting too frequently!
A repeating rifle would have multiplied ammunition consumption.

I have read this argument in the weaponry book I bought as a child, not sure about the title though.
In retrospective this argument seems so damn stupid that it just cannot be true, but then again...

Once the union used these rifles one confederate soldier said something like:
"The Yanks only have to reload their weapons on Sunday and then can shoot the whole week!" :(

This was of course only one example.
Foote wrote that the union only used antiquated rifles and guns because of economical considerations.
The various weapon constructors in the north developed a variety of superior weapons, but of course demanded higher prices for them.

So the union would have equipped their armies much better if needed.
In other words, if the situation would have ever became critical (Gettysburg is overrated IMHO), the union would have reacted and won anyways.

That's Shelby Foote's opinion.


2. The defensive doctrine

I read this one from several sources. The south would have won (by holding out until the 1864 elections) if they would have fought strictly on the defense from the beginning forth.
I tend to agree with this point of view.

Think of this. After the fall of Vicksburg and the defeat at Gettysburg, the CSA was at the brink of total defeat.
However, they dug in and held out. They fought primarily defensive battles and did very well with this strategy.
Unfortunately the south only had one Lee and the north had one ruthless commander.
In the east, the CSA was able to hold the line well beyond 1864.
Just think of "Cold Harbour" where Grant lost 7.000 soldiers within half an hour to Lee's dug in army.

It all came down to the outcome of the 1864 elections.

If the south would have prevented their losses in manpower from 1861 onwards and would have just sit out the situation, the union might have never been able to win any ground.

Time was on the side of the Confederacy.
If by 1864 the union wouldn't have won decisive ground (march to the sea, whatever), I doubt that the northern warmongers would have gained enough support from the voters to continue the questionable struggle against their brothers and sisters.


3. Decisive battle doctrine

I think the average Joe would claim that the CSA could have won the war by winning the decisive battles.

- Some say that the confederates' best chance was the "Seven Days Battle" (translated properly?).
If Stonewall would have stayed in bed on a non-deciding day to recover, he would have been healthy again on the deciding last day where he missed to encircle "young Napoleon's" whole army of the Potomac.
This was indeed a great chance missed to destroy the union's grandest army!

Another decisive battle, maybe the most deciding one:
- The Battle of Antietam
Many folks say that this was the last step to get Britain and France to recognize the CSA as a country.
The best chance to get them to support the CSA or even enter the war.

Chances of winning the battle were low because of sheer numerical superiority. But if the south would have won Antietam and therefore the last major battle of 1862, maybe something great would have happened during the winter (I mean something from Europe).

- Gettysburg
Yeah well, forget about that one IMHO.
Gettysburg could have never lead to anything. The already decimated Army of Northern Virginia would have been to weak to seriously threaten the formidable defenses of Washington.
The result would have been a slow withdrawal from the campaign.
Vicksburg would still have fallen and Lee would have been called to defensive duties. History wouldn't have changed by one bit.

Forget about the late cavalry arrival, the missed chances on the first and second day. No need to go into details.


--------------------------------

One last thought of mine:

Jefferson Davis ordered Lee in early 1863 to support the western campaign and thus to relieve Vicksburg.
Instead Lee asked for his permission to start a deciding campaign in the east...
Due to Lee's reputation Davis granted his wish and the result was a double catastrophy.

If Lee would have listened to Davis, both catastrophies would have been prevented (the first by relieving Vicksburg, the latter one by just not being at Gettysburg).
Thus the further developement would have become a defensive campaign on both fronts with much better chances to hold out.


Okay, that were my thoughts. Hope you guys are interested!

Boerncian
Tuesday, February 15th, 2005, 06:03 PM
These are two letters I have written in the past year i think they clearly elucidate,that the north was both morally wrong and gulity of War crimes.


Dear Mayor,

I am writing in behalf of all those Southerners were descendants of the brave men who fought for states' rights and the Confederate States of America. The atrociously ignorant comments by councilor Love would be offensive to all to Southerners. I am a member of the Sons of Confederate veterans My great-grandfather was a sergeant in Company C of the 27th Virginia infantry, referred to as the bloody 27th, part of the famed Stonewall Brigade. to infer that my ancestors were nothing different than Nazis is extremely offensive, and historicly ignorant.

My great-grandfather saw his own brother slain at the Battle of second Winchester, his first cousin was killed on the first day of the battle of Gettysburg, and six others of my descendants were killed fighting in the Texas Brigade and in the ninth Virginia. .
The notion that the South was fighting for slavery and slavery alone is preposterous. The fact is that 85 to 90 percent of Southern soldiers did not own slaves. The union and Abraham Lincoln had in fact offered a compromise to the South called the Clinton compromise which would have granted the South right to slavery in perpetuity if they would except the odious 40 percent tariffs there were placing on Southern crops. Lincoln did issue emancipation proclamation until nearly two years after the war began, which caused the massive riots and desertions in the north. In England this move was seen as the preposterous hypocrisy that it was. Mr. Lincoln only emancipated slaves and Southern held territories wary had no ability the freedom and allowed Northern slave owners and slave owners and union held territory to keep their slaves. There were approximately 10,000 slave owners fighting in the Union army.

I would remind Mr. Love the slave trade was brought to America under the Union Jack and that for the 200 years existed existed under that flag and under the Stars and Stripes. It was the Union armies that wage total war burning the homes and farms of Southern civilians, killing civilians in reprisals, deliberately destroying entire cities, the literally taking families and forcing them into the north to work in factories where they never saw their kin again. .

As early as the first major battle of the war, the Battle of First Manassas in July of 1861, federal soldiers were plundering and burning private homes in the Northern Virginia countryside. Such behavior quickly became so pervasive that on June 20, 1862 – one year into the war – General George McClellan, the commanding general of the Army of the Potomac, wrote Lincoln a letter imploring him to see to it that the war was conducted according to "the highest principles known to Christian civilization" and to avoid targeting the civilian population to the extent that that was possible. Lincoln replaced McClellan a few months later and ignored his letter.

Most Americans are familiar with General William Tecumseh Sherman’s "march to the sea" in which his army pillaged, plundered, raped, and murdered civilians as it marched through Georgia in the face of scant military opposition. But such atrocities had been occurring for the duration of the war; Sherman’s March was nothing new.

In 1862 Sherman was having difficulty subduing Confederate sharpshooters who were harassing federal gunboats on the Mississippi River near Memphis. He then adopted the theory of "collective responsibility" to "justify" attacking innocent civilians in retaliation for such attacks. He burned the entire town of Randolph, Tennessee, to the ground. He also began taking civilian hostages and either trading them for federal prisoners of war or executing them.

Jackson and Meridian, Mississippi, were also burned to the ground by Sherman’s troops even though there was no Confederate army there to oppose them. After the burnings his soldiers sacked the town, stealing anything of value and destroying the rest. As Sherman biographer John Marzalek writes, his soldiers "entered residences, appropriating whatever appeared to be of value . . . those articles which they could not carry they broke."

After the destruction of Meridian Sherman boasted that "for five days, ten thousand of our men worked hard and with a will, in that work of destruction, with axes, sledges, crowbars, clawbars, and with fire.... Meridian no longer exists."

In The Hard Hand of War historian Mark Grimsley argues that Sherman has been unfairly criticized as the "father" of waging war on civilians because he "pursued a policy quite in keeping with that of other Union commanders from Missouri to Virginia." Fair enough. Why blame just Sherman when such practices were an essential part of Lincoln’s entire war plan and were routinely practiced by all federal commanders? Sherman was just the most zealous of all federal commanders in targeting Southern civilians, which is apparently why he became one of Lincoln’s favorite generals.

In his First Inaugural Address Jefferson said that any secessionists should be allowed to "stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." But by 1864 Sherman would announce that "to the petulant and persistent secessionists, why, death is mercy." In 1862 Sherman wrote his wife that his purpose in the war would be "extermination, not of soldiers alone, that is the least of the trouble, but the people" of the South. His loving and gentle wife wrote back that her wish was for "a war of extermination and that all [Southerners] would be driven like swine into the sea. May we carry fire and sword into their states till not one habitation is left standing."

The Geneva Convention of 1863 condemned the bombardment of cities occupied by civilians, but Lincoln ignored all such restrictions on his behavior. The bombardment of Atlanta destroyed 90 percent of the city, after which the remaining civilian residents were forced to depopulate the city just as winter was approaching and the Georgia countryside had been stripped of food by the federal army. In his memoirs Sherman boasted that his army destroyed more than $100 million in private property and carried home $20 million more during his "march to the sea."

Sherman was not above randomly executing innocent civilians as part of his (and Lincoln’s) terror campaign. In October of 1864 he ordered a subordinate, General Louis Watkins, to go to Fairmount, Georgia, "burn ten or twelve houses" and "kill a few at random," and "let them know that it will be repeated every time a train is fired upon."

Another Sherman biographer, Lee Kennett, found that in Sherman’s army "the New York regiments were . . . filled with big city criminals and foreigners fresh from the jails of the Old World." Although it is rarely mentioned by "mainstream" historians, many acts of rape were committed by these federal soldiers. The University of South Carolina’s library contains a large collection of thousands diaries and letters of Southern women that mention these unspeakable atrocities.

Shermans’ band of criminal looters (known as "bummers") sacked the slave cabins as well as the plantation houses. As Grimsley describes it, "With the utter disregard for blacks that was the norm among Union troops, the soldiers ransacked the slave cabins, taking whatever they liked." A routine procedure would be to hang a slave by his neck until he told federal soldiers where the plantation owners’ valuables were hidden.

General Philip Sheridan is another celebrated "war hero" who followed in Sherman’s footsteps in attacking defenseless civilians. After the Confederate army had finally evacuated the Shenandoah Valley in the autumn of 1864 Sheridan’s 35,000 infantry troops essentially burned the entire valley to the ground. As Sheridan described it in a letter to General Grant, in the first few days he "destroyed over 2200 barns . . . over 70 mills . . . have driven in front of the army over 4000 head of stock, and have killed . . . not less than 3000 sheep. . . . Tomorrow I will continue the destruction."

In letters home Sheridan’s troops described themselves as "barn burners" and "destroyers of homes." One soldier wrote home that he had personally set 60 private homes on fire and opined that "it was a hard looking sight to see the women and children turned out of doors at this season of the year." A Sergeant William T. Patterson wrote that "the whole country around is wrapped in flames, the heavens are aglow with the light thereof . . . such mourning, such lamentations, such crying and pleading for mercy ... I never saw or want to see again."

As horrific as the burning of the Shenandoah Valley was, Grimsley concluded that it was actually "one of the more controlled acts of destruction during the war’s final year." After it was all over Lincoln personally conveyed to Sheridan "the thanks of the Nation."
I might add two of my great grandfathers children died of starvation,our farm was burned twice .
"Rebel prisoners in our hands are to be subjected to a treatment finding its parallels only in the conduct of savage tribes and resulting in the death of multitudes by the slow but designed process of starvation and by mortal diseases occasioned by insufficient and unhealthy food and wanton exposure of their persons to the inclemency of the weather." ....passed by both houses, January 1865.

Dr. John A. Wyeth in his book, "With Saber and Scalpel" gives an account of the suffering of Confederate prisoners under the retaliatory orders. The Confederate government, having no medicines for the sick, offered as a free gift 15,000 of the emaciated federal soldiers in Andersonville Prison as an act of charity, to save life, not to destroy it. Federal ships in November, 1864, came to Ft. Pulaski and took away the 15,000 federal prisoners, bringing, however, not a single old Reb to his home. The rations, already limited, were cut to starving proportions.

O those hard retaliatory measures ordered by popular demand, under misapprehension, how many fell victims to those measures! What a fatal gift was our 15,000 emaciates! We did it to save life. Fifteen thousand Confederates fell victims to this fatal gift. We did it to save life; the retaliatory orders were issued to destroy life. .....Confederate Veteran, Dec. 19l6.

"I would like", said Senator Lane, "to live long enough to see every white man in South Carolina in hell, and the negroes inheriting their territory. (Loud applause) It would not any day wound my feelings to fine the dead bodies of every rebel sympathizer pierced with bullet holes, in every street and alley in Washington City. (Applause) Yes; I would regret the waste of powder and lead. I would rather have these Copperheads hung and the ropes saved for future use. (Loud Applause) I would like to see them dangle until their stinking bodies would rot and fall to the ground piece by piece."...(Applause with laughter)....1863, in the Washington speech by Jim Lane, Republican Senator from Kansas.

Pvt. Howard Malcolm Blewett was a prisoner at Pt. Lookout Prison Camp for Confederates from 1863 to 1865. After taking the Oath of Allegiance on April 14 th 1865, he was transported to Chimbrazo Hospital in Richmond, Virginia. There, it took him SIX months to recover from severe malnutrition.

Pvt. Robert George Smith, Pt.Lookout Prisoner stated: Run down and half starved as the prisoners were, scurvy set in and a squad of men was kept busy digging graves just outside the enclosure every day. Acres were covered with the graves of former prisoners.

A sick soldier who was suffering from extreme thirst crept out to a well near his tent. "Halt!" came a gruff command from a burly negro guard. The man pled pitifully, explaining that he was almost dying for water. "Damn you!" came the answer, "I told you to get back!" Instantly the report of a pistol shocked the listeners. The bullet missed its target but killed a sleeping man in a tent close by.

As early as Decoration Day 1868, the U.S. government, as caretaker of the nation's premier military cemetery, began turning away families and UDC members who tried to bring flowers to the graves of 377 Confederates who had died in Washington hospitals and were buried here. Major General John A. Logan, whose corps had burned Columbia, South Carolina, in 1865 and who was now commander of the leading Union veterans organization, the Grand Army of the Republic, specifically ordered that the ladies be turned away and the Confederate graves left bare. Angered Southern families began to remove their relatives from Arlington.

On March 2, 1861, the U.S. Senate passed a proposed Thirteenth Amendment to the US Constitution (which passed the House of Representatives on February 28) that would have prohibited the federal government from ever interfering with slavery in the Southern states. (See U.S. House of Representatives, 106th Congress, 2nd Session, The Constitution of the United States of America: Unratified Amendments <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0160063868/lewrockwell/>, Document No. 106-214, presented by Congressman Henry Hyde (Washington, D.C. U.S. Government Printing Office, January 31, 2000). The proposed amendment read as follows:




ARTICLE THIRTEEN









No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.

Two days later, in his First Inaugural Address, Abraham Lincoln promised to support the amendment even though he believed that the Constitution already prohibited the federal government from interfering with Southern slavery. As he stated:

I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution . . . has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose, not to speak of particular amendments, so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable (emphasis added).

This of course was consistent with one of the opening statements of the First Inaugural, where Lincoln quoted himself as saying: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

That’s what Lincoln said his invasion of the Southern states was not about. In an August 22, 1862, letter to New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley he explained to the world what the war was about:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, 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."

One of the things you won't hear and arguments about the Confederate flag and the confederacy is the fact that the grandfathers' of those Confederate soldiers were the Southern founders of our nation Jefferson, Washington, Patrick Henry. Furthermore their children and grandchildren have shed their blood on every American battlefield from Iwo Jima to today’s Iraq. To the highest ranking generals in World War Two that were killed in combat were Nathan Bedford Forrest the third, in Lieutenant-General Simon Bolivar Buckner, the namesakes of their famous Confederate grandfather and father. The most decorated man in Marine Corps history with five Navy Crosses Lewis B. Chesty Puller, the grandson of a Virginia officer, a man who led our armored divisions to victory in Europe General George S. Patton grandson of a Virginia Patriot and Confederate Cavalry officer. each you the comnets by Mr Love desecrate the memory of every Southern boy who sacrificed his life for your freedom. May Southrons died on the beachs of Normandy who held that flag dear. I do not know wheter mr Love graduated from Oxford or a Borstal but his historical if ignorance is astounding.As for the Union Jack well I think a lot people around the World including your Irish neighbors might find the Union Jack obectionable . Surely you would find that is simple-minded and highly subjective interpretation of the British flag and Culture. To a Southerner the Confederate flag represents the brave fallen and the suffering of the Southern people. While of course there are some that use it for their own purposes, tlikewise the Union Jack and the Stars and Stripes are used for others purposes.



Letter two, to President of the University of Texas

Recently by have become aware of the possibility that University may move or remove statues of Confederate soldiers as well as the Jefferson Davis statue. This under the guise that such memorials represent a" nostalgia for slavery or the Confederacy"or are otherwise offensive to some.
I have never met anyone in his right mind that is nostalgic for slavery and the projection of such an idiocy upon people of Confederate heritage is the worst kind of slander I am Sir, descended from Confederate soldiers from Texas and Virginia who fought bravely in defense of their state and their home. None of these individuals owned slaves and indeed my great-grandfather was a Southern abolitionist in Virginia, he also was a Unionist. However, like General Lee, he could not take up arms against his brothers, further he had a brother in Fredericksburg whose home was looted and destroyed by Union troops and their colored servants(not slaves) treated roughly.

These were the factors that caused My great-grandfather to fight for the Confederacy. Our family suffered terribly in the war, our farm in the Shenandoah Valley was burned to the ground by Sheridan's troops,leading to two of my grandfathers' children demise, essentially from starvation.

He saw his first cousin killed at Gettysburg his brother at the Second Battle of Winchester. He was imprisoned for six months at Fort Delaware was paroled and finally ended the war at Appomattox Court House. The Texas side of my family also paid a price in blood. I repeat none of these people owned slaves.

I do not have to remind you of the fact that Lincoln imprisoned tens of thousands of people without writ of habeas corpus and waged war without a declaration, against his own people.

The current actions of President Bush which many criticize, including myself, are but faint echoes of what went on a hundred and forty years ago. My great grandfather was held under the most appalling conditions possible at Fort Delaware but consistent with Congressional edict. Reflect on this

House resolution 97

Rebel prisoners in our hands are to be subjected to a treatment finding its parallels only in the conduct of savage tribes and resulting in the death of multitudes by the slow but designed process of starvation and by mortal diseases occasioned by insufficient and unhealthy food and wanton exposure of their persons to the inclemency of the weather



What will you do when surely the day comes when they(Black Reperationists) ask for the removal of Washington's statue and Jefferson's as they have in other places. As soon as you remove these Confederate memorials what reason do you for not removing Houston and Austin and the like when Mecha Maya calls at your door. Where does it stop Sir?

Please look at the moral dishonesty of the attacks upon the character of Robert E lee by the NAACP. They usually quote from one letter to his wife in the context of why he though God would allow such an abhomination as slavery.True the comments were ignorant by todays standard but not mean spirited. If you compare them with Lincoln's many diatribes against Negroes,they pale by comparison let me give you two examples;

1. As cited in "The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln," Roy Basler, ed. 1953 New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press [b]Abraham Lincoln said: "I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races -- that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." 2. An address by Abraham Lincoln at Springfield, Illinois, on June 26, 1857 [Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol II, pp 408-9, Basler, ed.]: "A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as immediate separation is impossible the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. Such separation, if ever affected at all, must be effected by colonization The enterprise is a difficult one, but 'where there is a will there is a way:' and what colonization needs now is a hearty will. Will springs from the two elements of moral and self-interest. Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and at the same time, favorable to, or at least not against our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be."

There is an incident that happened shorty after the war in the small Episcopal Church in Lexington, that Lee attended in 1866.When communion began an elderly Negro gentleman came up and kneeled before the railing for communion. The minister froze as did the congregation as this had never occurred, until and old grey haired man came from his pew and knelt beside him that Sir was Robert Edward Lee.

These same Confederate soldiers who are now being reviled by elements of the African American Community were the first people to call for reparations for the former slaves.

In a convention 30 years after the War former Confederate soldiers called for the United States government to give each former slave, a cabin and at least one acre of land.The Union veterans group The Grand Army of the Republic seconded this appeal. It should be noted 80-90 percent of these old warriors never had slaves. Now the very mention of them is equated to Nazis, all trace of them to be expunged, is this reasonable?

Do you believe Pickets' men charged up Cemetery Ridge shouting up with slavery? Of course not it ,was for Old Virginia Boys, for the Old Dominion,for your wives and sweethearts. Likewise at Little Round Top brave General Hood's men faced with certain death were fighting for Texas,to the last drop of their blood.

"Their ragged clothes make no difference. The "
enemy never sees their backs." General Robert E. Lee, describing Hood's
Texas Brigade

The Sons and Daughters of the South have bled and were brutalized for years.So badly was the treatment of southerners that Robert E Lee said shortly before his death."Had I known how we would have been treated I would have died with my sword in my hand with my brave men at Appomattox"

Will you sacrifice that lineage,written in blood and tears for a momentary political expediency or will you stand for all the generations past ? Surely some accommodation and recognition for the sufferings of slaves can be made without turning on our ancestors. Or was General Patrick Claiburne correct

, "Surrender means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the War; will be impressed by all the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit subjects for derisision.

Appalachian
Tuesday, February 15th, 2005, 09:25 PM
Incidentally, I'm curious though; how do Southern schools teach kids about the Civil War?

Well, when I attended public schools (elementary and middle school) it was here in a border state. Still, I think most of my history teachers were sympathetic to the Southern cause. Of course, most of the textbooks were written from the perspective that the North had the moral high ground. I think these combined to give us a pretty balanced outlook on the matter.

For my high school years, though, I attended a private military school in the South. I'm sure you can imagine what the consensus was there.


I don't care about constitutions or morals, human civilization runs on one constant: power.

Yes, and I find it lamentable that so few people care about constitutions and morals and the value of right over might.


The Union couldn't simply just let half their country up and leave and take their agricultural sector with them. So they stopped them by force. Was it ethical? Nope. Is the South part of the Union 140 years later? Yes.

And look what it has gotten us: forced racial integration; the complete takeover of the government by the Military-Hollywood-Prison-Industrial Complex; Jew York City calling all the shots...



You really think so? The roles may have been reversed, but the key point was the right of a state (and Austria became a German state) to secede and how the federal government can and should react to secession.

But the question then is whether Austria entered into the agreement with Germany with the understanding that they would retain sovereignty and have the right to withdraw should the union prove onerous. This was indeed the case in the US, and it's clear that the North (as they have so often done) chose to rely on the 'might makes right' philosophy and ignore the fact that most people in the US held true to the belief that the states had a constitutional right to secede.

Don't forget that "copperheads" and others opposed to the war formed a large percentage of the Northern population, especially among the Old-Stock Americans (who had an deeply ingrained sense of what was constitutionally fair), and the Lincoln government had to crack down on them very hard. This is why Lincoln often found his greatest sources of manpower in the hordes of newly-arrived immigrants, who were little more than recently-liberated serfs and were used to being pressed into service by despotic rulers.


The Basques are trying to split from Spain, the Chechens from Russia. In both cases, they are denied. It's not just an American thing obivously, and the general approach to secession by even foreign governments is to crush it and maintain their union by force.

Again, these are very different scenarios. The Basque Country never entered into a voluntary agreement to unify with Spain, with the understanding that they could disolve that union by democratic mandate. Chechnya never entered into a voluntary agreement to unify with Russia, with the understanding that they could disolve that union by democratic mandate. Comparing these situations is like comparing apples and oranges.


Might makes right after all.

Sadly...

Appalachian
Tuesday, February 15th, 2005, 09:37 PM
The South was fighting a defensive war with no real industrial base and limited manpower. The Union soldier had the Spencer cartridge rifle and Colt repeating rifle, the CSA soldier still had his muzzle loading rifle. The Union had access to the hundreds of immigrants coming into New York daily to bolster their ranks. The Union had more people, and weapons able to put more than one round into a packed enemy formation where accuracy isn't even that important.

Indeed, and in spite of all of this the South inflicted around 16,000 more battle deaths on the Union than vice versa, and lost around 100,000 men fewer than did the North.

It's amazing what men can do when they're fighting for a just cause...

Drömmarnas Stig
Tuesday, February 15th, 2005, 09:46 PM
Please forget about my post on page three. I decided to split this topic.

This one is only for the question who was right.
The other topic "How could the CSA have won the war?" is only for strategic questions.

Theudanaz
Tuesday, February 15th, 2005, 11:01 PM
My ancestor Benjamin M. Hyatt was a Southern soldier killed in the war in 1864. His daughter went on to marry the son of a German immigrant. It seems that I also have Norwegian-American and Danish-American ancestors who fought in the scandinavian Minnesota regiment for the North and of course were mostly killed. I guess that explains my inherent ambivalence. I truly feel what you mean when you mourn the blood of our people.


I have atleast twenty ancestors that fought for the confederacy; elisted from Georgia, South Carolina, and Tennessee. I think the South was "righteous" to some extent, as it was indeed their right to secede from the United States. I don't think propagating old hatreds is neccesary, except perhaps for the sake of discussion ;). I wish the North and South would have been reconnected through diplomatic decisions and not through the blood of our people, and am less than happy over the "former-slave" condition the south is in now. I voted for the south. :D

Draco
Tuesday, February 15th, 2005, 11:21 PM
Well, when I attended public schools (elementary and middle school) it was here in a border state. Still, I think most of my history teachers were sympathetic to the Southern cause. Of course, most of the textbooks were written from the perspective that the North had the moral high ground. I think these combined to give us a pretty balanced outlook on the matter.

Here in NY it's like I said, "we saved the country". Blah blah blah. Very biased!


For my high school years, though, I attended a private military school in the South. I'm sure you can imagine what the consensus was there.

Lol, not difficult at all to imagine!




Yes, and I find it lamentable that so few people care about constitutions and morals and the value of right over might.

Yeah, bullets tend to shoot right through paper. I don't like it anymore than you do, just stating a fact of human existence.



And look what it has gotten us: forced racial integration; the complete takeover of the government by the Military-Hollywood-Prison-Industrial Complex; Jew York City calling all the shots...

Do you honestly think the CSA would not have went down this same path like all other White nations eventually? If you want to explore the jewish angle in this, look no further than Judah P. Benjamin who was called "the Brains of the Confederacy" and even graced their two dollar notes.

Or alternately, the path of Haiti due to the high number of blacks and the inevitable "letting their guard down" of the Whites?


Don't forget that "copperheads" and others opposed to the war formed a large percentage of the Northern population, especially among the Old-Stock Americans (who had an deeply ingrained sense of what was constitutionally fair), and the Lincoln government had to crack down on them very hard.

Did you know there was a brief New England secessionist movement led by British loyalists/anglophiles during the war of 1812? Not many people know about it.


This is why Lincoln often found his greatest sources of manpower in the hordes of newly-arrived immigrants, who were little more than recently-liberated serfs and were used to being pressed into service by despotic rulers.

The 1863 Draft Riots were a direct result of this. Fair or not, again though, they were bodies which could be handed a rifle and sent off for cheap, and they still haven't stopped coming! :P

Appalachian
Wednesday, February 16th, 2005, 03:24 PM
Do you honestly think the CSA would not have went down this same path like all other White nations eventually? Maybe this will answer your question:
http://www.stormfront.org/whitehistory/hwr66_files/force.jpg

The year:1957
The place: Arkansas
The scenario: White students being forced at bayonette point to attend a racially-integrated high school.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/brown/images/br0130bs.jpg
The year: 1957
The place: Arkansas
The scenario: Black students being protected by military escort as they attend a formerly all-White school.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/brown/images/br0121As.jpg
The year: 1956
The place: Alabama
The scenario: White students burning desegregation literature beneath the Confederate saltire.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/brown/images/br0158s.jpg
The year: 1962
The place: Mississippi
The scenario: White students riot when the first Black student enrolls at Ol' Miss.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/brown/images/br0174as.jpg
The year: 1963
The place: Alabama
The scenario: Governor George Wallace, accompanied by the Alabama State Police, blocks the entrance of Assistant US Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach and negro students.

http://www.voicesofcivilrights.org/photoGallery/images/AARP_photo_gallery_13.jpg
The year: 1970
The place: South Carolina
The scenario: Soldiers required to prevent angry Whites from overturning schoolbuses carrying Black children to a White school.

My conclusion: Even a hundred years after the US government brutally beat them into submission and freed their slaves, these people resisted racial integration. I believe they never would have accepted it, had it not been forced on them by that same government.


If you want to explore the jewish angle in this, look no further than Judah P. Benjamin who was called "the Brains of the Confederacy" and even graced their two dollar notes. Name one conflict in recent history that they haven't had a hand in! :)





Did you know there was a brief New England secessionist movement led by British loyalists/anglophiles during the war of 1812? Not many people know about it. Yeah, back then they were "Tories", but today we just call them "Canadians." ;) Heck, it took until 1813 to force the British to give up Detroit.

fenriSS_
Tuesday, February 22nd, 2005, 02:13 AM
Those pic's remming me of remember the Titans:thumbdown. Can somone tell me about the indian contribute in the civil war and why England and France didn't helped the southern states? Just because they thought the southern states would lose the war?

JoeDas
Wednesday, February 23rd, 2005, 07:46 AM
It seems that I also have Norwegian-American and Danish-American ancestors who fought in the scandinavian Minnesota regiment for the North and of course were mostly killed.Something that people here may find interesting:

Some years ago a Scandinavian-American group did research to try to determine how many Scandinavians served in the Civil War. They concluded that more than 16,000 Norwegians, Danes, and Swedes served in the Union Army for some period of time between April 1861 and April 1865. Some of them served in all-Scandinavian regiments (e.g. Hans Christian Heg's Scandinavian regiment), or mostly Scandinavian regiments (the famous 1st Minnesota volunteer regiment was mostly Norwegian and Danish), but most were scattered as individuals or in small groups throughout regular regiments. All told, nearly 1 out of every 100 Union soldiers was Scandinavian.

Exhaustive research reveals that only 19 Scandinavians served in the Confederate Army. The reason so few served for the Confederate Army was that only a few hundred Scandinvians lived in the South when the war broke out, and many of those who did live there were not enthusiastic enough about the Confederate cause to enlist.


Can somone tell me about the indian contribute in the civil warMost Indians wanted the South to win. (Ever since before the Revolutionary War the Indians opposed the USA and worked against it.) More than 10,000 Indians fought for the South, mostly in the Western theater of the war.


why England and France didn't helped the southern states? Just because they thought the southern states would lose the war?Yes, this is my understanding of it anyway. Part of Lee's plan in his attempted invasions of the North in 1862 (turned back at Antietam, Maryland) and 1863 (the catastrophe for the South at Gettysburg) were: 1) Turn the opinion of the North against the war, 2) Gain recognition from the European powers by demonstrating that the Confederate Army could defeat the Union Army (there were other goals to these invasions too, but these are the relevant goals per your question). When Lee lost at Gettysburg, all hope of British or French support for the CSA was lost.

fenriSS_
Wednesday, February 23rd, 2005, 11:53 PM
hm...Let's see if i can find my old schoolwork again, think i wrote something about this, but i'm not sure if it was correct.

The battle of Shiloh, Confederate forces attacked Union forces under General Ulysses Grant at Shiloh, Tennessee. By the end of the day, the federal troops were almost defeated. But, during the night, reinforcements arrived, and by the next morning the Union commanded the field. When Confederate forces retreated, the federal forces did not follow because they were so tired of all the fighting. Casualties were heavy -- 13,000 out of 63,000 Union soldiers died, and 11,000 of 40,000 Confederate troops were killed.

In September, confederate forces under general Lee were caught between 2 Union generals. This is one of the bloodiest battles in the civil war 2,700 confederate forces were killed and 9000 wounded. At the union 2, 100 were killed and 9,500 wounded. The battle had no winner, because general Lee withdraw to Virginia. This battle was important because this convinced the British and the French to not interfere.

King Yngvar
Monday, June 13th, 2005, 11:12 AM
Let's just say this war wasn't really about slavery, so I tend to lean towards favouring the south. Perhaps America today would be less of a capitalist democracy if they had won...

SouthernBoy
Monday, June 13th, 2005, 11:50 PM
I'm not sure where the quote from Draco was, but the way they teach of the Civil War here I find insulting to be honest. It's as if they haven't demonized us enough.

Draco
Friday, June 17th, 2005, 12:12 AM
I'm not sure where the quote from Draco was, but the way they teach of the Civil War here I find insulting to be honest. It's as if they haven't demonized us enough.


Not sure what you are alluding to, the way the Civil war was taught to us New Yorkers in school?

In New York public schools, movies such as Glory, Gettysburg, and Andersonville were shown during history class as authentic. I also recall seeing parts of the horrible television miniseries North and South in school.

While I would certainly have morally sided with the Union had I been around then, the portrayal of the war "up here" is extremely biased and often factually mistaken.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Friday, June 17th, 2005, 06:35 AM
Follow the money. The Civil War was basically about two different, mutually exclusive economies. The North had an economy based on highly paid labor and manufacturing in which raw materials were "valued added". The South used cheap labor (slaves) and extensive exploitation of resources, agriculture, mostly on the a plantation system. Import-export laws and tarriffs were the source of constant debate. What was good for one end of the country was bad for the other. Rich people in both ends of the country ran things and these were the very people on the extreme ends of this polarization. As you can see, slavery was not the central issue but a very important side issue since the South's economic system could not function without them. For the small farmers on either side of the Mason/Dixon line, who became cannon fodder for this war, these differences were small but blurred by propaganda from both sides which tried to incorporate them and their needs and values for one side or the other.

I went to public school in California. With race the issue that it is and was, there was a natural tendency among liberal teachers to side with the alleged humanitarian values of the North. This was the politically correct thing to do. But, if pushed or the issue was crystalized, another level of understanding usually surfaced. For instance, some student always asked why General Robert E. Lee was not arrested, tried and hung as a traitor. Then the teacher would have to explain that Lee was not a traitor and had actually been offered the command of the Northern Army by Lincoln but declined because he felt a stronger alliegence to Virginia than to the Union and this was the prevalent thought at the time. Lee was not a traitor by his own thinking or anyone's in the South and to put an end, once and for all, to this war and heal the country it was necessary that individual blame be an issue set aside (of course carpet baggers and first generation politicans in the "New South" raised this issue which resulted in Jim Crowe and other reactions from Southerners). The South really never recovered in the economic sense from this war as their whole economy and way of life was "Gone with the Wind".

Todesritter
Friday, June 17th, 2005, 06:51 AM
I have a friend who got many academic compliments on her thesis for university that the real fundamental cause of the war like Dr. Solar Wolff said, was mutually exclusive economic systems, and the real trigger, the straw that broke the camel’s back as it were, was the global commodity price of cotton, once England began to really get efficient production going in it’s imperial territories such as India in the late 1850’s.


… and of course, given the American penchant for spin doctoring, to make people feel good about blood already spent, as Dr. Solar Wolff above mentioned, none of this really mattered to the families of poor Pennsylvania farmers or urban New York Irish immigrants in the army of The Union, or the families of poor Tennessee farmers in army of The Confederacy, but the northern and southern elites who had the most to gain and lose over prosecuting the war sure spun the heck out of the moral reasons behind it. In the end, the modern popular perception was largely created from the folklore of these people’s descendents on both sides.

Daglaf
Wednesday, January 25th, 2006, 01:48 PM
South Carolina was about to leave the union during the Jackson (a southerner) adminstration. South Carolina backed down when Jackson called up the milita to invade the state. The States never had the right of secession, only the right to declare independance and become revolutionaries, just as in 1776.
Secession was the worse mistake we ever made, and we paid an awful price for it.
Whites killing Whites over blacks.
How crazy do you get?!!!!
The only worse case I can think of is: Whites killing Whites over jews.
WHITE UNITY FOREVER WORLDWIDE!!

Regina
Monday, February 6th, 2006, 02:48 AM
The South was right. You must understand that the North could only win with "numbers." The South was hard to defeat because the spirit of the South rose up. It was a CAUSE. That made it a spiritual war. They had a beautifully cultured, aristoristic life they did not want destoryed.

One might say it was a war between the "material" and the "spiritual."