Why It Makes Sense... (1 Viewer)

[FirstLegion]

For some suggested brief reading on a few of the topics that are covered in this thread, check out chapters 5 and 6 of "Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everthing my American History Textbook Got Wrong." It does a great job explaining why US history books are the way they are, the changes they've gone under over time, and illuminating some facts that just don't see the light of day in the average US History book. I think it may open some eyes here...

 

[jazzeum]

Its interesting that the back-to-back greatest political eras couldnt peacefully work something out. From what Ive read all the major players of the age knew it was a problem, they just didnt know how to fix it without causing disunion. Other minds of the time figured they would just leave it to the next generation. Sadly those politicians were even less brilliant. Then there were other great minds who didnt even see the problem i.e. Jackson and Calhoun etc.

Harris,

In some ways, that makes them just like us We don't have all the answers either although we like to think we do

 

[VanguardFC007]

I think at this point we may have exausted our previous topic about the name of the war. On the other hand I love all the interesting perspectives that weve gotten through this thread. So... if anyone has a topic they find interesting on the War Between The States, American Civil War, War for Southern Independence, or War of Northern Agression that they think we all might have an interesting time debating, speak up! Lets have at it.

 

[lancer]

How about the Celtic (Southern) predisposition for the offensive that cost them so many casualties that they could ill afford? Was this a direct cause for their military defeat? Did the offensive hasten said defeat or delay it? Discuss amongst yourselfs and submit your papers for pass-fail consideration. -- lancer

 

[VanguardFC007]

How about the Celtic (Southern) predisposition for the offensive that cost them so many casualties that they could ill afford? Was this a direct cause for their military defeat? Did the offensive hasten said defeat or delay it? Discuss amongst yourselfs and submit your papers for pass-fail consideration. -- lancer

Do you mean in any battle a Southern tendency to attack rather than defend or are you refering perhaps to Gettysburg?

 

[lancer]

The question was aimed at just about any operation where the offensive MAY have been unneccesary for victory. I realize this fits almost all the battles to some degree but there are many instances where the offensive was fatal where as the defensive might have been the better option. -- lancer

 

[VanguardFC007]

Well certainly Picket's Charge at Gettysburg is a viable candidate for this discussion. Longstreet had the right idea in shifting positions to block the Army of the Potomac from Washington.

 

[lancer]

There are many examples. As pointed out, Gettysburg. Then there is the Seven Days resulting in Malvern Hill. More to the point, Hood and his offensives around Atlanta and especially Hood and his attack at Franklin. -- lancer

 

[VanguardFC007]

Ah, Hood was an agressive commander. I think he had the right idea around Atlanta and his subsequent campaign into Tennessee. By going on the offensive he was trying to throw Sherman off balence and change the tone of the Georgia campaign. Hood and his command were unable to execute properly around Atlanta and the rest is history. His advance into Tennessee was an attempt to draw Union forces away from Georgia, which he succeeded in doing. However that campaign ended up being blundered as well. Hood was a capable divison commander but at the corps and army level he may have been over his head. Another factor that was common in the WBTS was a loss of "ability" after the loss of a limb. Many officers during the war seemed to lose some of their talent and fire after a traumatic wound. Hood in a previous campaign had lost his leg.

 

[lancer]

I agree that Hood was a good, aggressive commander at lower levels than Army command. His wounding at Gettysburg and at Chickamauga really took a toll on his stamina and maybe his judgement. At any rate his offensives were usually poorly executed because of communication problems ,insufficient preparation or insufficient resources. Delusions of grandeur? The chance of deflecting Sherman was nill though the idea may have had some merit as the best of bad choices. As for his attack at Franklin, it is hard to imagine a more disasterous plan and result for the Confederacy. -- lancer

 

[Spitfrnd]

For some suggested brief reading on a few of the topics that are covered in this thread, check out chapters 5 and 6 of "Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everthing my American History Textbook Got Wrong." It does a great job explaining why US history books are the way they are, the changes they've gone under over time, and illuminating some facts that just don't see the light of day in the average US History book. I think it may open some eyes here...

I don't know if it would or not. Certain the premise is right, NO ONE should rely on any officially sanctioned history book for their understanding of history or for that matter on the views of any one historian for anything. Original research is of course the best option and absent that, as many diverse views as possible. Honestly though from what has been said in this thread, I would recommend some more reading in morality, including The Morality of War by: Brian Orend, The Morality of War: Classical and Contemporary Readings by Eric Rovie, Awakening Warrior: Revolution in the Ethics of Warfare by Timothy Challans and the original works of Bentham, Locke, Aristotle and Hume.

 

[Combat]

I haven't read this entire thread, but just two comments from skimming it over:

1) Amen to Brad's comment about politicians passing on the tough issues. That started from the very beginning of american history. Many tend to believe that the founding fathers had their hands full with the revolutionary war - what more could we expect of them, but more recent histories are beginning to take them to task regarding the issue of slavery. The south was far less dependent on the institution of slavery in the 1770's than they would become in the 1800's. The founding fathers certainly recognized at the time the inconsistency of their position that "all men are created equal" with the continuation of slavery. It was a very doable thing in their time even in some form of phase out compromise that would compensate slave owners and/or free all those born after a specified year. Think of the strife that would have resolved in the long term.

2) I tend to disagree with the notion that slavery would have ended somehow without the civil war. Certainly not in the short term. Maybe 50 or more years later when human labor could be replaced by machines, but that seems like a feeble argument against the civil war. The history of segregation for 100 years after the civil war and the opposition to all civil rights legislation demonstrates that no voluntary end of slavery could have been imposed on the south through a political process until the 20th century. And certainly not while many rich and powerful southerners benefitted economically from slavery. A handful of southern senators blocked almost every civil rights legislation until the 1960's. Even then it took the national guard to get black students into southern universities. I think it is naive to suggest that the war could or should have been avoided on that basis.

 

[tdubel]

I haven't read this entire thread, but just two comments from skimming it over:

2) I tend to disagree with the notion that slavery would have ended somehow without the civil war. Certainly not in the short term. Maybe 50 or more years later when human labor could be replaced by machines, but that seems like a feeble argument against the civil war. The history of segregation for 100 years after the civil war and the opposition to all civil rights legislation demonstrates that no voluntary end of slavery could have been imposed on the south through a political process until the 20th century. And certainly not while many rich and powerful southerners benefitted economically from slavery. A handful of southern senators blocked almost every civil rights legislation until the 1960's. Even then it took the national guard to get black students into southern universities. I think it is naive to suggest that the war could or should have been avoided on that basis.

This is a never ending argument, but you are mixing Segregation with slavery. Segregation was in practice openly in the South and subvertly accross the rest of the nation. There are no innocents in that argument in my opinion nor was there much in the Slavery issue either. I believe it was an issue of convenience for both sides to use to further the war. The true issue was a strong federal government vs the state's rights. Slavery and many other issues were mechanisms in this "machine." Slavery just happened to be a civil rights/moral issue which became a focal point (as it should have, I don't think you will find many people who believe it was right in the South, North or wherever).

TD

 

[Rutledge]

The "money cities" of the north, including many prestigious universities, were founded on the slave trade. Boston, in particular, created substantial wealth through the importation, and sale, of slaves. Most of the slaves initally arrived in the north, who then sold them to plantations in the south.

Economic issues were at the foundation of the civil war. The south relied on slave labor to tend its agricultural plots. The north had moved on to immigrants from Ireland, Italy etc. The north required high tariffs to keep its products competitive with cheap imports, and make infrastructure improvements. The south preferred lower tariffs as most industrial/manufactured products were imported.

 

[Capitolron]

So segregation and discrimination has only occurred in the South - YEA, RIGHT

 

[FirstLegion]

The true issue was a strong federal government vs the state's rights. TD

Nah, this is the convenient revisionist view that US history books tend to take (at least until very recently) because it's ugly to say the south seceeded over the issue of slavery (despite the fact that South Carolina actually said as much in it's list of grievances upon secession). It's much more palatable to modern sensibilities to label the cause as "states rights." It's funny that South Carolina et al were dead against States Rights when it came to the return of fugitive slaves.

 

[FirstLegion]

Honestly though from what has been said in this thread, I would recommend some more reading in morality, including The Morality of War by: Brian Orend, The Morality of War: Classical and Contemporary Readings by Eric Rovie, Awakening Warrior: Revolution in the Ethics of Warfare by Timothy Challans and the original works of Bentham, Locke, Aristotle and Hume.

Touché!

A discussion of war and morality is a slippery slope indeed as it's been debated over and over again by far better men than I, so it's probably best left undiscussed. Suffice it to say that I buy into most, but not all, of the "just-cause" moral philosophy of war espoused by Orend and others.

To quote MacArthur:

"I know war as few other men now living know it, and nothing to
me is more revolting. I have long advocated its complete
abolition.…But once war is forced upon us, there is no other
alternative than to apply every available means to bring it to a swift
end.…In war, indeed, there can be no substitute for victory."

Or, more succinctly said by the man at the center of the controversy, General Sherman:

"War is hell."

 

[damian]

So segregation and discrimination has only occurred in the South - YEA, RIGHT

Yea
In South Africa

 

[Combat]

This is a never ending argument, but you are mixing Segregation with slavery. Segregation was in practice openly in the South and subvertly accross the rest of the nation. There are no innocents in that argument in my opinion nor was there much in the Slavery issue either. I believe it was an issue of convenience for both sides to use to further the war. The true issue was a strong federal government vs the state's rights. Slavery and many other issues were mechanisms in this "machine." Slavery just happened to be a civil rights/moral issue which became a focal point (as it should have, I don't think you will find many people who believe it was right in the South, North or wherever).

TD

The failure of the political, legal, and moral process to overcome segregation policies for nearly 100 years after the civil war is evidence of how difficult it would have been to end slavery without the war. The decision makers who created and maintained segregation in the South from 1865-1960's did not even have a vested economic interest in that system as many did with slavery. Segregation was a racist driven agenda. Slavery was both a racist and economic system for those who supported it. In retrospect, it may sound reasonable to conclude that people would have wised up to the evils of slavery in a few years, but a handful of powerful individuals with an economic interest in the status quo can hold up anything. Just ask yourself why we are still driving gasoline fueled cars and will be for another 50 years.

 

[Spitfrnd]

Touché!

A discussion of war and morality is a slippery slope indeed as it's been debated over and over again by far better men than I, so it's probably best left undiscussed. Suffice it to say that I buy into most, but not all, of the "just-cause" moral philosophy of war espoused by Orend and others.

To quote MacArthur:

"I know war as few other men now living know it, and nothing to
me is more revolting. I have long advocated its complete
abolition.…But once war is forced upon us, there is no other
alternative than to apply every available means to bring it to a swift
end.…In war, indeed, there can be no substitute for victory."

Or, more succinctly said by the man at the center of the controversy, General Sherman:

"War is hell."

Of course it is a slippery slove; that is precisely why such a discussion is avoided only with peril. If fact, that is the heart of the discussion here. It is not history that is in question, but rather the appropriateness of certain historical actions. That is per se a moral debate.

If you favor Orend, you should definitely read Challans As Socrates said, "...a life unexamined is no life at all." To Sherman's observation, that is true no matter how just the cause or justly waged the war; that does not mean that war excuses all practices, no matter how immoral or unjust.