Why It Makes Sense... (1 Viewer)

[Spitfrnd]

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

... I think it is naive to suggest that the war could or should have been avoided on that basis.

I am not sure what that means. If it means it is naive to think that slavery would have ended without the war, then I would suggest that conclusion is itself naive. The South's reluctance to abandon slavery was based much more on economics than principle and for it to perserve the trade so necessary to its survival and growth, it would have had no choice. In the end butter actually has more impact than guns. If anything, the war likely contributed to the South's intractability on segregation as much or more than its history of slavery.

 

[theBaron]

Very true, Scott! Great Britain abolished slavery throughout its empire, before our civil war, without firing a shot. It was an abolitionist movement, whose leaders included many prominent churchmen, that pushed for that legislation. A war was not necessary.

If we had been able to abolish slavery before 1860, we might have avoided a civil war, but it's not clear whether the constitutional issue would have been decided. That is, the slavery issue forced the states' rights issue. Whether there would have been another such issue that raised passions and led anyone to suggest leaving the Union, can be debated. But the war certainly put an end to serious consideration of the idea that the states have more power than the federal government, at least to the point of secession.

Prost!
Brad

 

[Spitfrnd]

Very true, Scott! Great Britain abolished slavery throughout its empire, before our civil war, without firing a shot. It was an abolitionist movement, whose leaders included many prominent churchmen, that pushed for that legislation. A war was not necessary.
...

Of course Britain had by that point already had its own very bloody civil war. But then the history of England is replete with many savage wars between its various residents; small wonder our states which were largely populated by the ancestors of such folk had such difficulty getting along for some time.

 

[VanguardFC007]

Forced de-segregation eventually became a good thing in the long run for the South. Look at this way, by being forced to be together, Southern whites and blacks were forced to atleast accept each other. In the North this didnt seem to happen. From what Ive noticed in Texas and my time in Georgia, Northerners tend to have a more difficult time dealing with minorities...

 

[UKReb]

A really interesting thread guys and I have joined the discussion a little late. As a Brit I would not dare give an opinion on the case of slavery/abolition within the North and the South as causes of the struggle/war between the States and the continuation of segregation following the end of the war right up to almost the present day. History tells us it happened and I have been around that buoy many times before and trust me there is no solution to the argument/discussion. However, using Britain and other European countries, who had banned slavery by 1855, I'll take the discussion if I may off at a slight tangent to Africa where the majority of US slaves originated from.

Europe although giving up the institution of slavery still practiced colonialism on the Dark Continent and with a relish right up until the early 1960's when independences were quickly doled out to the various African countries.Now colonialism on one hand was seen as exploitation and oppression in fact not far removed from slavery itself. But on the other hand colonial governments did much to develop Africa and the Africans themselves benefited from the hospitals, schools, railroads and a civil society.

But following independence can anyone state if the independence of Africa has really worked? It would appear that racism and segregation is alive and well across the whole continent practiced with the same relish as their European masters but now by the corrupt African governments themselves.
Sudan/Darfur; Congo; Ivory Coast; Zimbabwe; Chad; Somalia; Guinea; Liberia; Burundi; Sierra Leone; Uganda; Nigeria/Biafra; Rwanda; Ethiopia; Malawi; Kenya; Cameroon; Angola. Every single one of those countries has had and continues to have endless civil wars, coups d'etats, oppression, misery, murder, ethnic cleansing, rape, thousands of refugees, the highest infant mortality in the world and an Aids pandemic in fact the complete collapse of civil society.

Most of these countries are/were poorly governed nations with weak institutions run in the main by African despots. Public service is fraught with favouritism, incompetence and corruption with continuous segregation/racial wars between tribal factions to the point that The Black Continent is now almost written off as hopeless-a veritable Continent without hope- but a continent that had such independent hope and rich resources that could have been developed into shining examples of a successful indigenous people. But they all followed the very first African state to gain it's independence-Ghana-who within six years was war stricken and completely bankrupt.

What has this got to do with this discussion? perhaps not a lot! However, Yes slavery/segregation happened in the South and to some degree in the North but stop beating yourselves up about it guys the independent alternative has not exactly been an illuminated beacon of African Utopia.

Reb

 

[VanguardFC007]

Hmm, Im not even sure what to say to that Reb. It all makes sense the way I read it... I guess I wont beat myself up any longer... I dunno, Im stumped.

But its great to have you back on the forums. When I started this thread with the name discussion I was unaware that you were visting us stateside. As you can see the conversation morphed into a completely different subject but was quite enlightening.

My hope is to keep the thread going in this same format as weve had with good discussion topics of the war. So if you got something up your sleeves lets have a go at it. If not, Lancer had gotten a decent one off the ground about unneeded Southern offensive actions.

 

[lancer]

Thanks Harris. I will not let myself vent on the black-white thing in the U.S. or Africa. I would love to discuss military ops in the WBTS or just about any other conflict. -- Al

 

[VanguardFC007]

Thanks Harris. I will not let myself vent on the black-white thing in the U.S. or Africa. I would love to discuss military ops in the WBTS or just about any other conflict. -- Al

No problem. I completely understand your desire to stay out of political and cultural discussions. Should you want to use this thread to talk about another conflict I would be open to it. The title of the thread leaves the subject matter open to member needs.

 

[Warrior]

"I will not let myself vent on the black-white thing in the U.S. or Africa. I would love to discuss military ops in the WBTS or just about any other conflict. -- Al"

I'm with Al on this one.

Perhaps it would be best to stick to toy soldiers, this thread has really gone off the tracks.

I'm speechless, I really am.

 

[VanguardFC007]

I agree with Lancer and would like nothing better.

 

[Rutledge]

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.

Especially convenient is today's high minded posturing by Bostonians, given the foundation of Boston's wealth is the slave trade. Harvard and Yale (among others) would not be the institutions they are without substantial early contributions from monied slave traders.

 

[VanguardFC007]

If at all possible I think it is time for us to drop the slavery discussion. It has clearly crossed a number of people's lines and is begining to become personal. Before this thread should meet an untimely demise I think it is best that we switch the topic. Everyone is welcome to jump in and add their 2 cents about tactics (Thank you Lancer for the diversion) or any other less divisive topic.

 

[tdubel]

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.

We will just agree to disagree, there is no revisionism about State's Rights as I think you can find the foundations of the fight dating back to our Constitution, but to each his own.

I stand by my own thoughts that Slavery and Segregation happened everywhere in our great Country and there is equal blame to go around. I agree with many of the economic arguments that were presented but I also think it has been convenient for 150 years to blame "those fellas from the part of the Country where they talk slow and have a drawl". AND NO I am not yelling at my Northern buddies at all, I am just making a statement that I have come to believe over the last 35 years based on living in the MIDDLE!!

For example, my business travels take me all over this great nation and I was recently in Mississippi. When I came back, I had a relative make a stereotypical comment about how backward etc Miss was. I quickly reminded him that his 90 year old father just recently made a comment at the dinner table about "those people". Now take a wild guess who the "yankee" 90 year old was referring to. Backward you say? Seriously, this is to illustrate that racism has no boundaries and has been like that since the birth of our Country, its not right in the least, but it is there.

SO, to get back here, I think this is a slope that no one is ever going to agree on, but I would sincerely hope that we all can appreciate the history of the War for what it is.........there really is no correct answer, the War happened for a lot of reasons with equal blame to go around and honestly, anything else is an opinion or revisionism, or whatever. We all believe what we want to believe because we have taken the facts (there was a War) and thus formed an opinion on them (ie what we individually believe the cause is).

TD

 

[Spitfrnd]

"I will not let myself vent on the black-white thing in the U.S. or Africa. I would love to discuss military ops in the WBTS or just about any other conflict. -- Al"

I'm with Al on this one.

Perhaps it would be best to stick to toy soldiers, this thread has really gone off the tracks.

I'm speechless, I really am.

I am not sure what that means at all. Last I noticed we were having a perfectly fine debate on the morality of certain actions in war and the inevitability of the demise of slavery. Of course it has been punctuated with an occassional barbed comment but relatively tame as I can tell. What really annoys me from time to time is the premature rush to smooth over waters that are hardly choppy. I don't mean you George but as a frequent tendency whenever a more sensitive topic is broached. I think we are all sufficiently mature to seperate philosophical debate from personal assault. There is nothing wrong with having a contrary point of view or even, IMNSOHO, if it is politically incorrect. Of course I hate PC in nearly all its forms. So slavery, war crimes or whatever, what's the problem as long as it remains an objective discussion?

 

[VanguardFC007]

I am not sure what that means at all. Last I noticed we were having a perfectly fine debate on the morality of certain actions in war and the inevitability of the demise of slavery. Of course it has been punctuated with an occassional barbed comment but relatively tame as I can tell. What really annoys me from time to time is the premature rush to smooth over waters that are hardly choppy. I don't mean you George but as a frequent tendency whenever a more sensitive topic is broached. I think we are all sufficiently mature to seperate philosophical debate from personal assault. There is nothing wrong with having a contrary point of view or even, IMNSOHO, if it is politically incorrect. Of course I hate PC in nearly all its forms. So slavery, war crimes or whatever, what's the problem as long as it remains an objective discussion?

As it turns out, and I do agree with this, I made a comment that Warrior had ample right to take offense to because it wasnt properly explained by me. In a response to his complaint I apologized and explained what I had meant through personal experiences of my own. He deleted his original post, I deleted mine, everything is hopefully ok now.

 

[FirstLegion]

Especially convenient is today's high minded posturing by Bostonians, given the foundation of Boston's wealth is the slave trade. Harvard and Yale (among others) would not be the institutions they are without substantial early contributions from monied slave traders.

I never said slavery was an issue that the south was solely responsible for, merely that secession and the Civil War was primarily fought over the issue of slavery (from the Southern perspective) and only later was labelled as a war over the more general issues of states right (It's funny, because no contemporary of the "War Between the States" called it that, that was a moniker that came up much later). It is also very misleading to say that the North fought the war to free the slaves initially - they didn't, they engaged in the war to preserve the Union. I think the war settled both the issue of slavey and the issue of states rights definitively once and for all, but to suggest that states rights was the initial impetus of secession is simply not the case in my opinion nor is it the case to suggest that the north engaged in the war to end slavery. States rights was a broader issue that was brought up by the act of secession, but wasn't the reason for secession itself and that's the part that I think is revisionist. It's also equally revisionist from a northern perspective to say that the North fought the war to free the slaves - they didn't.

In regards to the general institution of slavery in the US at the time, both the North and South clearly hold blame as TD has pointed out and I agree with. The North may not have had slaves at that point, but surely aren't blameless for the institution existing in the US.

I think some of you may be confusing my opinion that the south seceeded in very large part over the issue of slavery with my putting the entire blame of the institution of slavery's existence on the south. The two are not the same.

 

[Warrior]

"As it turns out, and I do agree with this, I made a comment that Warrior had ample right to take offense to because it wasnt properly explained by me. In a response to his complaint I apologized and explained what I had meant through personal experiences of my own. He deleted his original post, I deleted mine, everything is hopefully ok now."

Harris explained it perfectly here Spitfrnd, sorry to confuse you, no offense meant; actually to be totally honest Harris, I really didn't have ample right taking offense to what you said, I just think I needed further clarification as to where you were going with it, I really wish I had the opportunity to see what you meant through personal experiences.

We're good, no harm, no foul.

Carry on now going back and forth over whether the cause of the Civil War was or was not slavery and I say that as a "high minded Bostonian", whatever that means. And thanks for complementing my posture too, I am proud of my good posture Rutledge, have we met somewhere where you would notice my good posture? My girlfriend has good posture too, all of those years of being a runway model have really honed her posture skillls.

Funny though you mention Bostonian, of which I am one, born and raised in West Robury Massachusetts, attended Joyce Kilmer elementary school and attended Robert Gould Shaw middle school; yes, THAT Robert Gould Shaw, commander of the famous 54th Massachusetts, comprised of free African Americans. I should know, I make it a point to visit the area in Readville Massachusetts where they trained several times a year to pay my respects and also the monument outside the Massachusetts statehouse everytime I go into downtown Boston. I get a lump in my throat everytime I do as a matter of fact.

I am ****ed proud of those men and the sacrifice they laid at the alter of freedom.

****ed proud.

 

[FirstLegion]

I am not sure what that means at all. Last I noticed we were having a perfectly fine debate on the morality of certain actions in war and the inevitability of the demise of slavery. Of course it has been punctuated with an occassional barbed comment but relatively tame as I can tell. What really annoys me from time to time is the premature rush to smooth over waters that are hardly choppy. I don't mean you George but as a frequent tendency whenever a more sensitive topic is broached. I think we are all sufficiently mature to seperate philosophical debate from personal assault. There is nothing wrong with having a contrary point of view or even, IMNSOHO, if it is politically incorrect. Of course I hate PC in nearly all its forms. So slavery, war crimes or whatever, what's the problem as long as it remains an objective discussion?

Very well said and I fully agree. I'm not sure what happened in the deleted posts or what not, as I missed that apparently, but to me, this has probably been the most thought provoking discussion I've ever had on this forum. It reminds me very much of some of the discussions I've had on the "Napoleon Series" website a few years back where the level of discussion and debate was extremely high. Not everyone agreed, but that's what makes the discussions interesting. If the topic or opinions upset folks, that's a real shame because this type of interesting historical discussion is normally lacking on these forums.

 

[VanguardFC007]

Well said everyone. I believe calmer heads have prevailed and the conversation can continue. I agree that it has been quite thought provoking. I do hope we can soon move onto the war itself and get off its causes but thats just my personal taste. The war was much shorter than the buildup so maybe its appropriate we spend all this time on the causes.

 

[Warrior]

Nevermind Rutledge, you were calling out First Legion because he is from Boston.

Carry on.