Enslaving The Free: The Gettysburg Campaign (1 Viewer)

[Poppo]

Gentlemen, it is very rarely in war that one side or the other has a moral highground. Just about the only case I can think of in modern history is the western allies vs the Nazis. In the case of the U.S. Civil War, I believe it was principally a war between the Confederate agrarian elite, who had until the mid-1850's controlled enough if the population to ensure the majority in the House of Representatives and the presidency were under their control, and the industrial elite of the North, to whom immigration to the burgeoning cities in the North had recently shifted the balance if power. These elites propagandized their positions into States rights vs. the abolition of slavery to motivate the common population to fight for the interests of these elites. However, I certainly disagree with the position that the Confederate leaders, rather than the Union leaders, were the ones seeking a compromise solution. In fact the Supreme Court, which was controlled by Justices appointed by Southern presidents, struck down the compromise which would have allowed an eventual peaceful solution in the Dred Scott decision, which permitted a Southerner who moved into a free state to keep his or her slaves as possessions on that free state. It was the southern leadership, who had always been in control up to that point in the nations history, who forced the war to occur once Lincoln was elected, despite Lincoln's promise that if necessary to preserve the union, he would se no slaves freed. To me, this conclusively demonstrates that the war was not about slavery, but about control. The Southern elite, who had always had control of the Federal government up to that point, was simply unwilling to cede control to the Northern elite. Like all elites in all nations throughout history, it was their wealth and power, not any moral principals, which motivated the elite in both the North and the South to get more than half-a-million brave young American men killed. That is the sad truth.

I agree that the war was not about slavery and that the nothern and the southern elites had clashes. But i think that the southern presidents didn't protect the southern interests, but tried to put down the tentions and to reach an agreement and a compromise between the 2 sections.
Actually the problemes were severals:1) the north wanted protectionism while the south wanted a free market to be free to buy european manufacts without extra taxes( european products were of better quality and cheaper than the northern ones produces in New England);
2) the decision to create new states with slavery or without it ( this meant increasing the power of north or south economy)3) the direction the new railways had to take ( north-south or east-west).4)the question of freesoilers and fronteersmen hungry for new territories( the south wanted the new territories to be sold; the north wanted to give them for free to extend their economic influence, and this brought later to the indian wars and genocide of these last)5)The political question of mid-west: a land with a modern agriculture system which sometimes was with the north, some times with the south 6) The way of living: the southerns were orrified just about thinking of the grey, sad, polluted northen cities made in big parts of slums, and wanted to preserve their quiet, simple but healthy way of life. They were orrified by the nothern bankers, greedy capitalists hungry for money. Southerns preferred to work to make their house more welcoming and elegant, buying nice european things, and were away from the idea of massing huge quantities of money.

So I wouldn' t reduce all the problem in a fight between elites, everything divided the 2 sections in the mid 50ies of 19th century

 

[braddinpa]

The one thing we also have to remember is our founding fathers chose to ignore the issue of Slavery. Then when it began to be an issue in the early 1800's. The great compromisers like Henry Clay and John C Calhoun took over. When they died out in the 1850's. They were replaced by people who wanted no compromise. My way or the highway. This ultimately could lead to one course. The Civil War. As far as people fighting. I have read many first hand letters (published and non published) and have come to the conclusion that soldiers fighting for the north recognized slavery was wrong. (they might not have like African Americans, but they didn't like the Irish or Germans either) and had to come to end. Was that the reason they volunteered? Most I believe were fighting to end the rebellion and end Slavery (of course some felt more strongly about ending the rebellion or Slavery). I have always found it amazing that soldiers would volunteer to fight for such an abstract cause (preserving the union and ending slavery). I have always viewed these guys as the greatest generation.

Wow, well said Louis. So good to see someone actually say out loud and clear as day that the allies had the moral high ground over the Nazi's, its almost as if we should be ashamed to say that these days for fear of the dreaded ' All as bad as each other ' argument...nope, we were not!

Very interesting post re the ACW too.

Rob

 

[Louis Badolato]

I agree that the war was not about slavery and that the nothern and the southern elites had clashes. But i think that the southern presidents didn't protect the southern interests, but tried to put down the tentions and to reach an agreement and a compromise between the 2 sections.
Actually the problemes were severals:1) the north wanted protectionism while the south wanted a free market to be free to buy european manufacts without extra taxes( european products were of better quality and cheaper than the northern ones produces in New England);
2) the decision to create new states with slavery or without it ( this meant increasing the power of north or south economy)3) the direction the new railways had to take ( north-south or east-west).4)the question of freesoilers and fronteersmen hungry for new territories( the south wanted the new territories to be sold; the north wanted to give them for free to extend their economic influence, and this brought later to the indian wars and genocide of these last)5)The political question of mid-west: a land with a modern agriculture system which sometimes was with the north, some times with the south 6) The way of living: the southerns were orrified just about thinking of the grey, sad, polluted northen cities made in big parts of slums, and wanted to preserve their quiet, simple but healthy way of life. They were orrified by the nothern bankers, greedy capitalists hungry for money. Southerns preferred to work to make their house more welcoming and elegant, buying nice european things, and were away from the idea of massing huge quantities of money.

So I wouldn' t reduce all the problem with a fight between elites, everything divided the 2 sections in the mid 50ies of 19th century

All I can ask you is have you actually visited the United States? I have lived in both the North and the South, and slums are universal. In the North you have magnificent elegant town homes in cities like New York, Boston and Philadelphia, in the rich neighborhoods, while in the poor neighborhoods there are terrible living conditions. In the surrounding areas, like Rhode Island, the Hudson Valley, and the Long Island Gold Coast the northern elite built themselves palatial mansions the equal of anything I have seen in the South. In the South, plantation owners built themselves equally grandiose mansions, but the poor lived in shotgun shacks just as depressing as any Northern slums. Frankly, the Northen Cities are anything but gray and dull. They were designed (outside of the slums for the poor) to have beautiful parks, public buildings and museums modeled on Paris, London and Rome. Take a drive through the poor areas of Alabama, Mississippi or Louisiana and then tell me that the Southern poor had it better. Lives for the poor in both lifestyles was brutal and miserable. So take your "Gone With The Wind" romantic depiction of life in the South for what it is: fiction.

 

[Poppo]

All I can ask you is have you actually visited the United States? I have lived in both the North and the South, and slums are universal. In the North you have magnificent elegant town homes in cities like New York, Boston and Philadelphia, in the rich neighborhoods, while in the poor neighborhoods there are terrible living conditions. In the surrounding areas, like Rhode Island, the Hudson Valley, and the Long Island Gold Coast the northern elite built themselves palatial mansions the equal of anything I have seen in the South. In the South, plantation owners built themselves equally grandiose mansions, but the poor lived in shotgun shacks just as depressing as any Northern slums. Frankly, the Northen Cities are anything but gray and dull. They were designed (outside of the slums for the poor) to have beautiful parks, public buildings and museums modeled on Paris, London and Rome. Take a drive through the poor areas of Alabama, Mississippi or Louisiana and then tell me that the Southern poor had it better. Lives for the poor in both lifestyles was brutal and miserable. So take your "Gone With The Wind" romantic depiction of life in the South for what it is: fiction.

I was once in California and Las Vegas so neither north nor south ^&grin.

What I meant is that during the industrial revolution (ex. London, just read Charles Dickens!) ancient factories made heavy pollution, and a mass of proletarians living in dirty conditions around them. I know well that the south is and was poorer than the north, but they were closer to nature, fields and far from huge factories.And not feeling exploited by capitalists even if living in simple conditions.

About " Gone with the wind", well, I disagree with you.

It shows many interesting and real carachters of the ancient south, positive and negative ones: the silly spoiled girl, the idealist ancient minded young man beliving in an archaic world, the unscrupulous profiteer with no morality, the slaves attached to their owners...and after the war, the carpetbaggers, the northern speculators who bought for 2 cents big lands and properties

 

[jazzeum]

Unfortunately I'm out now so can't fully address what has been recently said but Louis and Paul are closer to the truth than Poppo, whose posts are mostly half truths and a sample of lost cause mythology. I have suggested books to him in the past, but apparently to no avail.

The book to read for a good introduction to the issues is David Potter's The Impending Crisis. I read it several years ago and it is still one if the best topics on the subject. I recommend it to all.

However, no one anymore seriously disputes that it was about slavery because slaves were the largest assets in the US in 1860 and were the basis of economic power.

I will try to post later.

 

[Poppo]

Unfortunately I'm out now so can't fully address what has been recently said but Louis and Paul are closer to the truth than Poppo, whose posts are mostly half truths and a sample of lost cause mythology. I have suggested books to him in the past, but apparently to no avail.

The book to read for a good introduction to the issues is David Potter's The Impending Crisis. I read it several years ago and it is still one if the best topics on the subject. I recommend it to all.

However, no one anymore seriously disputes that it was about slavery because slaves were the largest assets in the US in 1860 and were the basis of economic power.

I will try to post later.

Ok, tell me one sentence or idea I wrote not corresponding with historical facts.I always write very detailed things like the reasons of the clashes between north and south, while you just search and post articles(written by whom).....It is quite easy to say someone writes fake or not correct things without mentioning, quoting a sentence....

Apparently you consider yourself like the final judge or the voice of the truth, usually people thinking in this way are wrong....

 

[jazzeum]

Well, to begin with, to say they inherited the system and didn't want it is just not true. They fought any attempt to curtail the system every step of the way. See the Missouri Compromise, the Gag rule debates (forbidding any discussion in Congress of anti-slavery), the annexation of Texas, the Mexican War and the 1850 Compromise (which was an attempt to once and for all to resolve the slavery issue).

The end of the slave trade was the price the South had to pay for getting the 3/5 rule (slaves were counted as 3/5th of a white person for apportionment purposes). It was not done willingly.

I do agree with you about slavery in the North. NY once had more slaves than Georgia, for example. Moreover, most Northern states were just as racist as the South. For example, Illinois and Indiana had black codes.

Do I need to go on? Time to hit the books my friend :wink2:

i don't claim to be the end all but I do spend my time reading about US history. No one can know everything but I try to keep an open mind.

 

[Poppo]

Well, to begin with, to say they inherited the system and didn't want it is just not true. They fought any attempt to curtail the system every step of the way. See the Missouri Compromise, the Gag rule debates (forbidding any discussion in Congress of anti-slavery), the annexation of Texas, the Mexican War and the 1850 Compromise (which was an attempt to once and for all to resolve the slavery issue).

The end of the slave trade was the price the South had to pay for getting the 3/5 rule (slaves were counted as 3/5th of a white person for apportionment purposes). It was not done willingly.

I do agree with you about slavery in the North. NY once had more slaves than Georgia, for example. Moreover, most Northern states were just as racist as the South. For example, Illinois and Indiana had black codes.

Do I need to go on? Time to hit the books my friend :wink2:

i don't claim to be the end all but I do spend my time reading about US history. No one can know everything but I try to keep an open mind.

I wrote that the south wanted to make the new states with slaves, and sure the compromise of Missouri was the last southern political victory, but in large part they very radicalized by the northern provocations, accusations, calling them sinners and so on, the northern politicians made everything to exasperate the situation and bring the fight on the moral field, the north wanted the final fight......if you don' t want to admit it, no problem for me, many like you like "mytology", not me my friend :wink2:

ps: and about books, I think I read more objective ones than you do.I don' t see your open mind at all, on the contrary, I see you have a strict, ideological point of view.

 

[jazzeum]

Aside from that you omitted to mention the gag rule, Texas Annexation, Mexican War, Compromise of 1850, Fugitive Slave Act, not much more left to say.

Again, I would urge you to read the Potter book. In his lifetime he was one of the most distinguished historians of the Civil War. I would be happy to send you a copy. Another one I recommend is William Freehling's Road to Dusunion: Secessionists at Bay. A little hard to read as he's not the best writer but worth the investment of time.

I would be interested in what recommendations you might have.

 

[Poppo]

Aside from that you omitted to mention the gag rule, Texas Annexation, Mexican War, Compromise of 1850, Fugitive Slave Act, not much more left to say.

Again, I would urge you to read the Potter book. In his lifetime he was one of the most distinguished historians of the Civil War. I would be happy to send you a copy. Another one I recommend is William Freehling's Road to Dusunion: Secessionists at Bay. A little hard to read as he's not the best writer but worth the investment of time.

I would be interested in what recommendations you might have.

Omitted to mention? What are you saying? I am not making a detailed conference about the civil war nor answerring an exam, I just expressed some of the main points, and more than I read form other posters....If you wish to deep other points go on.

 

[jazzeum]

The above points that I mentioned are extremely important points on the road to secession. The Missouri Compromise is but one, although an important one. No need to get testy and no intent to subject you to an exam

I would also be interested in receiving some of your reading recommendations. Another very good book that I neglected to mention is Walter Johnson's Soul by Soul: Life Inside the Antebellum Slave Market. His River of Dark Dreams is also very good.

Regards,

Brad

 

[Poppo]

The above points that I mentioned are extremely important points on the road to secession. The Missouri Compromise is but one, although an important one. No need to get testy and no intent to subject you to an exam

I would also be interested in receiving some of your reading recommendations. Another very good book that I neglected to mention is Walter Johnson's Soul by Soul: Life Inside the Antebellum Slave Market. His River of Dark Dreams is also very good.

Regards,

Brad

There are also other important points which you didn 't mention like: the civil war in Kansas, the willing from the south to buy Cuba to extend the plantations, the question with Canada and so on...You mention more points to show how many books you have read? Well, it would be more interesting if you made an argument with those points more than showing off a bibliography...All you want to prove is that the south was guilty because of the slavery, but it is clear that it was not the reason for the war. You want to picture Lincoln as an abolitionist and it s clear that he was a balanced man and not an extreemist, all he wanted was to keep the Union together...Honestly, I don' t see other things from your writings.

Good night

 

[Louis Badolato]

The one thing we also have to remember is our founding fathers chose to ignore the issue of Slavery. Then when it began to be an issue in the early 1800's. The great compromisers like Henry Clay and John C Calhoun took over. When they died out in the 1850's. They were replaced by people who wanted no compromise. My way or the highway. This ultimately could lead to one course. The Civil War. As far as people fighting. I have read many first hand letters (published and non published) and have come to the conclusion that soldiers fighting for the north recognized slavery was wrong. (they might not have like African Americans, but they didn't like the Irish or Germans either) and had to come to end. Was that the reason they volunteered? Most I believe were fighting to end the rebellion and end Slavery (of course some felt more strongly about ending the rebellion or Slavery). I have always found it amazing that soldiers would volunteer to fight for such an abstract cause (preserving the union and ending slavery). I have always viewed these guys as the greatest generation.

First, I just want to agree with you 100% about the soldiers who fought in the war, for both sides, being remarkable individuals. I too have been incredibly impressed by their letters and journals. The soldiers on both sides were convinced by their religious and political leaders that they were fighting for a noble cause, be it the abolition of slavery, their constitutional rights, or their homes (back then people thought of themselves as Virginians or Pennsylvanians first, Americans second). I would definitely include them in the conversation with the WWII Generation for the title of "Greatest Generation."

And I also agree that the leaders on both sides (with the exception of Lincoln, whom I truly believe would have done whatever was necessary to preserve the Union, including any compromise on the issue of slavery before the Southern states actually seceded, at which point all bets were off) were no longer interested in compromising. However, I do not agree that there was only one possible outcome, war, or even that preserving the Union was the right thing to do. Having lived in both the North and the South, I truly believe we are not a single culture, and do not fit well together as a single country. Had Lincoln simply wished them well when they seceded, and used economic measures to enocurage them to abolish slavery on their own, a lot of good men would have lived, and the two separate countries might have been better as neighbors than our present, polarly divided single electorate.

 

[jazzeum]

Poppo,

If you want to have a serious discussion, that's fine but I expect you and I will never agree.

I've given you some books that I think are particularly important and have you asked you twice for books that you deem important as I would like to see what they are and give them a look. Of course, if you don't want to share your reading list, that's your prerogative but there's no need to get mad. This is all in the search for knowledge.

Regards,

Brad

 

[jazzeum]

The one thing we also have to remember is our founding fathers chose to ignore the issue of Slavery. Then when it began to be an issue in the early 1800's. The great compromisers like Henry Clay and John C Calhoun took over. When they died out in the 1850's. They were replaced by people who wanted no compromise. My way or the highway. This ultimately could lead to one course. The Civil War. As far as people fighting. I have read many first hand letters (published and non published) and have come to the conclusion that soldiers fighting for the north recognized slavery was wrong. (they might not have like African Americans, but they didn't like the Irish or Germans either) and had to come to end. Was that the reason they volunteered? Most I believe were fighting to end the rebellion and end Slavery (of course some felt more strongly about ending the rebellion or Slavery). I have always found it amazing that soldiers would volunteer to fight for such an abstract cause (preserving the union and ending slavery). I have always viewed these guys as the greatest generation.

The genie started to come out of the bottle with the Wilmot Proviso. Until that time Northern and Southern Democrats had managed to find common cause except on this one issue. The same for Northern and Southern Whigs. However, the Wilmot Proviso started to split the Whigs apart and the Democrats to a lesser extent. It was the of sectional politics. Kansas Nebraska, the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, was the final straw. That is the meaning of Lincoln's House Divided speech. When the polity breaks up, something has to give.

 

[Jack]

First, I just want to agree with you 100% about the soldiers who fought in the war, for both sides, being remarkable individuals. I too have been incredibly impressed by their letters and journals. The soldiers on both sides were convinced by their religious and political leaders that they were fighting for a noble cause, be it the abolition of slavery, their constitutional rights, or their homes (back then people thought of themselves as Virginians or Pennsylvanians first, Americans second). I would definitely include them in the conversation with the WWII Generation for the title of "Greatest Generation."

And I also agree that the leaders on both sides (with the exception of Lincoln, whom I truly believe would have done whatever was necessary to preserve the Union, including any compromise on the issue of slavery before the Southern states actually seceded, at which point all bets were off) were no longer interested in compromising. However, I do not agree that there was only one possible outcome, war, or even that preserving the Union was the right thing to do. Having lived in both the North and the South, I truly believe we are not a single culture, and do not fit well together as a single country. Had Lincoln simply wished them well when they seceded, and used economic measures to enocurage them to abolish slavery on their own, a lot of good men would have lived, and the two separate countries might have been better as neighbors than our present, polarly divided single electorate.

Louis

I wonder what that might have meant in 1941 had the Japanese attacked a naval base belonging to the 'Northern' USA. Would there have been a close enough relationship for the CSA to have also declared war? History would be very different.

Jack

 

[jazzeum]

Interesting you say that Jack. In 1861, Seward, the Secretary of State had an idea to attack Great Britain, believing that would force the two sides to unite in common cause. Lincoln thought it daft and killed the idea.

 

[Louis Badolato]

Louis

I wonder what that might have meant in 1941 had the Japanese attacked a naval base belonging to the 'Northern' USA. Would there have been a close enough relationship for the CSA to have also declared war? History would be very different.

Jack

Jack,

I can't answer that question, but I would hope that as separate neighboring countries who had parted peacefully, never fought a civil war, and revered many of the same founding fathers (Washington, Jefferson, Madison), that we would have a strong relationship, and a mutual defense pact.

 

[Jack]

Jack,

I can't answer that question, but I would hope that as separate neighboring countries who had parted peacefully, never fought a civil war, and revered many of the same founding fathers (Washington, Jefferson, Madison), that we would have a strong relationship, and a mutual defense pact.

Louis

I know 'what if' questions are of doubtful value but if both were isolationist in outlook it might have proven problematic to move both toward intervention at the same pace.

The comment you made about the North and South remaining very different societies is quite fascinating. I always assumed that the contemporary 'differences' were inconsequential in the greater scheme of things. We proclaim a strong sense of state identity in Australia but it does not run very deep - it is often said in Brisbane, it is the school you went to, in Sydney it is what suburb you live in, and in Melbourne it is the team you barrack for, that marks the divide.

Jack

 

[Jack]

Interesting you say that Jack. In 1861, Seward, the Secretary of State had an idea to attack Great Britain, believing that would force the two sides to unite in common cause. Lincoln thought it daft and killed the idea.

No doubt there would have been support amongst some of the Irish migrants for such a move. I assume that it would not have been an attempted invasion of GB but an attack on British colonies - surely not Canada?