Myths about the Civil War (2 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oscar Wilde said, "the Truth is rarely pure and never simple." But no matter where or by whom the CW myths were printed, History remains History; it's not an opinion piece. Either something happened or it didn't, dead ancestors notwithstanding and prejudices toward certain publications notwithstanding. I would kindly ask some of the contributors to this piece to also stick to the topic of this thread, as I am not at all interested in today's Sunny South. My wife & I lived and taught there for a good 25 years and have retired back to the North. If sun & lower taxes were everything, we should all have moved to Brazil by now. So, kindly offer some scholarly rebuttals if one has any & keep the New South for another thread.:rolleyes2::rolleyes2:
 
...........

You want to discuss the battles, the great leaders of men, the heroism and incredible fortitude by the brave Americans who fought on both sides, I'm all for it. ..........

Right! At re-enactments we usually sent the "lest we forgets" over to the next campfire.
 
**nny the CW/WBTS re-enactor forum I jump back and forth to from here is discussing common misinformation that folks hear from the public or what "know it alls" try to tell TO the public. Most folks that read a few books are beyond all that "who was right" stuff and into the nuts and bolts of uniforms and gear or minutia of drill and tactics. I've seen guys pick apart enlargements of period photos for the number or buttons on coats and such. That part is **n.
 
Just to get back on topic (a bit), I always thought it was interesting that Lincoln made little or no effort to avert the war. That's a topic that I don't think has been **lly explored. He seemingly let events take their course. One possibility is that he actually desired a conflict. As a skilled politician, I think his anti-slavery agenda has been underestimated. He recognized that it would not be possible to ask Northerners to sacrifice lives on behalf of ending slavery (most were racially biased), but realized they would do so to "preserve the Union." In reality he baited the South to begin the conflict as a means to end slavery. Most historians seem to believe - with some justification - that Lincoln's stance on slavery was somewhat mixed when it came to armed conflict to end it. But I think he had an agenda - which the Southerners realized from the start. I mean this as a credit to Lincoln and not a criticism although it might be interpreted differently given the loss of life in the war (which I think Lincoln underestimated).
 
Tom,

I try to not debate whether this cause was the cause or who is right or is wrong but just like to dig deeper into the causes. As I've drilled deeper I've found out that New York City wanted to secede from the North because of their connection to the cotton industry and that in certain parts of the South the unionist sentiment was pretty strong and wouldn't die, even after the South seceded, or that there were a lot of reluctant confederates -- formely cooperationists. Even Stephens was a Unionist until he had no choice. I didn't know that until earlier this year.

The only thing I don't like is when people say we know who won so let's move on. Intellectual curiosity is what it's all about!

Brad,

Is there really anything more to learn about the causes of the Civil War at this point? Everything you've posted about the things you've recently learned is not particularly relevant to the real causes, which are as obvious on the nose on my face: who was going to dominate the United States economically and politically, the Southern aggrarian ecomony based in large part on slavery or the Northern industrial economy based in large part on immigrant labor. The Southern upper class had owned a strangle hold on the Federal Government up to the 5-10 years prior to the Civil War, and they were quickly losing the lead politically and economically. The Civil War resolved the issue of which system would dominate. Everything else you've all discussed fits within this basic topic of discussion.

All that happens when these discussions about the cuases of the Civil War start is people get very regional and get ready to refight a war that ended more than 100 years before we were born. Frankly, I am tired of seeing this issue rehashed. There are at least five threads that have gone through this issue in detail, and they all end up the same way, with a bunch of deleted posts because of the extreme acrimony this issue generates. I could do without yet another one.

Its like the Monty versus Patton discussions. Nobody's opinion ever changes, and we have all heard all the opinions and underlying facts umpteen times. But by all means, stir the pot and lets see if you can convince Tom, Tim and our other Southern brethren that their ancestors didn't have the moral highground.
 
Brad,

Is there really anything more to learn about the causes of the Civil War at this point? Everything you've posted about the things you've recently learned is not particularly relevant to the real causes, which are as obvious on the nose on my face: who was going to dominate the United States economically and politically, the Southern aggrarian ecomony based in large part on slavery or the Northern industrial economy based in large part on immigrant labor. The Southern upper class had owned a strangle hold on the Federal Government up to the 5-10 years prior to the Civil War, and they were quickly losing the lead politically and economically. The Civil War resolved the issue of which system would dominate. Everything else you've all discussed fits within this basic topic of discussion.

All that happens when these discussions about the cuases of the Civil War start is people get very regional and get ready to refight a war that ended more than 100 years before we were born. Frankly, I am tired of seeing this issue rehashed. There are at least five threads that have gone through this issue in detail, and they all end up the same way, with a bunch of deleted posts because of the extreme acrimony this issue generates. I could do without yet another one.

Its like the Monty versus Patton discussions. Nobody's opinion ever changes, and we have all heard all the opinions and underlying facts umpteen times. But by all means, stir the pot and lets see if you can convince Tom, Tim and our other Southern brethren that their ancestors didn't have the moral highground.

Louis,

The more you learn about a subject, the more you. It seems when I scratch the surface, the more it leads to something else.

Now you may not be interested in learning more about it but I and others are. No one is twisting your arm here. For some one who apparently has no interest in the topic, you seem to post a lot on it.

Nowhere on this thread was I trying to change others mind nor do I recall trying to do so. It's really impossible to do it in a small setting like this, especially because people have a fixed opinion. That has to be left through studying and reading about the topic. The more I read the more I realize nothing is clear cut or black and white as it's made out to be. Would I have come to realize through a forum thread. No, I have to some serious reading and then noodle on it.
 
Gee, this discussion sounds familiar. I think we had this a month ago.
A few questions for the members: why is this information suspect? From who? The author of this article is a very distinguished historian who wrote a longer piece for the current issue of American Heritage Magazine on part of this. I don't know that I've ever heard that referred to as a rag. Just because this was published in the Washington Post does not make what is factual any less so. For that matter, I think that few would call that magazine a rag either, regardless of what side one believes. I tried to link the Heritage article but had no luck. Pick up a copy at your local library and read it.
If his information is not factual, fine, contradict him with facts, don't just say that this is junk or opinionated history. As I've said recently to one member of the board, you are always entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own set of facts.
 
I'm not sure why someone wouldn't want to discuss a subject with a "scholar". It's better with someone that knows about a subject rather than how one feels about a subject even if they disagree.
 
Wow, since I last checked or maybe I didn't see all the posts originally (because I was on the BB), looks like this one has jumped the track.

Think I'm back to agreeing with Louis, Gary (Shiloh) and Tom, ain't nothing too productive coming out of here. Guess Louis, Tom and I can chew on it in Valley Forge. Too bad you can't join us Gary :)
 
Could I just ask as a non American and I hope it is taken in the right way. Leaving aside the causes of this conflict but do you not as Americans in the end not think that Mr Lincoln was right. If your great country had split would America would have risen to it's position of world leader? Would world history not have been much different without a powerful "Arsenal of democracy" With no great united Republic to lead the world out of WWI, WWII and the Cold War. Personally I feel that if the Union had been broken there would have been a multitude of armed English speaking states in North America suspicious of each others intentions and fighting a variety of greater or lesser conflicts between each other. There would have been no united Republic capable of providing leadership. There may have not been an "American Century".
 
Gentlemen,

You may have noticed I have deleted a few posts. Too frequently, discussions of the American Civil War arouse strong passions and heated exchanges. Please keep your posts thoughtful and peaceful. The topic has rich potential for learning, but implusive, aggressive, and thoughtless comments prevent the acquisition of new knowledge and the development of keen insights.

Your cooperation is very much appreciated!

Warmest personal regards,

Pat
 
Just to get back on topic (a bit), I always thought it was interesting that Lincoln made little or no effort to avert the war. That's a topic that I don't think has been **lly explored. He seemingly let events take their course. One possibility is that he actually desired a conflict. As a skilled politician, I think his anti-slavery agenda has been underestimated. He recognized that it would not be possible to ask Northerners to sacrifice lives on behalf of ending slavery (most were racially biased), but realized they would do so to "preserve the Union." In reality he baited the South to begin the conflict as a means to end slavery. Most historians seem to believe - with some justification - that Lincoln's stance on slavery was somewhat mixed when it came to armed conflict to end it. But I think he had an agenda - which the Southerners realized from the start. I mean this as a credit to Lincoln and not a criticism although it might be interpreted differently given the loss of life in the war (which I think Lincoln underestimated).

That's not quite right. As President-elect, he had no power until he was inaugurated and was loath to say anything until he was inaugurated in March (at least initially). Once he had been elected, South Carolina and other fire-eaters were determined to leave the Union, fearing the consequences of "Black Republican" rule, as they put it. By the end of January, six states had already seceded.

In addition, although there were many efforts in Congress to craft a compromise, such as the Crittenden Compromise, these efforts only really started once Congress came back into session in December. We need to remember that Congress didn't meet then as often as they do now. Generally, the Republicans were lukewarm towards compromise, feeling why should they give up what they had just won at the ballot box, not to mention that had Lincoln conceded then his administration may have crashed before it started. However, the secessionists were not too enthusiastic about compromise either because they wanted to secede.

Moreover, and I have mentioned this before, and it has been written about by many but particularly David Potter in his indispensable work "Lincoln and His Party in the Succession Crisis" (highly recommended) is that the Republicans underestimated the resolve of the Secessionists just as the latter probably overestimated what the Republicans might do once they came into power.

Once Major Anderson moved into Fort Sumter from Fort Moultrie in the Charleston harbor, the crisis came to a head and William Seward, the designated Secretary of State, tried his best to buy time for the incoming administration as the Buchanan administration wasn't interested in doing that much, which is why his Presidency is considered one of the worst.

Seward bought time but unfortunately not enough for Lincoln to try to resolve the crisis, which he was probably unprepared for.

Lincoln tried to reassure the Confederates in his inaugural address that he had no intention of interfering with slavery where it existed or re-taking federal facilities (which by then were all in the hands of the South, except for Sumpter and Fort Pickens in Florida), just holding the ones then held by the Union. He emphasized they should be friends, not enemies, and the chains that bound them together.

Sumter was a symbol both for the North and the South and he could not let it go, just as the South could not abide continued Federal possession of it. As Major Anderson was running out of provisions, an outbreak of hostilities was inevitable. Lincoln only wanted to re-supply the Fort but the South would not permit this. And so the war came. I don't believe he maneuvered Davis into declaring war; at that point it was just inevitable (the avoidable vs. the unavoidable theory again).

In 1864, he said "I claim not to have controlled events but confess plainly that events have controlled to me."
 
Could I just ask as a non American and I hope it is taken in the right way. Leaving aside the causes of this conflict but do you not as Americans in the end not think that Mr Lincoln was right. If your great country had split would America would have risen to it's position of world leader? Would world history not have been much different without a powerful "Arsenal of democracy" With no great united Republic to lead the world out of WWI, WWII and the Cold War. Personally I feel that if the Union had been broken there would have been a multitude of armed English speaking states in North America suspicious of each others intentions and fighting a variety of greater or lesser conflicts between each other. There would have been no united Republic capable of providing leadership. There may have not been an "American Century".

That too is a question on not all agree. Some feel that slavery would have died out on its own, some do not. Even Lincoln at one point felt that it might hang on until 1900. Preserving the Union is why initally there was a war. As the war progressed and the methods of fighting it changed, so did the aims, not all of which were well received by the people in the Union.

I would like to leave with this letter that Lincoln wrote in 1864. He spoke with a delegation of politicians from Kentucky and afterwards he was asked to jot his thoughts down on paper. Maybe it's not apropos of anything but does express his thought on what his duties and responsibilities were. It's considered one of the classic writings of Lincoln. The last paragraph is a harbinger of his Second Inaugural Address, Lincoln's greatest speech.

***

My dear Sir: You ask me to put in writing the substance of what I verbally said the other day, in your presence, to Governor Bramlette and Senator Dixon. It was about as follows:

I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel. And yet I have never understood that the Presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right to act officially upon this judgment and feeling. It was in the oath I took that I would, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. I could not take the office without taking the oath. Nor was it my view that I might take an oath to get power, and break the oath in using the power. I understood, too, that in ordinary civil administration this oath even forbade me to practically indulge my primary abstract judgment on the moral question of slavery. I had publicly declared this many times, and in many ways. And I aver that, to this day, I have done no official act in mere deference to my abstract judgment and feeling on slavery. I did understand however, that my oath to preserve the constitution to the best of my ability, imposed upon me the duty of preserving, by every indispensable means, that government---that nation---of which that constitution was the organic law. Was it possible to lose the nation, and yet preserve the constitution? By general law life and limb must be protected; yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life; but a life is never wisely given to save a limb. I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the constitution, through the preservation of the nation. Right or wrong, I assumed this ground, and now avow it. I could not feel that, to the best of my ability, I had even tried to preserve the constitution, if, to save slavery, or any minor matter, I should permit the wreck of government, country, and Constitution all together. When, early in the war, Gen. Fremont attempted military emancipation, I forbade it, because I did not then think it an indispensable necessity. When a little later, Gen. Cameron, then Secretary of War, suggested the arming of the blacks, I objected, because I did not yet think it an indispensable necessity. When, still later, Gen. Hunter attempted military emancipation, I again forbade it, because I did not yet think the indispensable necessity had come. When, in March, and May, and July 1862 I made earnest, and successive appeals to the border states to favor compensated emancipation, I believed the indispensable necessity for military emancipation, and arming the blacks would come, unless averted by that measure. They declined the proposition; and I was, in my best judgment, driven to the alternative of either surrendering the Union, and with it, the Constitution, or of laying strong hand upon the colored element. I chose the latter. In choosing it, I hoped for greater gain than loss; but of this, I was not entirely confident. More than a year of trial now shows no loss by it in our foreign relations, none in our home popular sentiment, none in our white military force,---no loss by it any how or anywhere. On the contrary, it shows a gain of quite a hundred and thirty thousand soldiers, seamen, and laborers. These are palpable facts, about which, as facts, there can be no cavilling. We have the men; and we could not have had them without the measure.

And now let any Union man who complains of the measure, test himself by writing down in one line that he is for subduing the rebellion by force of arms; and in the next, that he is for taking these hundred and thirty thousand men from the Union side, and placing them where they would be but for the measure he condemns. If he can not face his case so stated, it is only because he can not face the truth.['']

I add a word which was not in the verbal conversation. In telling this tale I attempt no compliment to my own sagacity. I claim not to have controlled events, but confess plainly that events have controlled me. Now, at the end of three years struggle the nation's condition is not what either party, or any man devised, or expected. God alone can claim it. Whither it is tending seems plain. If God now wills the removal of a great wrong, and wills also that we of the North as well as you of the South, shall pay fairly for our complicity in that wrong, impartial history will find therein new cause to attest and revere the justice and goodness of God. Yours truly

A. LINCOLN
 
Gentlemen,

You may have noticed I have deleted a few posts. Too frequently, discussions of the American Civil War arouse strong passions and heated exchanges. Please keep your posts thoughtful and peaceful. The topic has rich potential for learning, but implusive, aggressive, and thoughtless comments prevent the acquisition of new knowledge and the development of keen insights.

Your cooperation is very much appreciated!

Warmest personal regards,

Pat

Pat,
Public thank you for deleting my posts at my request.

Tom
 
I find the attitude that since we know the results, so let's not spend any more time rehashing a historical topic somewhat disturbing.............
The reason something happens is important to know and it can spawn a lot of discussion with possible lessons for the **ture.

Good Morning sir-

i do not mean to offend so please don't take it that way but according to my research, since the recording of modern history- going back to Mesopotamia, there have been three days in recorded history in which not one person was bashing someone else's skull with a rock, stabbing them with a gladius, taking an arrow to the chin or bullet to the head. I do sincerely admire your quest for Knowledge Brad- the problem is you are giving the human race far more credit than it will ever be due. There has been more than enough amateur and/or scholarly information assimilated and put forth to answer the question- why do nations go to war- YET-
-we still do. Why, because the human being has absolutely zero interest in ever curtailing war and achieving peace through non violent means. It will never EVER happen- so, as far as me ever picking up a book and spending one iota of my free time trying to understand why nations go to war, well, I'd rather take the time to enjoy a walk with my kids, a bikeride, some time at the gym or even watching paint dry would be more fruitful. This is one of the great mysteries of the human race and I have yet to believe that 90% of the politicians that have ever held elected office or even 1 out of 25 of my fellow Americans are worthy of the blood, sweat or tears that a soldier puts out much less the final sacrifice they make. At the end of the day, we have passed through several millenia of human existence and we still kill each other for land, minerals, ideology, etc- if we haven't gotten the message through all of the passage of that time, we never will.
 
Brad,

Is there really anything more to learn about the causes of the Civil War at this point? Everything you've posted about the things you've recently learned is not particularly relevant to the real causes, which are as obvious on the nose on my face: who was going to dominate the United States economically and politically, the Southern aggrarian ecomony based in large part on slavery or the Northern industrial economy based in large part on immigrant labor. The Southern upper class had owned a strangle hold on the Federal Government up to the 5-10 years prior to the Civil War, and they were quickly losing the lead politically and economically. The Civil War resolved the issue of which system would dominate. Everything else you've all discussed fits within this basic topic of discussion.

All that happens when these discussions about the cuases of the Civil War start is people get very regional and get ready to refight a war that ended more than 100 years before we were born. Frankly, I am tired of seeing this issue rehashed. There are at least five threads that have gone through this issue in detail, and they all end up the same way, with a bunch of deleted posts because of the extreme acrimony this issue generates. I could do without yet another one.

Its like the Monty versus Patton discussions. Nobody's opinion ever changes, and we have all heard all the opinions and underlying facts umpteen times. But by all means, stir the pot and lets see if you can convince Tom, Tim and our other Southern brethren that their ancestors didn't have the moral highground.

Very well said, sir. Another author described it as "**ll of sound and **ry, signifying nothing".
 
Could I just ask as a non American and I hope it is taken in the right way. Leaving aside the causes of this conflict but do you not as Americans in the end not think that Mr Lincoln was right. If your great country had split would America would have risen to it's position of world leader?

An interesting "what if" question, but I don't believe there was any real possibility that the South could win the war. At least not militarily. At best, a negotiated settlement had Lincoln lost the 1864 election to an anti-war candidate. It's difficult to envision the terms of such agreement creating two separate nations. Maybe in the short term. In the longer term, both sides would have incentives to reunite. On the question of slavery, it's hard to say how that would have been resolved. Perhaps some phase out or compensation for slave owners similar to England. How long that would have taken is anyone's guess and the South would have been in no hurry to give up a free labor force after fighting a war to preserve it. In an agrarian society, it might have lasted until mechanized tools became available to replace manual labor. Perhaps into the early 1900s.
 
Very well said, sir. Another author described it as "**ll of sound and **ry, signifying nothing".

Not just another author, but Willliam Shakespeare in Macbeth, one of my favorites Shakespeare plays.

This is a favorite line ""When shall we three meet again in thunder, lightning, or in rain? When the hurlyburly 's done, when the battle 's lost and won" (Act I, Scene I).

P.S. Lincoln was quite well read in Shakespeare :wink2:
 
Not just another author, but Willliam Shakespeare in Macbeth, one of my favorites Shakespeare plays.

This is a favorite line ""When shall we three meet again in thunder, lightning, or in rain? When the hurlyburly 's done, when the battle 's lost and won" (Act I, Scene I).

P.S. Lincoln was quite well read in Shakespeare :wink2:

Very good Brad. Just so you know, I was an English major in college, and am well familiar with Ole Bill. In fact I saw Macbeth performed, while a student at Oxford University, at Stratford-Upon-Avon.

The proud SOUTHERN author and Novel Prize winner, William Faulkner, also used it as the title of his famous and iconic novel, "The Sound and the **ry". ^&grin
 
Rutledge,

You're a lucky man to have been to Stratford to see a performance and I'm sure going to Oxford must have been something special :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top