Were Confederate soldiers terrorists?

[xav]

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

* Roland Martin says defenders of Confederate soldiers say they were protecting their homeland
* He says the Civil War was fought over slavery, an indefensible institution
* Martin says modern terrorists also say they are defending their homeland
* He says Confederates should not be honored but should be considered "domestic terrorists"


(CNN) -- Based on the hundreds of e-mails, Facebook comments and Tweets I've read in response to my denunciation of Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell's decision to honor Confederates for their involvement in the Civil War -- which was based on the desire to continue slavery -- the one consistent thing that supporters of the proclamation offer up as a defense is that these individuals were fighting for what they believed in and defending their homeland.

In criticizing me for saying that celebrating the Confederates was akin to honoring Nazi soldiers for killing of Jews during the Holocaust, Rob Wagner said, "I am simply defending the honor and dignity of men who were given no choice other than to fight, some as young as thirteen."

Sherry Callahan said that supporting the Confederacy is "our history. Not hate; it's about heritage and history."

Javier Ramirez called slavery evil, but prefaced his remarks by saying that "Confederate soldiers were never seen as terrorists by [President Abraham] Lincoln or U.S. generals on the battlefield. They were accorded POW status, they were never tried for war crimes. Not once did Confederate soldiers do any damage to civilians or their property in their invasion of the north. The same is not true of Union soldiers."

Realskirkland sent me a Tweet saying, "Slavery is appalling, but was not the only reason for the CW [Civil War]. Those men, while misguided on some fronts stood up for what they felt was right. They embodied that American ideal that the states have a right to govern themselves. THAT is what a confederate soldier stood for."

If you take all of these comments, don't they sound eerily similar to what we hear today from Muslim extremists who have pledged their lives to defend the honor of Allah and to defeat the infidels in the West?

When you make the argument that the South was angry with the North for "invading" its "homeland," Osama bin Laden has said the same about U.S. soldiers being on Arab soil. He has objected to our bases in Saudi Arabia, and that's one of the reasons he has launched his jihad against us. Is there really that much of a difference between him and the Confederates? Same language; same cause; same effect.

If a Confederate soldier was merely doing his job in defending his homeland, honor and heritage, what are we to say about young Muslim radicals who say the exact same thing as their rationale for strapping bombs on their bodies and blowing up cafes and buildings?

If the Sons of Confederate Veterans use as a talking point the vicious manner in which people in the South were treated by the North, doesn't that sound exactly like the Taliban saying they want to kill Americans for the slaughter of innocent people in Afghanistan?

Defenders of the Confederacy say that innocent people were killed in the Civil War; hasn't the same argument been presented by Muslim radicals in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places where the U.S. has tangled with terrorists?

We can't on the one hand justify the actions of Confederates as being their duty as valiant men of the South, and then condemn the Muslim extremists who want to see Americans die a brutal death. These men are held up as honorable by their brethren, so why do Americans see them as different from our homegrown terrorists?

The fundamental problem with extremism is that when you're on the side that is fanatical, all of your actions make sense to you, and you are fluent in trying to justify every action. Every position of those you oppose is a personal affront that calls for you to do what you think is necessary to protect yourself and your family.

Just as radical Muslims have a warped sense of religion, Confederate supporters have a delusional view of what is honorable. The terrorists are willing to kill their own to prove their point, and the Confederates were just as willing in the Civil War to take up arms against their fellow Americans to justify their point.

Even if you're a relative of one of the 9/11 hijackers, that man was an out-and-out terrorist, and nothing you can say will change that. And if your great-great-great-granddaddy was a Confederate who stood up for Southern ideals, he too was a terrorist.

They are the same.

As a matter of conscience, I will not justify, understand or accept the atrocious view of Muslim terrorists that their actions represent a just war. They are reprehensible, and their actions a sin against humanity.

And I will never, under any circumstances, cast Confederates as heroic figures who should be honored and revered. No -- they were, and forever will be, domestic terrorists.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Roland Martin.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/04/11/martin.confederate.extremist/index.html?hpt=C2

I am not an historian, but is it not simplistic to basically say "Confederates = continue slavery". Wasn't religion another factor (among others) ?

[Hollis]

Terrorism is defined. I would suggest reading that definition and no they were not as a group any more so than the Northern soldier.

BTW we just had a thread on this topic, Confederate month in Virginia.


BTW, Roland Martin is just pandering for a pay check, effin idiot at best.

[Skutatos]

This angers me on so many levels, and Im not even much of a rebel sympathizer. The level of ignorance and stupidity in this article is astounding, even for CNN.

[shocker1]

Ridiculous, the government structure of the pre-war US allowed States to raise an army, gave States greater power over the Federal government and created loyalties tied to one's State ahead of any toward the Federal government. Slavery being one of the greatest issues that brought these simmering problems to a head and rightly so. As society and the economy of the country changed the old order was no longer viable and so the elites of the opposing sides had much to lose. therby dragging the unwashed masses into blood letting. Should we also mention the new idea "Total War" waged upon the South? Besides when armies are on the march in such a way as then it requires action by the individual and based upon State loyalty of the citizenry at the time to call the soldier in the Confederate army terrorists. Is an exercise in ignorant rewriting of history.

[wildcat]

Confederate were not terrorist but a regulated military, Terrorist mean the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

the civil war kind of was thought over slavery, but it was more the point the south did not want the north to dictate or take power from the states, hence the whole secession movement.

comparing todays Terrorist with the confederate army is just complete BS, The confederates target was a military war, it was not directed at the civilian population, like todays terrorist do.

this guy sound full of BS. Target civilian is what terrorist do, confederates fort the Union army, not blowing up civilians.

[LineDoggie]

Roland is Black so I think it's understandable he has a problem with being unbiased towards a lifestyle that would have had him enslaved then. But inventing such nonsense doesnt help his point. The ANV didnt behead POW's, didnt suicide bomb civilians, didnt target civilians. The Union targeted civilians, and the various Kansas-Missouri ruffians(Pro & Anti Slavery) were terroristic in their operations against Union & Confederate towns.

History fail Martin F-

[Synthe]

How cute the same people who argue they are fighting for america's "ideals and values" in the wake of SOCIALIST OBAMA are also the same to defend treason while accusing the other of the same.

[LineDoggie]

How cute the same people who argue they are fighting for america's "ideals and values" in the wake of SOCIALIST OBAMA are also the same to defend treason while accusing the other of the same.How cute how some try to simplify the argument to a kindergarden level

[Synthe]

How cute how some try to simplify the argument to a kindergarden level

I love this, you can always make a statement about somebody's comment and get away from proving that person wrong.

[Noons86]

According to the history books, this question was resolved in 1865 with Grant's terms for surrender.

[Dominique]

How cute the same people who argue they are fighting for america's "ideals and values" in the wake of SOCIALIST OBAMA are also the same to defend treason while accusing the other of the same.

And what treason would that be?

[California Joe]

By this simplistic argument General Sherman and his "March to the Sea" would have to be considered a "Government Sponsored Terror Campaign" would it not?

By the way, I come from an area in Vermont that sustained horrific casualties during that war. If I'm not mistaken, my small state suffered worse casualty rates per capita than any other state in the Union.

I lived in Virginia, behind enemy lines, for nearly 20 years before coming back here. I'd like to think I learned something about the reasons people fought while I was there. It's never black and white...there are many gray areas...

[Zoomie]

By this simplistic argument General Sherman and his "March to the Sea" would have to be considered a "Government Sponsored Terror Campaign" would it not?
I too, found it funny that the author happened to omit Sherman's city-wide "bonfires".

[Kitsune]

Has Mr. Roland ever considered that the Confederate South of Civil War belonged to the United States of America before said Civil War and that slavery was quite legal in the whole country up to that time? What has Mr Roland to say about the American Independence War, which took place in the years 1775–1783? Does he know, that in this hallowed conflict a slavery practicing colony rebelled against a motherland in which slavery was not practiced anymore? Does he know that George Washington, the main leader of the American colonial rebels who became later the first President of the so called "United States of America" (that's how the insurgents came to call their "nation") was a slave owner himself? Does he also know, that the main author of the so called Declaration of Independence (a document which features the famous sentence:"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."), a certain Thomas Jefferson (who became later the third president of the "USA") was also a slave owner during his whole life? And does Mr. Roland Martin accordingly think that the whole efforts and sacrifices and deaths of the American War of Independence were utterly and completely devalued because of the ongoing practice of the institution of slavery in America? And I haven't even mentioned the Indians, yet!
I myself would go so far as to claim that the Southern States in the American Civil War, whose efforts are considered by todays bleeding liberals to be utterly worthless because of their practice of slavery, did in fact attempt to do exactly the same the thirteen American colonies had done during the War of Independence, with the slavery element being even one of the things both wars had in common. The one and only (but decisive) difference is, that South lost the Civil War, while the American Independence War was won by the rebellious faction.

[LineDoggie]

I love this, you can always make a statement about somebody's comment and get away from proving that person wrong.

Ok Synthe, you are from the Peoples Republic of China, correct?

Doesnt that make you and your forebears traitors and treasonable for taking arms against the Republic of China Government, aka Nationalists?

so if the Confederates of the US Civil War were traitors, doesnt that make your relatives, friends, etc. who served the PRC the same?

[Proudgrandson]

Isnt the picture they've used from the pre American Civil War conflict in Kansas in the 1850's?

(Side issue but I've never seen it used to illustrate anything else)

[Proudgrandson]

And by the way I think Colonel Washington Roebling (USV) summed it up best (but possibly I'm a sentimentalist)

'The conduct of the Southern people appears, many times, truly noble. As exemplified for instance in the defense of Petersburgh. Old men with silver locks lay dead in the trenches, side by side with mere boys of 13 or 14. It almost makes one sorry to have to fight against people who show such devotion to their homes and their country.'

[USMCRTop]

Title of thread makes me wanna barf... That anyone would denigrate the gallant soldiers of The Lost Cause is sickening...They did their duty as they saw fit..I HATE rewriting of history.. That guy should read Bruce Catton... No I am not southern

[Hollis]

Title of thread makes me wanna barf... That anyone would denigrate the gallant soldiers of The Lost Cause is sickening...They did their duty as they saw fit..I HATE rewriting of history.. That guy should read Bruce Catton... No I am not southern

I really like Bruce Catton, he had a excellent feel for the life of a soldier in war.

[Wimbly]

This is from a guy who believes white people are genetically racist, so you must realize hes a nut. It would be nice if someone exposed his shenanigans.

In my opinion the comparison is stupid. Just to name a few reasons why, many in the south were literally fighting for their homes in most cases, while AQ just uses hyperbole and rhetoric to justify mass slaughter if innocent people. The confederates were a real, organized army instead of a largely unorganized group who uses asymmetrical warfare against mostly civilians to gain power. Not to say the North and South didn't use those tactics in some cases, but there is a definite distinction between a uniformed army and religious terrorists.

[realityexists]

Confederate soldiers as terrorists? No, I do not think so. Misguided? Yes.

If you want to blame somebody blame the leadership, blame the elites and ruling class of the south, it was them after all that made the decisions that mattered. The common soldier just did what he was mislead to do. And celebrating the bravery of Confederate soldiers is not "treasonous," if it is then I guess a lot of people are in trouble, myself included ;)

Then again one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. I think any Black American that reads the writings and speeches of Confederate leaders would probably think of Confederates as "terrorists.":-|

[Podman]

CJ: From my UVM days I remember the book store I worked at in Shelburne featuring this book for at least a year:

http://www.amazon.com/Full-Duty-Vermonters-Civil-War/dp/088150274X

Yes, Green Monuntain Boys definitely did their full duty.

But pro rata vs. absolute numbers for sure.

[Dan2004]

Were Confederate soldiers terrorists?

No. They were soldiers, fighting for their homes, their country, and what they thought was right.

Also, Roland Martin is a douche.

[IraGlacialis]

I wonder what that guy would have labeled John Brown.

[Dominique]

I wonder what that guy would have labeled John Brown.

John Brown was a fanatic, but I'm sure someone out there is willing to defend him.

[California Joe]

CJ: From my UVM days I remember the book store I worked at in Shelburne featuring this book for at least a year:

http://www.amazon.com/Full-Duty-Vermonters-Civil-War/dp/088150274X

Yes, Green Mountain Boys definitely did their full duty.

But pro rata vs. absolute numbers for sure.

Very cool. I have that book. He signed it "To a Vermonter trapped behind enemy lines..."

I have Howard's other book "Nine Months to *****sburg: Stannard's Vermonters and the Repulse of Pickett's Charge" too.

[BloodyTalon]

I wonder what that guy would have labeled John Brown.
$20 says he thinks John Brown was just a honky with jungle fever. p-)

Joking aside, the douche is the end result of what happens when the bloodiest and potentially most significant war in American history is watered down in schools to "Lincoln wanted to free the slaves, the South didn't, they went to war, and Lincoln won." The fact that the guy gets paid to spew that kind of ignorant bull is pathetic.

Also, in his "Confederates = evil terrorists" tirades, he conveniently forgets that the slaves weren't "freed" until the Emancipation Proclamation was signed around the middle of the war, and the only reason that was done was so the North could have access to cannon fodder.

[Soldat_Américain]

If you wanted to call what they all did especially their military leadership, treasonous you'd be correct but to call them traitors would be wrong.

[madjack]

Another politically correct moron. Confederate History month in Virginia is apparently bringing them out of the woodwork. This guy will probably get a job in the White House.

[skyrock]

Confederate were not terrorist but a regulated military, Terrorist mean the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

the civil war kind of was thought over slavery, but it was more the point the south did not want the north to dictate or take power from the states, hence the whole secession movement.

comparing todays Terrorist with the confederate army is just complete BS, The confederates target was a military war, it was not directed at the civilian population, like todays terrorist do.

this guy sound full of BS. Target civilian is what terrorist do, confederates fort the Union army, not blowing up civilians.

The civil war was not about slavery but about the survival of the union as a whole. In fact, those counties that supported the union were allowed to keep their slavery during the war (even a few years after the war). For example, 48 counties in Virginia supported the union. As a reward, they kept the slavery, and became a separated state (West Virginia) from Virginia.

[skyrock]

Back to topic.

Soldiers who target civilians are war criminals instead of terrorists. This definition applies to all soldiers from all conflicting sides.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I saw that article as soon as it popped up on CNN and I was truly appalled by what I read. I suppose Martin's greatest achievement here is that within the same article, he manages to both misunderstand what terrorism is, and indignantly pass judgment on the distant past using the cultural mores of the present. It takes real talent to pull that off.

[savushka]

BTW, a question to the Americans here - any advice on a source of good historical info on the civil war in US? The political, economical, and social foundation behind it, and etc(not the "lincoln wanted to free the slaves bullcrap, as stated earlier here).
Don't mind broadening my horizons.

[Skutatos]

BTW, a question to the Americans here - any advice on a source of good historical info on the civil war in US? The political, economical, and social foundation behind it, and etc(not the "lincoln wanted to free the slaves bullcrap, as stated earlier here).
Don't mind broadening my horizons.

Battle Cry of Freedom by James McPherson is a good starting point.

http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Cry-Freedom-Civil-War/dp/0345359429

[Hollis]

I don't know of any single book. The topic is very lengthy and complex to do a synopsis of it. There are writers of the time, some in the North (Northern perspective) and some in the South (Southern perspective). Any thing by Bruce Catton (modern writer) is really good. Plus there are memoirs. Then one needs to add, the event prior the war. Ordie mentioned that the seeds of the Civil War started with the American Revolution. That would be a start to understanding the causes.


BTW, Skutatos offered a good selection.

[savushka]

Thanks, I'll look into the "online" part, but it's not like I'm heading off to the US anytime soon to get my hands on this book.

[LineDoggie]

BTW, a question to the Americans here - any advice on a source of good historical info on the civil war in US? The political, economical, and social foundation behind it, and etc(not the "lincoln wanted to free the slaves bullcrap, as stated earlier here).
Don't mind broadening my horizons.


The Civil War: a Narrative
Shelby Foote
ISBN: 0394465121, 0394419510, 0394419480

Battle cry of Freedom, Vol.6 of the Oxford History of the United States
James M. McPherson
ISBN: 978-0195038637

[Connaught Ranger]

Nice try at bending an old conflict to fit todays sense of reality = BIG TIME FAIL!

[tluassa]

What a load of bull**** and absolutely wierd stupid thinking ...

Alone the thought of comparing a uniformed, openly fighting Army to Terrorists deserves the author a big slap in his dumb face ..

[Yeti2424]

I wonder what this guy thinks of the many slave rebellions that took place? Many of which directly targeted civillian men, women, and childeren.

[GB_FXST]

Revisionist history is all too often intellectually dishonest. I doubt that any serious scholar thinks that the CW was fought because of slavery.

[I'mOnlyHalfPolish]

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/bestoftv/2010/04/12/nr.blue.gray.revisited.cnn.html

The greatest thing about the Civil War was the end of slavery. This meant that because there was no huge, "free" (in the sense their labor was free not their cost of living etc.) labor force readily available; developments were made toward mechanizing agriculture which led toward higher yields and in essence has led to our modern lives/abilities.

So, yay Civil War!

Slavery was dumbing down America and was counterproductive to technological developments in the US. In the least we can say, because many wars do not produce such results, that a devastating war led to our modern country. It also settled disputes still lingering regarding Marbury v. Madison and our federalist system.

[tluassa]

"I doubt that any serious scholar thinks that the CW was fought because of slavery."

Since they already made jokes about it on the Simpsons, I would even guess the circle of "enlighted" People is a little bit broader :)

http://videos.wittysparks.com/id/3477822671/

17:55 !!! :)

[BAF]

i'll try to get my hands on some of those books. The US civil war isnt that well known over here, but it seems te me that it is quite interesting and complex.

[Azatavrear]

What a disrespectable comment comparing a civil war with terrorism. This is not even comparable and it is a shame how people use the word terrorist to help their own agenda. This must be what he is doing.
Those men believed strongly that States have the right to govern themselves and that is what they stood for. They were given POW status when captured, none were tried for crimes, and they never targeted civilians and their property during their attacks. Honor and heritage is what they stood for, I understand that......terrorists with their extreme religous ideals and tactics on deliberatley targeting the people have no such values and their goals are much different. They travel the globe for their jihad and kill you for your ethnicity. They have no honor and they insult their own heritage.

This man does not understand what a militant Islamic terrorist really stands for and there is nothing noble about it in the civilized world.

[Kit]

If Roland Martin posted here, he would probably get "Dumbarse of the Week" award on the spot. Wow. I never read such misinterpretations of history and definitions. Since when have terrorists worn military uniforms, camped on military outposts, engaged only military targets, and conducted themselves under formal rules of warfare? Never. Terrorists use the means of guerrilla tactics, get down to a more personal level, and everything is fair game. You could make a better case out of Union soldiers under Sherman being terrorists.

Confederates were rebels, but not terrorists. Huge difference.

[cbreedon]

Also, in his "Confederates = evil terrorists" tirades, he conveniently forgets that the slaves weren't "freed" until the Emancipation Proclamation was signed around the middle of the war, and the only reason that was done was so the North could have access to cannon fodder.
The Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in areas in rebellion, not in the areas under Union control.

Back to topic....
They were no more terrorists than the Founding Fathers, except they lost... Not even topic worthy and like someone said, he would have been banned if he had been a poster here...

[Mordoror]

Guys i all agree with you
how an army raised as such, named as such, formed as such could be called a terrorist organization. This article is a none sense

now just a question (US fellows who are more aware oF US and CS history would be kind to answer)
anyway , were not some "terror" groups either without or with uniforms (i think in both armies) that acted with a mix of political agenda and a good drop thuggery (i am thinking especially about disbanded units from the South at the end or just after the war that became road raiders and continued some kind of "political" fight while turning criminals too)
or is it a none documented and not proven hearing ?

[California Joe]

You could always watch The Outlaw Josey Wales. It's actually not a bad version of the animosity between certain border states and the irregulars that fought there. Some of the most vicious and what could be considered criminal acts took place in the Western Theater.

Some of the "guerrilla" groups are practically canonized in the South. John Singleton Mosby's Rangers for instance. Mosby was a brilliant irregular commander called The Gray Ghost. He was very, very good at what he did. He was never captured, he was frequently hidden by the locals, had full support of all the civilians in his AO...he is definitely in the pantheon of Confederate heros in his home state, Virginia.

Some of the others like Quantrills Raiders and even some of the men that fought under Forrest were considered renegades and outlaws...But, these men all wore what could be termed "uniforms" though and they were mostly engaged in fighting Union troops, as they were on their home ground and had no reason to act against what they considered their own citizens

[Mordoror]

Thank you CJ for the infos
i am gonna take a look at the names you gave me
cheers

[realityexists]

Revisionist history is all too often intellectually dishonest. I doubt that any serious scholar thinks that the CW was fought because of slavery.

It was because of slavery. Many revisionist historians try to "whitewash" history and paint the conflict outside of the context of slavery, but even if they try it always goes back to the issue of slavery.

The most common argument heard is that of "States Rights." The right to do what exactly? The answer is the right to have slaves, and the "right" to have Northern "free states" return escaped slaves to the South.

Most "serious scholars" identify the foundation of the American Civil War considerably prior to the opening of hostilities, some go as far back to the "three fifths" compromise. The South had a trend of crying out secessionist rhetoric when it perceived its peculiar institution to be threatened. In April of 1861 they merely put action to their words.

In the summer of 1849 a Georgia Politician and future Confederate General writes:

"First then, it is apparent, horribly apparent, that the slavery question rides insolently over every other everywhere -- in fact that is the only question which in the least affects the results of the elections...I think then, 1st, that the only safety of the South from abolition universal is to be found in an early dissolution of the Union..." -Henry L. Benning Some of you may recognize his name, after all he is the eponym of Fort Benning Georgia :)

These topics have influenced me to take out my collection on American Civil War reading and try to gather new reading material as well, but I have yet to find the recommendation of "A Southerner's View of the War" by William Pollard. I imagine by its title it was written at or close to the time period. Perhaps it is out of print, but if anybody can private message me where I can read or obtain a copy I would appreciate it.

[Hollis]

These topics have influenced me to take out my collection on American Civil War reading and try to gather new reading material as well, but I have yet to find the recommendation of "A Southerner's View of the War" by William Pollard. I imagine by its title it was written at or close to the time period. Perhaps it is out of print, but if anybody can private message me where I can read or obtain a copy I would appreciate it.


Interesting, I guess I am not a serious scholar, Oh well. I knew a few Profs, PhD in History, focus on the Civil War and along with my reading would not make a all inclusive statement as yours. (using a term as you have "most serious scholars" IMHO only diminishes your further statements and is a poor attempt of a ad hominem attack on someone who does not or will disagree with you.) I think most people weigh the causes, now you may think how you weigh them is how it is. I don't think you can separate Slavery from the causes, we may give it a different weight or how and why it impacted the people of the time.

I have a copy in my library. It is that I don't consider his book to be the way it was, 100% of the time. It does help to develop a feel for the time and understanding. Now with me not being a serious Scholar (assuming you directed that remarks to those of use and myself who feel there are other reasons besides slavery) why would you even consider a book that I mentioned? Besides I screw up remember his actual name, Edward A. Pollard, The late Editor of the Richmond Examiner and the correct title is Southern History of the War, Library of Congress Cat. #, 77-75322. There is a copy of a Letter dated November 5, 1865 over the signature of Edward A. Pollard. Opps, I need to take my citations more seriously.


Also Wiki on Edward A. Pollard.

[realityexists]

Interesting, I guess I am not a serious scholar, Oh well. I knew a few Profs, PhD in History, focus on the Civil War and along with my reading would not make a all inclusive statement as yours. (using a term as you have "most serious scholars" IMHO only diminishes your further statements and is a poor attempt of a ad hominem attack on someone who does not or will disagree with you.) I will clarify that I used the term most "serious scholars" in quotes. This was in reference to the earlier poster who categorizes "non-serious" scholars as those who think that slavery was the main cause of the American Civil War. It is my understanding that in general rules of English syntax sometimes when words or phrases are used in quotes (depending on the context) it indicates an emphasis of incorrect usage on part of the author, meaning that I do not agree with the usage of the word or phrase. After all what is a "serious scholar"??? An intellectual with no sense of humor perhaps? :)

I think most people weigh the causes, now you may think how you weigh them is how it is. I don't think you can separate Slavery from the causes, we may give it a different weight or how and why it impacted the people of the time. Agreed, and those who weigh other causes heavier (instead of slavery) are sometimes considered to be biased against the North and favorable towards the South. However, those who ignore it or regarded as inconsequential to the motivations for war are revisionists.

I have a copy in my library. It is that I don't consider his book to be the way it was, 100% of the time. It does help to develop a feel for the time and understanding. Now with me not being a serious Scholar (assuming you directed that remarks to those of use and myself who feel there are other reasons besides slavery) why would you even consider a book that I mentioned?Why wouldn't I consider a book that you mention? Here I am faced with a person who thinks (I assume from your previous posts) that other reasons should be weighed heavier than the "emotional" aspect of slavery, so I would definitely like to know what has shaped your perspective. Plus I like to read.

Interestingly I just found Edward Pollard in my notes. I thought I had heard that name before (Pollard), I did some reading on him in my American Civil War class and we read excerpts from "The Lost Cause." His work is generally considered to have been the beginning of Southern revisionist history on the Civil War.

Besides I screw up remember his actual name, Edward A. Pollard, The late Editor of the Richmond Examiner and the correct title is Southern History of the War, Library of Congress Cat. #, 77-75322. There is a copy of a Letter dated November 5, 1865 over the signature of Edward A. Pollard. Opps, I need to take my citations more seriously.Thanks for the info.

btw it is good to know that you knew a few Profs and PhD's that focused on the Civil War era. I did too, it would be ironic if I did not, since History was my major as an undergrad. Perhaps I am younger (mid-twentis) than you, but I still remember stories of one of my Professors. His lectures were awesome and interesting stories and a lot of them were based on his correspondence with a man who knew President Lincoln. :)

[Hollis]

Reality thanks for clarifying my misunderstanding of what you wrote.

Some of my readings was on slavery on a global scale. The arguments in Parliament (England) on abolishing the slave trade is interesting, The slave rebellions of the South, Liberation theology of the Slave church of the South, etc. My focus is more on a anthropological approach, culture.

I have even read opinions of people, alive during the war, who where not in the US. I really try not to take a position. I consider slavery to be a abhorrent behavior, but I live today. Some Southerners though wage slavery of the North was worse than Chattel Slavery of the South. Emotions are important, especially when people seem to loose all rational thought on a subject. Like WWI, Europe, worked it self up in to a awful war. As one critic at that time said, "If Soldiers did a about face, their gun would be pointed in the right direction." Understanding rational and irrational behavior helps. There is some belief that even if the South had abolished slavery, earlier secession would have probably happened. Kind of like a couple who over the years developed irreconcilable emotional differences in their marriage. The negative emotions have too much of a control on the couple for them to rebuild the relationship at that time.

I agreed with what another member said, the seeds of the civil war started in the revolutionary war (time). It is also good to look at the global view on slavery. The US was not the first country nor the last country to abolish chattel slavery. Something like 90-95% of Russians where slaves. The Tsar did not emancipate them until 1861. ( a good wiki read; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline). Even today the emotional issues of slavery couple with it being used for political reason far out ways the actual physical repercussion of slavery that it has on today's society.

Like today, opinions vary, people weigh them differently and there is the human trait to present a better opinion that what they are actually acting on. Revisionism has been around once man started to BS another person.

If I am a serious anything, it is I am serious about forgetting things. I read that specific book by Pollard about 17 years ago. I am still wondering by I switch his name to William. Maybe because I was visiting my father-in law house, his name is William. His Great grand dad who he was very close too, was a young man when he enlisted in 10th Ala in 1861 and was surrendered and paroled in 1865. My Gr. Grand dad was with the 101st Illinois, there is a foot note in history about him in a action he was in. He was from Tennessee at the time, his brother took the other path and was hung by the Yankees for being a bushwhacker. I was fortunate to have met people who knew CW vets. I have always enjoyed listening about the history of the average person, stuff about famous people is all over the place.

[Atlantic Friend]

What about the new Ken Burns' documentary about the Civil War, BTW? Is it any good?

[LineDoggie]

What about the new Ken Burns' documentary about the Civil War, BTW? Is it any good?

New? came out in 1990 and yes its pretty good

[Hollis]

What about the new Ken Burns' documentary about the Civil War, BTW? Is it any good?


It is good, taken it as what it is, a very short synopsis. Even the movie, The Blue and Gray is sort of a grade school quality synopsis of the war is OK for the beginner. Having studied the CW for about 50 years + some 300 + Books later, It ain't all the simple. I am still shaping my view of the war. Some things we do know for sure, some things are still iffy.

[Atlantic Friend]

New? came out in 1990 and yes its pretty good

Really? 1990? Wow! It has just been released here in France (dubbed version), 2-3 years after we got a French dubbed version of "The War". Funny that, I had never imagined it could be that many years before the two releases. :-D

I might get it as my own little 40th b-day treat, then. I loved what he did with "The War".

[GB_FXST]

It was because of slavery. Many revisionist historians try to "whitewash" history and paint the conflict outside of the context of slavery, but even if they try it always goes back to the issue of slavery.

The most common argument heard is that of "States Rights." The right to do what exactly? The answer is the right to have slaves, and the "right" to have Northern "free states" return escaped slaves to the South.

Most "serious scholars" identify the foundation of the American Civil War considerably prior to the opening of hostilities, some go as far back to the "three fifths" compromise. The South had a trend of crying out secessionist rhetoric when it perceived its peculiar institution to be threatened. In April of 1861 they merely put action to their words.

In the summer of 1849 a Georgia Politician and future Confederate General writes:
Some of you may recognize his name, after all he is the eponym of Fort Benning Georgia :)

These topics have influenced me to take out my collection on American Civil War reading and try to gather new reading material as well, but I have yet to find the recommendation of "A Southerner's View of the War" by William Pollard. I imagine by its title it was written at or close to the time period. Perhaps it is out of print, but if anybody can private message me where I can read or obtain a copy I would appreciate it.

The right to have slaves was one of a number of issues under the larger question of states rights.

The basis for my earlier quote is this: Would have Lincoln engaged in the CW to abolish slavery? Inversely, if a compromise could be reached that would have saved the Union and retained the institution of slavery would have war been averted? I think that answers are no and yes, respectively.

My reason for reference to serious scholarship is that the war was about state's right, regardless of how it was manifest.

Lincoln did not engage in a crusade on moral grounds, and it is simply incorrect to cast the war as such. Having said that, I do believe that Lincoln was a great President, and a man of outstanding moral conviction and courage. Nevertheless, the context of his presidency and his decisions cannot be ignored.

[Hollis]

GB, great post. I have, over time, come to greatly admire President Lincoln. The greatest person at that time, IMHO, is Frederick Douglas, then I would place President Lincoln. I think Frederick Douglass would be a great man of our time too. There are men like them probably in every generation, it is sad their numbers are ofter too few.

[California Joe]

Quick off topic...Hollis, your post about your Great Grandfather being in the 101st Illinois made me stop and thing that my Grandfather was born in 1862 during the war. :) Weird to think about.

[realityexists]

@HOLLiS I am glad I was able to clarify my statements. Also you are truly lucky to have known people who knew people who fought in the Civil War. I think it is quite telling how deep and current the legacy of the Civil War still is, and I agree that the issue of emotions is still very much true today.

Now to GB post:

The right to have slaves was one of a number of issues under the larger question of states rights.From all my reading on the American Civil War, I have found that when Southerners mentioned states rights it was almost always within the context of slavery. So I am curious to know what have you found were the other grievances (issues) that Southerners had against the North that fell outside the realm of slavery but within the context of states rights?

The basis for my earlier quote is this: Would have Lincoln engaged in the CW to abolish slavery? Inversely, if a compromise could be reached that would have saved the Union and retained the institution of slavery would have war been averted? I think that answers are no and yes, respectively.Agreed, Lincoln's engagement in the CW was not for the abolition of slavery, but it was for the preservation of the Union. A compromise could never have worked if you take into account the motivations for the South to leave the Union. Why did the South attack Fort Sumter? The big answer was Lincoln's election. Lincoln did not run on a platform that said he would end slavery, yet Southerner's (the elite ruling class) viewed him as such (an abolitionist) and thus finally took action to their secessionist rhetoric.

I am talking about specifics for example one thing that sometimes is included within the topic of states rights was the issue of property rights. On the surface this may seem unrelated to slavery, but this too was within the context of slavery. Many Southerners believed that their property rights, thus their states rights as well, were threatened by the election of Lincoln. They lived in a world were negro slaves were considered to be property (chattel slavery). However, not all Southerner's thought this way and not all Americans thought this way either.

My reason for reference to serious scholarship is that the war was about state's right, regardless of how it was manifest.The evidence suggests otherwise, and I am of the conviction that Southerner's did not give a hoot to states rights. If Southerner's really cared about States rights they would have left the issue (slavery) up to the individual states and territories, yet in the Confederate constitution the issue of slavery is forced upon new territories.

Article IV, Sec. 3. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp

No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs,. or to whom such service or labor may be due. So this says that if a state made a law in which slavery is outlawed a visiting slave shall still be a slave. This means that the central Confederate government's constitution was imposing its view of slavery on all the states. That a slave was still a slave regardless of the laws or regulations that the people of that state or territory had enacted.

...In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be [sic] Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.Slavery under the Confederate Constitution would be imposed on the people of a new territory, the people or state would not have the right to decide whether or not they wanted slavery. Unlike the U.S. constitution the Confederate constitution made it a right to own slaves. Now even if the definition of a slave was to surpass the realm of "property" and reached the status of person hood and human; he would still be a slave.

Lincoln did not engage in a crusade on moral grounds, and it is simply incorrect to cast the war as such. Having said that, I do believe that Lincoln was a great President, and a man of outstanding moral conviction and courage. Nevertheless, the context of his presidency and his decisions cannot be ignored.Indeed, but it was not Lincoln who began the conflict and to say otherwise is to be "revisionist" :) It is generally understood that the South was the aggressor (Fort Sumter) So it would be good to look at the motivations of the Southerners in the antebellum South and those motivations (in my opinion) are clearly permeated with the peculiar institution.


I am not trying to "convert" anybody to my view, but perhaps in asking for specifics that lead you to your perspective, and in explaining why I think about the Civil War the way I do, we can all learn something new. I have learned new things already and for that I thank you all.

[Hollis]

Quick off topic...Hollis, your post about your Great Grandfather being in the 101st Illinois made me stop and thing that my Grandfather was born in 1862 during the war. :) Weird to think about.


No kidding, My wife mothers had a grand dad who was in the Union Army at G-burg, her dad had his Grand dad there too, but with the ANV. It was a good they they where not good shots. I refer to the war as the great divorce, it was more one side fighting itself.

[cbreedon]

Quick off topic...Hollis, your post about your Great Grandfather being in the 101st Illinois made me stop and thing that my Grandfather was born in 1862 during the war. :) Weird to think about.

Your Grandfather was born in 1862? He and your father must have had children very late in life.

[Hollis]

Your Grandfather was born in 1862? He and your father must have had children very late in life.


CJ has been concealing his age for a long time.

[California Joe]

Haha. Yeah I fought at Belleau Wood...;)

My Grandfather was born in 1862
My Dad was born in 1914
I was born in 1962

My Grandfather died in 1963 about 3 months after I was born. My Father died in 1992 about 3 months after my daughter was born...

[Hollis]

CJ, Kind of like the way my kids have it, I was 45 when my first was born. My Grand dad, lived to 95, Dad till 86, Mom was 96.

I know OT, But look at those family, Mom, Grand Mom, baby and G-mom is 30 something.

I didn't know you fought at Belleau Wood ;)

[DS73]

Sorry for jumping into personal revelations about grandparents ...Nice tread.



Now to GB post:
From all my reading on the American Civil War, I have found that when Southerners mentioned states rights it was almost always within the context of slavery. So I am curious to know what have you found were the other grievances (issues) that Southerners had against the North that fell outside the realm of slavery but within the context of states rights?

I didn't read much about CW, but somehow I managed to notice "Federal Bank", "population mobility" sometimes ambiguously called by "emancipation", "industrialization" and "trade control". Southerners having rather stable and quite conservative society weren't interested in either of these marvels.
On the other hand bankers from North East always needed new space for expansion. They still need more.


Agreed, Lincoln's engagement in the CW was not for the abolition of slavery, but it was for the preservation of the Union.
Preservation of the Union or it's survival?
Where so called Northern states (isn't it more accurate to say Western and Eastern instead?) that united, so USA would survive South's secession? Weren't the politicians talking about "Domino" effect?


I am talking about specifics for example one thing that sometimes is included within the topic of states rights was the issue of property rights. On the surface this may seem unrelated to slavery, but this too was within the context of slavery.The abolition of slavery or even total "buy out" would lead to the collapse of life as the southerners knew it, accompanied by the total and immediate political and economical surrender to the New England elite.
That is why you see united and well coordinated South army. They had common reason to fight: survival.

Compare with what was happening with the armies in North: the abolition of slavery and "preservation of the Union" happened to be not sufficiently strong reasons to make all necessary efforts from the start.
I am curious: what has happened to southern wealthiest families after the war?

"State rights", or "region, city etc. rights" are used exactly when there is a conflict between too quickly expanding too "alien" federal center and local relatively "conservative" areas.
Often politicians focuse on one the simplest and most obvious factor like the language (dialect), while the problems lie more in cultural, behavioral differences always coupled with financial disagreements.

[Hollis]

DS73, great post. Often the CW student fails to go out side of the war, military and politics in their quest for understanding. Thanks

[realityexists]

I didn't read much about CW, but somehow I managed to notice "Federal Bank", "population mobility" sometimes ambiguously called by "emancipation", "industrialization" and "trade control". Southerners having rather stable and quite conservative society weren't interested in either of these marvels.
On the other hand bankers from North East always needed new space for expansion. They still need more.I am not sure what you mean by the "Federal Bank" when referring to the lead up to the war, which is what we're discussing, as in the motivations for war by the South then your "Federal Bank" comment I am rather confused about.

There was no "Federal Bank," the second bank of the United States was essentially "killed" by President Andrew Jackson in 1832. From that date up until 1862 there was no centralized banking, it was almost a free for all with local and state banks filling the vacuum left behind by the second bank. The antebellum U.S. economy was essentially a barter (e.g. slaves, crops, textiles etc.) and metal (gold and silver) economy. So what do you mean by "Federal Bank" when it comes to the cause(s) of the American Civil War?

Your Population mobility comment I agree if you're referring to escaped slaves, because it adds to the point that the issue of slavery was the main motivation for secession and war for the South.

Industrialization again leads to the issue of slavery, others in this forum have noted this and that is the South's perception of "wage slavery" (a result of industrialization) being worse than their brand of slavery. Needless to say that many Southerners put out a lot of political propaganda that painted Northern and English industrialization as leading "horrible" wage slavery. While they painted the "chattel slavery" of the South in the most positive light. For example of this you can see the following pro-slavery image put out by Southerners:
118517

Now did this hold up to the evidence (literary and archeological) of the general conditions for slaves in the South? I think not. The exceptions to the rule do not constitute a significant amount to warrant the institution of chattel slavery in the South as preferable to that of Northern "wage slavery." A lot of Northerners believed this and so did many Southerners.


Preservation of the Union or it's survival?This can quickly become a semantics game. So I hope we can agree on the definitions of "preservation" and "survival" being synonymous.

Where so called Northern states (isn't it more accurate to say Western and Eastern instead?) that united, so USA would survive South's secession? Weren't the politicians talking about "Domino" effect?As far as I know there weren't any Northern politicians talking about a "domino effect." The domino effect as a political theory has it origins in the 1950's when Eisenhower gave his infamous speech on communism in Indochina. If I were to see this language use in sources dated to the American Civil war period, I would be suspect of the source and would definitely check for other anachronistic language. However, if you recall this from your reading then could you please direct me to the material? You have picked my curiosity :)

The abolition of slavery or even total "buy out" would lead to the collapse of life as the southerners knew it, accompanied by the total and immediate political and economical surrender to the New England elite.Agreed, and thus the issue of slavery protrudes again.

That is why you see united and well coordinated South army. They had common reason to fight: survival.Indeed the North were painted as invaders, hence the term used by white Southern histories for the American Civil war as the war of "Northern aggression." This suggests that it was the North and not the South that was the original instigator of hostilities. I think this can be arguably said to be "revisionist."

If and when somebody takes issue with the term American Civil War I advocate for another term: "Freedom War." The term was used by Southern blacks when referencing the American Civil War. :-)

Compare with what was happening with the armies in North: the abolition of slavery and "preservation of the Union" happened to be not sufficiently strong reasons to make all necessary efforts from the start.
I am curious: what has happened to southern wealthiest families after the war?The wealthy families remained wealthy, nothing really changed. The common man and


"State rights", or "region, city etc. rights" are used exactly when there is a conflict between too quickly expanding too "alien" federal center and local relatively "conservative" areas.Perhaps we're losing ourselves in our discussion here, but I was trying to argue that the main cause of the American Civil war was slavery. Although with any war there are varying complexities and motivations that drive humans to kill other human beings, but in our endeavor to understand such violence (in an unbiased way) the evidence points to the issue of slavery. Now, are you saying that an expanding Federal power was the main cause of the American Civil war? If so I would say that the evidence is not on your side.

Often politicians focuse on one the simplest and most obvious factor like the language (dialect), while the problems lie more in cultural, behavioral differences always coupled with financial disagreementsI do not agree with the notion that the issues of cultural and behavioral differences led to point of irreconcilability that both sides went to war because of them. A difference in financial matters perhaps, indeed slavery was a very lucrative business for the elite plantation owners.

[GB_FXST]

@HOLLiS I am glad I was able to clarify my statements. Also you are truly lucky to have known people who knew people who fought in the Civil War. I think it is quite telling how deep and current the legacy of the Civil War still is, and I agree that the issue of emotions is still very much true today.

Now to GB post:
From all my reading on the American Civil War, I have found that when Southerners mentioned states rights it was almost always within the context of slavery. So I am curious to know what have you found were the other grievances (issues) that Southerners had against the North that fell outside the realm of slavery but within the context of states rights?
Agreed, Lincoln's engagement in the CW was not for the abolition of slavery, but it was for the preservation of the Union. A compromise could never have worked if you take into account the motivations for the South to leave the Union. Why did the South attack Fort Sumter? The big answer was Lincoln's election. Lincoln did not run on a platform that said he would end slavery, yet Southerner's (the elite ruling class) viewed him as such (an abolitionist) and thus finally took action to their secessionist rhetoric.

I am talking about specifics for example one thing that sometimes is included within the topic of states rights was the issue of property rights. On the surface this may seem unrelated to slavery, but this too was within the context of slavery. Many Southerners believed that their property rights, thus their states rights as well, were threatened by the election of Lincoln. They lived in a world were negro slaves were considered to be property (chattel slavery). However, not all Southerner's thought this way and not all Americans thought this way either.
The evidence suggests otherwise, and I am of the conviction that Southerner's did not give a hoot to states rights. If Southerner's really cared about States rights they would have left the issue (slavery) up to the individual states and territories, yet in the Confederate constitution the issue of slavery is forced upon new territories.

Article IV, Sec. 3. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp
So this says that if a state made a law in which slavery is outlawed a visiting slave shall still be a slave. This means that the central Confederate government's constitution was imposing its view of slavery on all the states. That a slave was still a slave regardless of the laws or regulations that the people of that state or territory had enacted.
Slavery under the Confederate Constitution would be imposed on the people of a new territory, the people or state would not have the right to decide whether or not they wanted slavery. Unlike the U.S. constitution the Confederate constitution made it a right to own slaves. Now even if the definition of a slave was to surpass the realm of "property" and reached the status of person hood and human; he would still be a slave.
Indeed, but it was not Lincoln who began the conflict and to say otherwise is to be "revisionist" :) It is generally understood that the South was the aggressor (Fort Sumter) So it would be good to look at the motivations of the Southerners in the antebellum South and those motivations (in my opinion) are clearly permeated with the peculiar institution.


I am not trying to "convert" anybody to my view, but perhaps in asking for specifics that lead you to your perspective, and in explaining why I think about the Civil War the way I do, we can all learn something new. I have learned new things already and for that I thank you all.

My thesis is that the cause of the CW lies in the issue of State Rights. The issue of State Rights has been a point of tension in the US Federal system since 1788, and continues to this day.

An effect – an undeniably laudable effect – of the CW was the abolition of slavery. Without doubt, the Emancipation Proclamation (the 13th Amendment to the Bill of Rights) is a zenith in the American narrative, and should be reflected on with pride by Americans of all stripes. One can argue whether or not emancipation would have occurred in the absence of the CW. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that it would not have occurred as soon.

I think it is important to not confuse the cause and effect of the CW because of the moral stereotypes associated with slavery and abolition, the North and the South. We (collective) cannot paint with broad brush strokes the North as the good guys, the South as the bad guys. One cost of such a practice taints the current debate on contemporary policies. (I should note that while I current live in the West, I have lived in both the North and the South. Born and raised in Chicago, and a product of the Chicago Public School system. I also lived for decade in rural South-Eastern Kentucky, where the term “the South shall rise again” is neither hyperbole nor humor. I will spare boring anecdotal stories of racial/religious intolerance in Chicago, and racial/religious tolerance in Madison County. Suffice it to say, neither one is a utopia or dystopia.)

State Rights is not synonymous with slavery, and today, advocates of States Right are not advocates of an immoral political ideology. However, does Martin make that implication? Will others draw that conclusion?

In other words, the political health of the US is in jeopardy if opponents of the continued expansion of the Federal Government (as is most recently evident in the new health care law (Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010)) are dismissed (or worse) as adherents of a racial supremacist political ideology.

This is the danger of revisionism, and confusion of the cause and effect of the CW.

The issue of state rights (the limitation of the Federal Government) is inherent to the Constitution as evident by the 10th Amendment to the Bill of Rights. The provision to limit the Federal Government to only the powers listed in the Constitution was both a reflection of the fear of a centralized government, and a consequence of anti-Federalist lobbying.

The tension between Federalists and anti-Federalist continued to simmer for the next 70 some years, until it exploded in the CW. The causal effects of the CW are undoubtedly property rights: Slavery, fears of imposed abolition, was a key issue as you note. So too was issue of taxation, which was perceived to be onerous and non-representative. Social change in the form of immigration and industrial development are factors too. The perceived right of secession, as implied by Founding documents, and (arguably) the Constitution is yet another factor.

In regards to Fort Sumter, did a series of unintended and undesired events lead to hostilities that both Union and Secessionist leaders would have preferred to avoid? This would not be the first or last time that a series of unintended consequences culminated in a war.

In regards to the US Constitution, IMHO, no finer document of political governance has been crafted. However, the issue of slavery and the US Constitution is murky, troublesome and frankly embarrassing, especially considering the proposed Corwin Amendment of 1861. However, that the Corwin Amendment, undeniably odious, was mooted by the post war 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments speaks to the vitality and virtue of the US Constitution.

[Hollis]

In regards to the US Constitution, IMHO, no finer document of political governance has been crafted. However, the issue of slavery and the US Constitution is murky, troublesome and frankly embarrassing, especially considering the proposed Corwin Amendment of 1861. However, that the Corwin Amendment, undeniably odious, was mooted by the post war 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments speaks to the vitality and virtue of the US Constitution.


There are some really interesting discussion on Constitutional issue from, secession being constitution to Eminent Domain. I'll let members connect Eminent Domain to Emancipation. Obviously a number of constitutional issues never where raise or went to SCOTUS because 1) North was victorious 2) heavy emotions of the time.


Reality, When you mentioned the name of the Civil War, (CW) do you know when that term was accepted?


The Victor writes the history. Abolishing slavery was a very high Ideal. It added morality to the war for the North. Basically the North had a Claim of moral superiority over the South, when Lincoln signed the EP. I don't think we can discuss the CW without the issue of Slavery but to give it as the Number one reason makes it too easy for the other causes to go unknown. It the smoke screen of righteousness that is used to cover all the other issues and even errors/wrong committed by the North. It shifts any of the wrongs to be completely of the South's doing and the North as the moral champion who is blameless. The emotional aspects of Slavery still is used to day for self serving politicians and power merchants.

At the break of the war, Abolitionists did not rate that much better in the North as they did in the South. It was a house divided and the division was not just North and South. The South and North was also internally divided over this issue.


As to the Moral position, the extermination of the Native Americans in the wars to follow in the West, should remove any concept that the North was morally pure. Ichi is a good read, if I did not misspell the name.

Basically Slavery was a political issue, resolution/emancipation was based primary on political reasoning not moral reasons.

[California Joe]

To quote Shelby Foote, one of my favorite authors on the subject..."The North fought the war with one hand tied behind its back..."

[RECON DOC]

Haha. Yeah I fought at Belleau Wood...;)

My Grandfather was born in 1862
My Dad was born in 1914
I was born in 1962

My Grandfather died in 1963 about 3 months after I was born. My Father died in 1992 about 3 months after my daughter was born...

My,my, you are older than I thought.
My Grandpap was at Belleau wood (born 1891) with the 2nd ID? Indian head Div IIRC. It was part Marine and part Army at that time. He was a wire dog and sometimes had go out into the sh1t to repair lines broken by arty. Had his diary for awhile, kind of eery and surreal. Don't know who has it now, but I sure would like to get it back.

[Yeti2424]

CNN has another winner of an opinion piece posted today:



Confederate history is about race

By Grace Elizabeth Hale, Special to CNN
April 14, 2010 8:43 a.m. EDT

Editor's note: Grace Elizabeth Hale is an associate professor of history and American studies at the University of Virginia and author of "Making Whiteness: The Culture of Segregation in the South, 1890-1940 (Vintage, 1999)" and the forthcoming book "A Nation of Outsiders: How the White Middle-Class Fell in Love with Rebellion in Postwar America," to be published this year by Oxford University Press.

(CNN) -- It has been eight years since people in my state of Virginia got a chance to debate the meaning of the Civil War in front of the nation, and the comments posted on CNN and other news Web sites suggest our passion over the topic has not dimmed.
If Governor Bob McDonnell wants his fellow Virginians to think deeply about "how our history has led to our present," then his declaration of April as Confederate History Month has accomplished this goal, if not exactly in the manner he intended.

The problem with the celebration of Confederate History Month, however, goes far beyond McDonnell's "mistake" in not discussing the centrality of slavery in the Civil War in his original proclamation.
Confederate "history" means more than the four years during which Virginia and other states fought a war to form a separate country called the Confederate States of America. It refers to the many uses of Confederate symbols and evocations of Confederate history in the almost century-and-a-half since Appomattox as well.

This long history offers nothing to memorialize. Former Confederate soldiers quickly formed the Ku Klux Klan (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Hate_and_Extremist_Groups) after the war to attack Reconstruction officials and the black and white Republicans who were trying to run the state, and they sometimes displayed Confederate symbols as part of their work. After congressional hearings shut down the Klan, copycat organizations continued to make use of Confederate symbols as they engaged in acts of political terrorism.

Former Confederates openly supported and participated in what many white Southerners called the "redemption" of the region, the reassertion of their control over state and local governments as Reconstruction ended.

In the 1870s and 1880s, the decoration of Confederate graves with flowers and flags and celebratory speeches and parades increasingly signaled a commitment to what came to be called the "Lost Cause," a decidedly partisan and self-consciously politicized account of the Civil War (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Civil_War).

Though many supporters of secession believed during the Civil War that they were fighting against other Americans over the issue of slavery, amateur and professional historians, many with ties to the Confederacy worked to rewrite this history as a noble fight for states rights and a celebration of the sacrifice of Confederate soldiers. What members of the Sons of the Confederacy offer today as the "true" history of the region has its roots in this effort.

By the end of the 19th century, organizations like the Confederate Veterans and the Daughters of the Confederacy organized public acts of commemoration and the celebration of the "honor" of former Confederates.

Members of these organizations actively used their version of history to support the disfranchisement of African-Americans and the expansion of a white supremacist social order grounded in segregation. Across the region, Jim Crow segregation and Confederate commemoration expanded hand in hand, as the Lost Cause version of the Southern past justified the contemporary elimination of black rights.

When more subtle displays of Confederate symbols and history were not enough, white Southerners violently attacked and murdered African-Americans, sometimes publicly before large crowds. Lynchers sometimes brandished Confederate symbols.

In the early 20th century, monuments to Confederate soldiers appeared on courthouse lawns across the South and on the grounds of southern state capitols, marking these public spaces as the property of the white people who celebrated this "Confederate" version of the past. By the 1920s, a revived Klan made the Confederate battle flag their second-most important symbol, after the fiery cross, as they once again used violence and threats of violence to uphold white supremacy.

With the NAACP's victory in Brown v. Board of Education and the success of the Montgomery bus boycott, some white Southerners revived the use of Confederate versions of the past and Confederate symbols in their fight against the civil rights movement and integration.

Crowds who attacked civil rights activists sometimes carried Confederate flags as civil rights supporters carried American flags and sang "The Star-Spangled Banner" to counter these Confederate symbols. Called the "country club Klan" because of its public condemnation of violence, the White Citizens Council also used Confederate versions of the past in its opposition to African-American equality.

Today, Confederate history is as much about 1965 and the Voting Rights Act as it is about 1865 and Lee's surrender. The long history of the ways Confederate symbols have been used and Confederate history has been evoked to support racist violence and African- American oppression haunts Gov. McDonnell's declaration of Confederate History Month.

Confederate history cannot be separated from the issue at the center of the Civil War, slavery. But it also cannot be separated from the history of segregation, massive resistance, and the fight against the civil rights movement.

Historically, Confederate versions of the past and Confederate symbols have meant opposition to equal rights for all Americans. In officially recognizing Confederate History Month, Gov. McDonnell is asking Virginians to join together in celebration of this history of white supremacy.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Grace Elizabeth Hale.



http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/04/14/hale.confederate.history.race/index.html?hpt=C1

[matthew.manhorn]

Asymmetrical warfare wasn't really that popular during the civil war era due to pride and other stuff, it's hard to judge them from hindsight. If you're out of options you're forced to be an insurgent instead of a soldier

The same goes to labeling the ANC "terrorists" and Contras "freedom fighters" during the 80's.

The term "terrorist" has become so commercialized nowadays

[MN_Air]

Haha. Yeah I fought at Belleau Wood...;)

My Grandfather was born in 1862
My Dad was born in 1914
I was born in 1962

My Grandfather died in 1963 about 3 months after I was born. My Father died in 1992 about 3 months after my daughter was born...

My dad is older than you by 2 years. Your Dad is older than my Grandpa though. Cool stuff.

My ancestors were either not in the US (Grandma on my Dads side, all of my Moms family) or in Canada( Grandpa Dads side) during the civil war.

I don't see why we shouldn't honor the Confederate soldiers. They fought for their country just like the Union soldiers did. I don't hold anything against the Wehrmacht in the 40's because they fought for the Nazi party. They are still soldiers, and they fought for their country.

[amick_lindsey]

I would call them traitors(but were they?!?)... I don't know about them being terrorist. I mean, did they used terror as the means to negotiate with the Union? considering the fact that what they wanted to do was to form a new state. The confederate states formally seceded and declared war on the Union so as a citizen of one of those states, you would be ought to take on arms and fight. Were the confederate soldiers terrorists or did they fight for a terrorist-state?!?

terrorist (a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities)
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=terrorist

I agree with matthew.manhorn (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/member.php?54294-matthew-manhorn), I mean back then, there were no rules of war or a Geneve Convention to regulate how war was supposed to be fought....
so at least me, I wouldn't call them Confederate terrorists, but traitors of the Union.

[seraosha]

traitors of the Union

sweet ****-all, what are they teaching our kids in history class now days?

South Carolina (December 20, 1860)
Mississippi (January 9, 1861)
Florida (January 10, 1861)
Alabama (January 11, 1861)
Georgia (January 19, 1861)
Louisiana (January 26, 1861)
Texas (February 1, 1861)
Virginia (April 17, 1861; ratified by voters May 23, 1861)
Arkansas (May 6, 1861)
Tennessee (May 7, 1861; ratified by voters June 8, 1861)
North Carolina (May 20, 1861)

That's the STATES that made up the Confederacy...DEMOCRATIC STATES WITH ELECTED OFFICIALS, LEGISLATURES, AND LAWS.

[California Joe]

I don't know where these opinion piece writers get their information but I'm not sure if she's ever seen the other "monuments" on Monument Avenue other than Arthur Ashe. Which I still think was a rather bizarre addition. Nice guy and all, but he played tennis for f*ckssakes.

In the 90s when I used to hang out and drink beer in Richmond in the Fan with my old college buddy during the Memorial Day parades there were far more Battle Guidons being waved by the old ladies on their lawns than anything else...This is their history and lets face it, as a bunch of armchair military historians, the Confederates have all of the pathos of a good Greek tragedy.

I, personally speaking am intrigued by all facets of this unique time in our country's history. It was complicated, brutal, interesting, and heroic on many levels and in many ways. I think it diminishes the men who fought and died for their (not our modern) beliefs no matter what color they wore to apply current standards to the 1860s and also assume what any of these men fought for. I have to place myself in their shoes and think "what if..."

http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff212/rghayes40/REBS2.jpg

http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff212/rghayes40/REBS1.jpg

[DS73]

I am not sure what you mean by the "Federal Bank" when referring to the lead up to the war, which is what we're discussing, as in the motivations for war by the South then your "Federal Bank" comment I am rather confused about.
He-he, I smell the victim of fragmented "clip-like" education here.
By "Federal bank" idea I mean the results of "National Banking Act" of 1863. Not accidentally one of the first acts of just starting to win "North". Amazingly it is not very discussed that the first time this act was proposed in 1860 and not surprisingly it was repelled by South. "State Rights" check, the absence of word "slavery" check.

As somebody who at least occasionally open news sites and watch tv news, you are not going to deny that it is critical to have access to printing press.



There was no "Federal Bank," the second bank of the United States was essentially "killed" by President Andrew Jackson in 1832. From that date up until 1862 there was no centralized banking, it was almost a free for all with local and state banks filling the vacuum left behind by the second bank. The antebellum U.S. economy was essentially a barter (e.g. slaves, crops, textiles etc.) and metal (gold and silver) economy. So what do you mean by "Federal Bank" when it comes to the cause(s) of the American Civil War?
:cantbeli:. Duuude. How old are you? The word "check" **big neon lights**. Of course banks, like elsewhere, were exchanging bonds, this was and still is a standard investment procedure.

The main problem of american bank system of those times was not exactly the big number of banks or multiple types of bank notes but the lack of proper communications. Trusted telegraph and telephone connections happen to be crucial for the credit system: be it "federal controlled" (or by New England banks if to be precise), or "state controlled" as it was before CW. The evolution of "national" banks after CW clearly illustrates this thesis.



Your Population mobility comment I agree if you're referring to escaped slaves, because it adds to the point that the issue of slavery was the main motivation for secession and war for the South.
Southerners wanted to control immigration, they didn't want transcontinental rail roads, they didn't want federal control over land distribution etc. etc.
Property rights (escaped slaves) were one of very many very critical subjects of discontent.
And please keep modern humanism asleep if you want to dig into XIX century.
When USA have abolished xenophobic parts of immigration restrictions? Do you know?



Industrialization again leads to the issue of slavery, others in this forum have noted this and that is the South's perception of "wage slavery" (a result of industrialization) being worse than their brand of slavery. ...
Dude, again you revert "back to the future" and discuss modern ideological crap.
Industrialization was driven by banks and required massive immigration influx.
You need available builders, you need cheep mobile workers, you need massive capital to build serious stuff and pay European engineers. You need railroads to transport all this stuff. Northerners had all that.

On the other hand South didn't have really strong banks, they didn't want new immigrants. They were fine with the status quo. This word "fine" is present in any serious work about pre CW times.

Btw. Modern "No to aborts" is pretty much the same old "we don't want changes".



This can quickly become a semantics game. So I hope we can agree on the definitions of "preservation" and "survival" being synonymous.
OK.


As far as I know there weren't any Northern politicians talking about a "domino effect." The domino effect as a political theory has it origins in the 1950's when Eisenhower gave his infamous speech on communism in Indochina. If I were to see this language use in sources dated to the American Civil war period, I would be suspect of the source and would definitely check for other anachronistic language. However, if you recall this from your reading then could you please direct me to the material? You have picked my curiosity :)
He-he, again "fragmented" education. Newton laws existed before Newton times, they were obviously partially observed and described numerous times before Newton. Newton happened to be the dude who laid all stuff right. "Domino effect" obviously existed before Eisenhower. He was lucky to have quite good speech writers who put it right.
Since you want quote here is one from pretty famous speech:
"...From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the government must cease. There is no other alternative; for continuing the government, is acquiescence on one side or the other. If a minority, in such case, will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which, in turn, will divide and ruin them; for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy, a year or two hence, arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it? All who cherish disunion sentiments, are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this. Is there such perfect identity of interests among the States to compose a new Union, as to produce harmony only, and prevent renewed secession?
Plainly, the central idea of secession, is the essence of anarchy. A majority, held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it, does, of necessity, fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible; the rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left..."
I specially left a bit more for proper context.

I am not going to say where it from, since you claim to be an American knowledgeable about CW history, you should know the source and the author.


Agreed, and thus the issue of slavery protrudes again.
Indeed the North were painted as invaders, hence the term used by white Southern histories for the American Civil war as the war of "Northern aggression." This suggests that it was the North and not the South that was the original instigator of hostilities. I think this can be arguably said to be "revisionist."
Frankly I don't care if that attack was real or it was just another "Gleiwitz incident". Visibly Lincoln's group has cornered southerners. After such long election campaign, after controversial declarations the war was inevitable and both sides were doing clear preparations to start it by organizing militias etc.



If and when somebody takes issue with the term American Civil War I advocate for another term: "Freedom War." The term was used by Southern blacks when referencing the American Civil War. :-)
When referencing? the date please.


Perhaps we're losing ourselves in our discussion here, but I was trying to argue that the main cause of the American Civil war was slavery.
Slavery was the main ideological reason introduced by Lincoln, in oops 1863, you wanted to say. Northern states needed maximum support from Great Britain, you know.

But!!!
There is another interesting quote from the same speech:
" Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States, that by the accession of a Republican Administration, their property, and their peace, and personal security, are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed, and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "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." Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this, and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them. And more than this, they placed in the platform, for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves, and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:
Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes...."


Here we go, no initial intention to abolish slavery is stated, and oops, even so annoying nowadays words as "rights of the States" are mentioned.


Although with any war there are varying complexities and motivations that drive humans to kill other human beings, but in our endeavor to understand such violence (in an unbiased way) the evidence points to the issue of slavery. Now, are you saying that an expanding Federal power was the main cause of the American Civil war? If so I would say that the evidence is not on your side.
Let see, Federal Power rapidly expanded during and after CW: check.
Continuous complains by NE politicians and media about retarded southerners during 50s: check.
Continuous and stubborn South opposition to almost any federal initiative during first half of the XIX century: check.
Hmm, no evidence you say. You can start with Jefferson vs Hamilton debate. It's all right there already.

Anyway, what is the principle difference between quite xenophobic immigration laws which were introduced by "free North" and "South" slavery laws? Whatever: modern humanism POV, Lincoln POV, anything: what is the actual difference between these two very real manifestations of racism?



I do not agree with the notion that the issues of cultural and behavioral differences led to point of irreconcilability that both sides went to war because of them.
Moral relativism of New England elite and media was probably even worse than it is now, conservative rigidness and specific snobbery were quite characteristic for educated southerners. You can see it in speeches of those times, literature, cultural stereotypes that exist even today.

Why do you think so many southerners are so clued to Confederate flag? All of them know and like history? Doubtfully.
Or they use the easy way to express dissent toward "corrupt federal center", that is, North? Most probably.

Why there is such dissent? Isn't it there because of cultural divergence, which started right from the start? And just like two centuries ago, the moral "superiority" expressed by NE politicians is equally questionable if not disgusting.


A difference in financial matters perhaps, indeed slavery was a very lucrative business for the elite plantation owners.Hmm, please mention any other business characteristic for South. What did they do on national level beside cotton?
Anyway, what I've wrote (the collapse of South due to abolition of slavery) indeed happened: until Oil fewer South remained being quite "delayed" as modern economists prefer to write. And please don't start with "South was destroyed by war" fantasies. There is enough factual material published.


Actually the initial interest in CW I've got after accidentally reading quite interesting book "Conflict and Compromise: The Political Economy of Slavery, Emancipation and the American Civil War".

CW happened to be quite interesting and well covered subject relevant not only for American historians but for any specialists interested in evolutionary processes.

[Yeti2424]

They dont bury terrorists in Arlington National Cemetery...

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/csa-mem.htm

[California Joe]

It's Robert E. Lee's backyard.

[Gunbird]

They weren't terrorists, but what they supported was pure ****ing evil.

[MN_Air]

They weren't terrorists, but what they supported was pure ****ing evil.


I can think of things a lot more evil than having someone work for you for free.

[Laconian]

This isn't Roland Martin the bass fisherman, is it?

It would be pretty unlikely that the uniformed soldiers of an army would be labeled as terrorists, except in our society where ball players are called warriors and heroes. any criminal acts by these soldiers would have made them war criminals, but terrorists, no way.

@amick - The first rules of war for the American army were published by the Continental Congress (and written by John Adams) during the Revolution. There were certainly rules of conduct for soldiers. Even the irregular forces could not be considered terrorists as they did not target civilian forces for a political outcome.

Although I disagree with the aims of the Confederacy, to not acknowledge the sacrifices and talent of the men that fought on that side is to turn our backs on one of the most defining periods in US history.

[Gunbird]

I can think of things a lot more evil than having someone work for you for free.

Thanks for sharing.

[seraosha]

They weren't terrorists, but what they supported was pure ****ing evil.

Wow man, did it hurt to choke down that load of crap, or did you mix it with sugar first?

[skyrock]

I can think of things a lot more evil than having someone work for you for free.

"Less evil" is not equal to "right".

[Hollis]

They weren't terrorists, but what they supported was pure ****ing evil.


Did you really think much before you hit the submit button?

[realityexists]

My thesis is that the cause of the CW lies in the issue of State Rights. The issue of State Rights has been a point of tension in the US Federal system since 1788, and continues to this day.This is what I do not agree with, and again this can be seen as splitting hairs but I think terminology is important. When you say "states rights" it seemingly leaves out the importance of the peculiar institution. So what do you mean by "states rights?" What were the "rights of states" that were being "violated" by the Federal government that led the South to secede?

An effect – an undeniably laudable effect – of the CW was the abolition of slavery. Without doubt, the Emancipation Proclamation (the 13th Amendment to the Bill of Rights) is a zenith in the American narrative, and should be reflected on with pride by Americans of all stripes. One can argue whether or not emancipation would have occurred in the absence of the CW. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that it would not have occurred as soon.I agree.

I think it is important to not confuse the cause and effect of the CW because of the moral stereotypes associated with slavery and abolition, the North and the South. We (collective) cannot paint with broad brush strokes the North as the good guys, the South as the bad guys. One cost of such a practice taints the current debate on contemporary policies.I agree, but I would like to add that we paint our picture of the past with the language that we use. Defeated Southerners knew this so their narrative shortly after the North was victorious began to heavily emphasize "states rights" and not the peculiar institution.

State Rights is not synonymous with slavery, and today, advocates of States Right are not advocates of an immoral political ideology. However, does Martin make that implication? Will others draw that conclusion?I agree that "states rights" is not synonymous with slavery, that is why many Southern revisionist historians opted to use that term. On the OP article I think we've moved beyond him, simply put he (Martin) is an idiot. Any person using contemporary terms to equate or describe with those same terms people or things of the past is quite dumb.

In other words, the political health of the US is in jeopardy if opponents of the continued expansion of the Federal Government (as is most recently evident in the new health care law (Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010)) are dismissed (or worse) as adherents of a racial supremacist political ideology.I agree, the language today is very different to the one used in the antebellum South. Alas unlike the beautiful writings of the Civil War time period the political intentions of today are made clear by soundbites and gotcha journalism. However, the Civil War period the political intentions were clearly written in newspapers, diaries, and letters the main form of communication was the written and spoken word. Speeches lasted hours not minutes like today's crappy political debates (IIRC Douglas Lincoln debates lasted about 3-4 hours)

I also do not like the ever expanding role of Federal government(I tend to lean Libertarian on some issues)


This is the danger of revisionism, and confusion of the cause and effect of the CW.

The issue of state rights (the limitation of the Federal Government) is inherent to the Constitution as evident by the 10th Amendment to the Bill of Rights. The provision to limit the Federal Government to only the powers listed in the Constitution was both a reflection of the fear of a centralized government, and a consequence of anti-Federalist lobbying.Agreed
The tension between Federalists and anti-Federalist continued to simmer for the next 70 some years, until it exploded in the CW. The causal effects of the CW are undoubtedly property rights: Slavery, fears of imposed abolition, was a key issue as you note. So too was issue of taxation, which was perceived to be onerous and non-representative. Social change in the form of immigration and industrial development are factors too. The perceived right of secession, as implied by Founding documents, and (arguably) the Constitution is yet another factor.The issue of taxation I am not convinced was much of an issue for secession of the South. Immigration was also not an issue since most of the immigrants at the time went to the factories of the North. The "right to secession" again falls back on the issue of slavery, there would have been no talk of secession without the perceived threat to the institution of slavery, but are you saying that? If so I agree and makes my point that slavery was the main issue. However, if you're not saying that are you saying that taxation, social change, immigration, and industrialization were some of the main issues that cause the secession of the South? If so I would have to say that the evidence is not on your side, but I would be much appreciative if you were to point me in the direction of such material.


In regards to Fort Sumter, did a series of unintended and undesired events lead to hostilities that both Union and Secessionist leaders would have preferred to avoid? This would not be the first or last time that a series of unintended consequences culminated in a war.Fort Sumter was attacked because Lincoln was elected. Lincoln was painted as an abolitionist by Southern Democrats and they threatened to leave the union if he was elected, they made good on their threats.
In regards to the US Constitution, IMHO, no finer document of political governance has been crafted. However, the issue of slavery and the US Constitution is murky, troublesome and frankly embarrassing, especially considering the proposed Corwin Amendment of 1861. However, that the Corwin Amendment, undeniably odious, was mooted by the post war 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments speaks to the vitality and virtue of the US Constitution.I think the issue of slavery was handled as good as could be expected by the founders of this great country. The issue of slavery was never imposed on the states, the Confederate Constitution was quite different. Although the Confederacy supposedly seceded because of "states rights" it was interestingly very against states rights when it came to slavery and it imposed the peculiar institution throughout the Confederate states and future territories. This is why I say that those who say "states rights" was the main cause of Southern secession and hence the main cause of the conflict may not have the evidence on their side, but I am still open to ideas, after all that this is the purpose of posting on forums :).

Reality, When you mentioned the name of the Civil War, (CW) do you know when that term was accepted?IIRC The term was accepted as a "neutral" term in the early twentieth century when the construction of federally funded national monuments on ACW began to increase. Prior to this the conflict was usually referred to as the War of the Rebellion by Northerners, and the War of Independence by the South, (also when the Independence was no longer politically correct Southerners began to opt more for the "Lost Cause" or "War of Northern Aggression")

Basically Slavery was a political issue, resolution/emancipation was based primary on political reasoning not moral reasons.Agreed, and thus an interesting question what was the bigger factor in the cause of the American Civil War; Politics or moral issues?

He-he, I smell the victim of fragmented "clip-like" education here.
By "Federal bank" idea I mean the results of "National Banking Act" of 1863. Not accidentally one of the first acts of just starting to win "North". Amazingly it is not very discussed that the first time this act was proposed in 1860 and not surprisingly it was repelled by South. "State Rights" check, the absence of word "slavery" check.Now that I know what you are specifically talking about, I can tell you that it has little do with the discussion at hand. The issue is the "Cause of the American Civil War" on one side: Slavery as the Main Cause, on the Other: the apparent Infringement of States Rights as the motivations for the outbreak of hostilities.

I am of the opinion that for the South it is well documented that Slavery was the main issue and not "States Rights."

By the way the conflict is thought to have started in 1861 not 1863 when your "Federal Bank" was enacted, also you might want to look up the "National Bank Act" and see if it fits within your definition of a "Federal Bank."

As somebody who at least occasionally open news sites and watch tv news, you are not going to deny that it is critical to have access to printing press.Indeed printing press is a good technology to have, I am assuming you're talking about printing money, you might want to look up who actually printed the money with the "National Banking Act"

:cantbeli:. Duuude. How old are you? The word "check" **big neon lights**. Of course banks, like elsewhere, were exchanging bonds, this was and still is a standard investment procedure.
The main problem of american bank system of those times was not exactly the big number of banks or multiple types of bank notes but the lack of proper communications. Trusted telegraph and telephone connections happen to be crucial for the credit system: be it "federal controlled" (or by New England banks if to be precise), or "state controlled" as it was before CW. The evolution of "national" banks after CW clearly illustrates this thesis.I was confused on your terminology thanks for clarifying your terms.

Southerners wanted to control immigration, they didn't want transcontinental rail roads, they didn't want federal control over land distribution etc. etc.
Property rights (escaped slaves) were one of very many very critical subjects of discontent.
And please keep modern humanism asleep if you want to dig into XIX century.
When USA have abolished xenophobic parts of immigration restrictions? Do you know?The evidence suggests that slavery was the main critical subject of discontent. Land distribution? Rail Road?


Dude, again you revert "back to the future" and discuss modern ideological crap.
Industrialization was driven by banks and required massive immigration influx.
You need available builders, you need cheep mobile workers, you need massive capital to build serious stuff and pay European engineers. You need railroads to transport all this stuff. Northerners had all that.Okay

On the other hand South didn't have really strong banks, they didn't want new immigrants. They were fine with the status quo. This word "fine" is present in any serious work about pre CW times.Right they were fine with their socioeconomic system, but they wanted more. They wanted to impose their system on the North. How? Read the writings of antebellum Southerners they were furious that some Northern states had passed anti-slavery legislation. Curiously enough they used the Federal government to try to reverse some of the Northern state legislation that did not favor slavery.

OK.
He-he, again "fragmented" education. Newton laws existed before Newton times, they were obviously partially observed and described numerous times before Newton. Newton happened to be the dude who laid all stuff right. "Domino effect" obviously existed before Eisenhower. He was lucky to have quite good speech writers who put it right. Right because scientific discoveries are the same as political terms. <-sarcasm btw

Since you want quote here is one from pretty famous speech:
"...From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the government must cease. There is no other alternative; for continuing the government, is acquiescence on one side or the other. If a minority, in such case, will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which, in turn, will divide and ruin them; for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy, a year or two hence, arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it? All who cherish disunion sentiments, are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this. Is there such perfect identity of interests among the States to compose a new Union, as to produce harmony only, and prevent renewed secession?
Plainly, the central idea of secession, is the essence of anarchy. A majority, held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it, does, of necessity, fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible; the rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left..."Oh where is the political term "domino effect"?

I am not going to say where it from, since you claim to be an American knowledgeable about CW history, you should know the source and the author.See below

Frankly I don't care if that attack was real or it was just another "Gleiwitz incident". Visibly Lincoln's group has cornered southerners. After such long election campaign, after controversial declarations the war was inevitable and both sides were doing clear preparations to start it by organizing militias etc.Now we're getting to some common ground, they (South) did fear Lincoln, why? He was painted as an abolitionist. The threat to slavery is paramount in the attacks against Lincoln.

When referencing? the date please.IIRC earliest recorded references of Blacks calling the CW "Freedom War" was in 1861.

Slavery was the main ideological reason introduced by Lincoln, in oops 1863, you wanted to say. Northern states needed maximum support from Great Britain, you know.Indeed Slavery after 1863 seemed to be the main cause for the Northern Army. When was it the main cause for the South? I say it was the main cause for the South the very instant they fired upon Fort Sumter, but don't take my word for it, read what a Southern Politician said the Confederacy was all about, their constitution guaranteed slavery and Confederate States did not have "right" to disagree, because slavery was "guaranteed"

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution... So what was the cause of the late rupture and present "revolution?" Answer: Slavery, but I prefer his language better "the proper status of the negro" :)

What were the foundations of the Confederacy?

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea [equality]; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truthWho said this? Answer: Alexander Stephens the Vice President of the Confederate States of America. He was quite clear in his infamous Cornerstone speech of 1861, the roaring applause and yells from the crowd also confirmed the popular sentiments of his speech.

btw I do not care for "humanist bs" as you so have eloquently put it, we cannot rightly judge the people of the past with our contemporary morality, and I am not judging them. However we can compare and judge them against the morality of their contemporaries and needless to say that not all Americans thought the way that Confederates thought. (thank goodness)


But!!!
There is another interesting quote from the same speech:
" Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States, that by the accession of a Republican Administration, their property, and their peace, and personal security, are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed, and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "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." Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this, and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them. And more than this, they placed in the platform, for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves, and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:
Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes...."
[QUOTE=DS73;4886843]Here we go, no initial intention to abolish slavery is stated, and oops, even so annoying nowadays words as "rights of the States" are mentioned.I don't know where to begin with you misunderstanding of Lincoln's first inaugural speech. First, what do you think he meant when he said "property?" *hint* it starts with an S and ends with a Y. Second, what were the "domestic institutions" he was referencing? *hint* they were quite "peculiar" :-)

Suffice it to say that Lincoln's first inaugural was trying to assuage Southerners' fear of the abolition of slavery.

Let see, Federal Power rapidly expanded during and after CW: check.
Continuous complains by NE politicians and media about retarded southerners during 50s: check.
Continuous and stubborn South opposition to almost any federal initiative during first half of the XIX century: check.
Hmm, no evidence you say. You can start with Jefferson vs Hamilton debate. It's all right there already.okay...

Anyway, what is the principle difference between quite xenophobic immigration laws which were introduced by "free North" and "South" slavery laws? Whatever: modern humanism POV, Lincoln POV, anything: what is the actual difference between these two very real manifestations of racism?Oh gosh, if you cannot see the difference between immigration laws that limited your entry into a country based on your race with that of institution which by law limited your existence and your offspring to labor and the fruits of which shall always belong to another man then I do not know what to say to you :(

Moral relativism of New England elite and media was probably even worse than it is now, conservative rigidness and specific snobbery were quite characteristic for educated southerners. You can see it in speeches of those times, literature, cultural stereotypes that exist even today.I think you're probably using "moral relativism" in the meta-ethical sense,(the worse than now gave it away) so to say that the majority of Northerners engaged in this type of epistemological worldview, I will say the following: WTF! :cantbeli:

Why do you think so many southerners are so clued to Confederate flag? All of them know and like history? Doubtfully.They are glued to it because in their version of history the flag represents something "positive," something that is totally different than what other versions of history indicate that it represents.

Or they use the easy way to express dissent toward "corrupt federal center", that is, North? Most probably.:hug:

Why there is such dissent? Isn't it there because of cultural divergence, which started right from the start? And just like two centuries ago, the moral "superiority" expressed by NE politicians is equally questionable if not disgusting.I find it interesting you keep using the term "New Englanders" when in reality you probably mean abolitionists. In the case of abolitionists they sure as did believe they were morally superior to Southern slave owners, Yes.

Do you think they were morally superior?

If you don't mean abolitionists could you give me a specific example of how "NE politicians" felt they were "morally superior" to their Southern counterparts? Remember it has to be outside the context of slavery otherwise they fall in the abolitionist camp.

Hmm, please mention any other business characteristic for South. What did they do on national level beside cotton?
Anyway, what I've wrote (the collapse of South due to abolition of slavery) indeed happened: until Oil fewer South remained being quite "delayed" as modern economists prefer to write. And please don't start with "South was destroyed by war" fantasies. There is enough factual material published.Oh so the South was in shambles because of the collapse of the slave system...interesting.

Actually the initial interest in CW I've got after accidentally reading quite interesting book "Conflict and Compromise: The Political Economy of Slavery, Emancipation and the American Civil War".This is quite an interesting occurrence of happenstance because I too have read this book, tell me do you agree with Professor Ransom's main argument on the cause of the Civil war?

You seem to agree with his evolutionary tract and as well with his elucidation on the effects of the collapse of slavery in the South, but do you agree with the foundation of his argument? I find that his main argument for the cause of the American Civil war sets out his paradigm for the "collapse of the South," so I am curious to know if you agree with it or not.

CW happened to be quite interesting and well covered subject relevant not only for American historians but for any specialists interested in evolutionary processes.Indeed the ACW is an interesting topic.

[Hollis]

DS, one of the problem for a lot of people viewing the war, is that they are historically centric. Meaning viewing the past with today's values. States Rights was supreme to Federal rights. Shift in political power, shift in laws, tariffs and thinking from South to North, started to define Federal power was greater than State powers. Example you join a basket ball team, decision are made on mutual agreement. No one can force another member to adhere to a decision. Then the group grows and now force can be used to get a member to comply with the group. The War solidified a National Government. Under the first system, a state had a right to leave. Most constitutionalists will agree, though the SCOTUS never wrote a opinion on this. There were inherent problems of self interest, political and economically between a agrarian society and a industrial one. A cultural schism was developing between North and South. One might say, that the South and North were actually Separate countries, the relationship was, something, like the EU today. The States of the South acted liked city-states in ancient Greece and the North was developing a Union of States.

[seraosha]

This is what I do not agree with, and again this can be seen as splitting hairs but I think terminology is important. When you say "states rights" it seemingly leaves out the importance of the peculiar institution. So what do you mean by "states rights?" What were the "rights of states" that were being "violated" by the Federal government that led the South to secede?
I agree.
I agree, but I would like to add that we paint our picture of the past with the language that we use. Defeated Southerners knew this so their narrative shortly after the North was victorious began to heavily emphasize "states rights" and not the peculiar institution.
I agree that "states rights" is not synonymous with slavery, that is why many Southern revisionist historians opted to use that term. On the OP article I think we've moved beyond him, simply put he (Martin) is an idiot. Any person using contemporary terms to equate or describe with those same terms people or things of the past is quite dumb.
I agree, the language today is very different to the one used in the antebellum South. Alas unlike the beautiful writings of the Civil War time period the political intentions of today are made clear by soundbites and gotcha journalism. However, the Civil War period the political intentions were clearly written in newspapers, diaries, and letters the main form of communication was the written and spoken word. Speeches lasted hours not minutes like today's crappy political debates (IIRC Douglas Lincoln debates lasted about 3-4 hours)

I also do not like the ever expanding role of Federal government(I tend to lean Libertarian on some issues)

AgreedThe issue of taxation I am not convinced was much of an issue for secession of the South. Immigration was also not an issue since most of the immigrants at the time went to the factories of the North. The "right to secession" again falls back on the issue of slavery, there would have been no talk of secession without the perceived threat to the institution of slavery, but are you saying that? If so I agree and makes my point that slavery was the main issue. However, if you're not saying that are you saying that taxation, social change, immigration, and industrialization were some of the main issues that cause the secession of the South? If so I would have to say that the evidence is not on your side, but I would be much appreciative if you were to point me in the direction of such material.

Fort Sumter was attacked because Lincoln was elected. Lincoln was painted as an abolitionist by Southern Democrats and they threatened to leave the union if he was elected, they made good on their threats.I think the issue of slavery was handled as good as could be expected by the founders of this great country. The issue of slavery was never imposed on the states, the Confederate Constitution was quite different. Although the Confederacy supposedly seceded because of "states rights" it was interestingly very against states rights when it came to slavery and it imposed the peculiar institution throughout the Confederate states and future territories. This is why I say that those who say "states rights" was the main cause of Southern secession and hence the main cause of the conflict may not have the evidence on their side, but I am still open to ideas, after all that this is the purpose of posting on forums :).
IIRC The term was accepted as a "neutral" term in the early twentieth century when the construction of federally funded national monuments on ACW began to increase. Prior to this the conflict was usually referred to as the War of the Rebellion by Northerners, and the War of Independence by the South, (also when the Independence was no longer politically correct Southerners began to opt more for the "Lost Cause" or "War of Northern Aggression")
Agreed, and thus an interesting question what was the bigger factor in the cause of the American Civil War; Politics or moral issues?
Now that I know what you are specifically talking about, I can tell you that it has little do with the discussion at hand. The issue is the "Cause of the American Civil War" on one side: Slavery as the Main Cause, on the Other: the apparent Infringement of States Rights as the motivations for the outbreak of hostilities.

I am of the opinion that for the South it is well documented that Slavery was the main issue and not "States Rights."

By the way the conflict is thought to have started in 1861 not 1863 when your "Federal Bank" was enacted, also you might want to look up the "National Bank Act" and see if it fits within your definition of a "Federal Bank."
Indeed printing press is a good technology to have, I am assuming you're talking about printing money, you might want to look up who actually printed the money with the "National Banking Act"
I was confused on your terminology thanks for clarifying your terms.
The evidence suggests that slavery was the main critical subject of discontent. Land distribution? Rail Road?

Okay
Right they were fine with their socioeconomic system, but they wanted more. They wanted to impose their system on the North. How? Read the writings of antebellum Southerners they were furious that some Northern states had passed anti-slavery legislation. Curiously enough they used the Federal government to try to reverse some of the Northern state legislation that did not favor slavery.
Right because scientific discoveries are the same as political terms. <-sarcasm btw
Oh where is the political term "domino effect"?
See below
Now we're getting to some common ground, they (South) did fear Lincoln, why? He was painted as an abolitionist. The threat to slavery is paramount in the attacks against Lincoln.
IIRC earliest recorded references of Blacks calling the CW "Freedom War" was in 1861.
Indeed Slavery after 1863 seemed to be the main cause for the Northern Army. When was it the main cause for the South? I say it was the main cause for the South the very instant they fired upon Fort Sumter, but don't take my word for it, read what a Southern Politician said the Confederacy was all about, their constitution guaranteed slavery and Confederate States did not have "right" to disagree, because slavery was "guaranteed"
So what was the cause of the late rupture and present "revolution?" Answer: Slavery, but I prefer his language better "the proper status of the negro" :)

What were the foundations of the Confederacy?
Who said this? Answer: Alexander Stephens the Vice President of the Confederate States of America. He was quite clear in his infamous Cornerstone speech of 1861, the roaring applause and yells from the crowd also confirmed the popular sentiments of his speech.

btw I do not care for "humanist bs" as you so have eloquently put it, we cannot rightly judge the people of the past with our contemporary morality, and I am not judging them. However we can compare and judge them against the morality of their contemporaries and needless to say that not all Americans thought the way that Confederates thought. (thank goodness)

[QUOTE=DS73;4886843]But!!!
There is another interesting quote from the same speech:
" Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States, that by the accession of a Republican Administration, their property, and their peace, and personal security, are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed, and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "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." Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this, and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them. And more than this, they placed in the platform, for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves, and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:
Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes...."
I don't know where to begin with you misunderstanding of Lincoln's first inaugural speech. First, what do you think he meant when he said "property?" *hint* it starts with an S and ends with a Y. Second, what were the "domestic institutions" he was referencing? *hint* they were quite "peculiar" :-)

Suffice it to say that Lincoln's first inaugural was trying to assuage Southerners' fear of the abolition of slavery.
okay...
Oh gosh, if you cannot see the difference between immigration laws that limited your entry into a country based on your race with that of institution which by law limited your existence and your offspring to labor and the fruits of which shall always belong to another man then I do not know what to say to you :(
I think you're probably using "moral relativism" in the meta-ethical sense,(the worse than now gave it away) so to say that the majority of Northerners engaged in this type of epistemological worldview, I will say the following: WTF! :cantbeli:
They are glued to it because in their version of history the flag represents something "positive," something that is totally different than what other versions of history indicate that it represents.
:hug:
I find it interesting you keep using the term "New Englanders" when in reality you probably mean abolitionists. In the case of abolitionists they sure as did believe they were morally superior to Southern slave owners, Yes.

Do you think they were morally superior?

If you don't mean abolitionists could you give me a specific example of how "NE politicians" felt they were "morally superior" to their Southern counterparts? Remember it has to be outside the context of slavery otherwise they fall in the abolitionist camp.
Oh so the South was in shambles because of the collapse of the slave system...interesting.
This is quite an interesting occurrence of happenstance because I too have read this book, tell me do you agree with Professor Ransom's main argument on the cause of the Civil war?

You seem to agree with his evolutionary tract and as well with his elucidation on the effects of the collapse of slavery in the South, but do you agree with the foundation of his argument? I find that his main argument for the cause of the American Civil war sets out his paradigm for the "collapse of the South," so I am curious to know if you agree with it or not.
Indeed the ACW is an interesting topic.

Who can read this crap? line by line rebuttals are the lowest common denominator in any attempt at discussion, or dialog on internet forums.
Unreadable, so /fail.

[Hollis]

Seraosha, I think as you pointed out, the cultural differences is important. The South was a agrarian society with a aristocracy. The North has developed into a industrial Laissez faire capitalist society. We can cross the ocean and look at Europe. There is a inherent conflict of interest in Agrarian Societies and Industrial Societies. Both had their repressive elements, both had a class of people who was a small percentage of the population who control the society, politically and economically. Even today, agriculture and industries are not equal and can not be treated equal.

The Aristocracy of the South was no difference than European Aristocrats in being arrogant and narcissistic. The was a merchant class in the South and the rest of the people being poor. Share croppers where not much better off than slaves in living conditions, but they where "free". If we view the US and compare it to the global industrial, agrarian, political and societal changes that were taking place. The Aristocracy of the South was doom. Industrial revolution was happening and with that, Social revolution. A good book, is Das Kapital by Marx, he pens some good discussion of the change from subsistence agrarian society controlled by a aristocracy becoming a industrialized society.

One aspect of slavery, that probably leads me to not say it is the Cause of the CW, was that the attitude that Black American being childlike/inferior to other humans was commonly held in the North and South. Slavery was never a good industry in the North. It never yielded the economic benefits that it did in a agrarian society. For the North to abolish slavery was no loss, it was a political chip they could play. The North preferred wage slavery and used the large number of immigrants for that advantage. Wage slavery under Laissez Faire Capitalism replaced Chattel Slavery. Chattel Slavery was dieing out, because of it's cost and other problems. Wage slavery was seen as better economical solution to chattel slavery. Slaves where more expensive to buy than wage slaves (zero cost). Motivation of wage slaves was easier and for chattel slave created other problems and where never efficient. If a chattel slave died, a slave owner lost a investment. If a wage slave died, the owner hired another one. There are some books on the reasons to shift to wage slavery/employees for slave owners.

[GB_FXST]

... snip ...

AgreedThe issue of taxation I am not convinced was much of an issue for secession of the South. Immigration was also not an issue since most of the immigrants at the time went to the factories of the North. The "right to secession" again falls back on the issue of slavery, there would have been no talk of secession without the perceived threat to the institution of slavery, but are you saying that? If so I agree and makes my point that slavery was the main issue. However, if you're not saying that are you saying that taxation, social change, immigration, and industrialization were some of the main issues that cause the secession of the South? If so I would have to say that the evidence is not on your side, but I would be much appreciative if you were to point me in the direction of such material.

... snip ...

I think the issue of slavery was handled as good as could be expected by the founders of this great country. The issue of slavery was never imposed on the states, the Confederate Constitution was quite different. Although the Confederacy supposedly seceded because of "states rights" it was interestingly very against states rights when it came to slavery and it imposed the peculiar institution throughout the Confederate states and future territories. This is why I say that those who say "states rights" was the main cause of Southern secession and hence the main cause of the conflict may not have the evidence on their side, but I am still open to ideas, after all that this is the purpose of posting on forums :).

... snip ...



HOLLiS' summation of the social and political changes and differences is well stated.

I believe that the issue of immigration was not immigration per se, but the fact that immigrants settled in the North, which resulted in a change in political representation in the House.

In regards to taxation, I must defer citation of supporting material for the time being. Nevertheless, the lament of taxation to a non-responsive or non-representatie government is a common theme. Of course, we still see this issue today with the Tea Party demonstrations.

In regards to the Constitutions of the USA and CSA, prior to 1864, both documents are plagued with varying degrees of wrongness related to slavery. I think it is perillous to argue that the US Constitution is different in kind than the CSA Constitution until passage of the 13th Amendment. Abolition was not universal in all of the states, including Northern States, until it was mandated under the 13th Amendment.

Nonetheless, I think that we are all in agreement that the genius and beauty of the Constitution is, in part, its dynamic ability to evolve in response to social change.

[Hollis]

Some short reads;

http://www.puhsd.k12.ca.us/chana/staffpages/eichman/Adult_School/world/fall/industrial/1/change.htm

http://www.cabq.gov/humanrights/public-information-and-education/diversity-booklets/irish-american-heritage-in-new-mexico/contributions-to-the-united-states

http://www.kentlaw.edu/ilhs/curricul.htm

One might say for the Industrial North raising the hue and cry over chattel slavery was a way to shift focus from unsafe working conditions, child labor, etc.

[Kalifornian]

Slavery shouldn't be the issue in this debate. It should be what "terrorism" is. Quite frankly terrorism is a political term used to describe unpopular violence perpetrated by an opposing group. Its new words for a time old act as old as man its self, violence. If the CSA won, who do you think would have been the terrorists?

[Hollis]

Slavery shouldn't be the issue in this debate. It should be what "terrorism" is. Quite frankly terrorism is a political term used to describe unpopular violence perpetrated by an opposing group. Its new words for a time old act as old as man its self, violence. If the CSA won, who do you think would have been the terrorists?

You really should lurk more and read the forum rules. You did agree to follow the forum rules to be a member here. Terrorism is a defined term. Also this thread covered the definition and the idiot you wrote the article playing with definitions.

[Kalifornian]

You really should lurk more and read the forum rules. You did agree to follow the forum rules to be a member here. Terrorism is a defined term. Also this thread covered the definition and the idiot you wrote the article playing with definitions.

Yeah dude, breaking it up in a logic train to derive a fallacy in his argument. Read the forum rules and complied. I was pointing out he uses the word "terrorism" to create a rise and a political reaction. He knew it would be unpopular and he knew it would sell. My great grandmother would roll over in her grave if she read this article. She lost her father and uncle in the battle of Brentwood and when Sherman marched through they stole her remaining 9 horses and torched their barn (outside of Macon). Those sound like terror tactics implemented by the Union against American (confederate) citizens. The point is it is a relative term and to base bull**** piece like this on the term is subjective and its sole purpose it to inflame.

[Laconian]

Yeah dude, breaking it up in a logic train to derive a fallacy in his argument. Read the forum rules and complied. I was pointing out he uses the word "terrorism" to create a rise and a political reaction. He knew it would be unpopular and he knew it would sell. My great grandmother would roll over in her grave if she read this article. She lost her father and uncle in the battle of Brentwood and when Sherman marched through they stole her remaining 9 horses and torched their barn (outside of Macon). Those sound like terror tactics implemented by the Union against American (confederate) citizens. The point is it is a relative term and to base bull**** piece like this on the term is subjective and its sole purpose it to inflame.

No, those are not terror tactics. Stealing horses is foraging, especially for an army with extremely long lines of supply that Sherman's army had. As for burning the barn, part of Sherman's mission to to deprive the South of supplies and diminish the will of the South to continue the war. Total war, where the civilian populations are included in the battle plan is like that. If they had rounded up the family and burned the barn with them in it, even that would not be terrorism; murder yes, terrorism no. Terrorism has a specific definition, this jag-off has twisted to fit some loose term to prove a political point. Words mean stuff, and the propensity for both sides to use terms to shock readers/viewers into some simplistic point of view is really starting to piss me off.