The Fifty First State

[bhsup]

The abolition of slavery was a huge economic blow to the South. Perhaps someday those who still try to fight the Civil War even today will eventually get over it.

Funny how the North didn't abolish it until after the Civil War was over.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I really don't think this absurd vilification of Lincoln which has become so popular with some is going to change the basic facts. Slavery did end in the US thanks in no small part to Lincoln.

Well, we could argue ad infinitum or we could just take a look at what Lincoln really said...

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."

Lincoln cares little about freeing the slaves, and a lot about forcing the Confederates to remain in the Union.

Lincoln, in fact says he has no intent to free Southern slaves...

Do the people of the south really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, there is no cause for such fears.

He also doesn't want blacks to be allowed to vote (Rendering the argument that the CSA "Didn't let the blacks vote" irrelevant, Lincoln had no desire to do so either.)

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything."

 

[Farm Boy]

Are we back to pretending there was anything behind secession other than slavery?

God dammit Cutlass! You know for sure and darn well that the big issue that drove the war was slavery. No. Freaking. Duh. But you are also smart enough to know that the average southern boy that bled out had no slaves and was unlikely fighting for "slavery per se." Was the south deeply racist through and through? No. Freaking. Duh. So was the North. Does the North have the moral high ground in hindsight? Again, no duh. But to gloss over the actual reasons an "average" southerner gave the last full measure of devotion was not so black people would remain in chains. Tragedy on the scale of the Civil War leaves 200 year scars. The South full well remembers why the average man fought, even as I am sure it concedes the sins of its past. You can hold two ideas in your head at the same time, yes? Lincoln was big enough to forgive almost immediately after the war was obviously won, do we need more time to catch up to him?(that came off worse than I meant, but I'm too lazy to re-write).

 

[caketastydelish]

*back on topic*

The US might as well adopt Isreal as the 51st state, considering the billions of dollars we've poured into that country...

 

[bhsup]

Farm Boy, I think I love you.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Lincoln cares little about freeing the slaves, and a lot about forcing the Confederates to remain in the Union.

Lincoln, in fact says he has no intent to free Southern slaves...

What utter nonsense.

However, Lincoln’s own anti-slavery sentiment was widely known at the time. In the same letter, he went on: “I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.” A month later, Lincoln combined official duty and private wish in his preliminary Emancipation Proclamation.

...But you are also smart enough to know that the average southern boy that bled out had no slaves and was unlikely fighting for "slavery per se."...

More nonsense:

However, two ideological factors caused most Southern whites, including those who were not slave-owners, to defend slavery. First, Americans are wondrous optimists, looking to the upper class and expecting to join it someday. In 1860, many subsistence farmers aspired to become large slave-owners. So poor white Southerners supported slavery then, just as many low-income people support the extension of George W. Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy now.

Second and more important, belief in white supremacy provided a rationale for slavery. As the French political theorist Montesquieu observed wryly in 1748: “It is impossible for us to suppose these creatures [enslaved Africans] to be men; because allowing them to be men, a suspicion would follow that we ourselves are not Christians.” Given this belief, most white Southerners — and many Northerners, too — could not envision life in black-majority states such as South Carolina and Mississippi unless blacks were in chains. Georgia Supreme Court Justice Henry Benning, trying to persuade the Virginia Legislature to leave the Union, predicted race war if slavery was not protected. “The consequence will be that our men will be all exterminated or expelled to wander as vagabonds over a hostile earth, and as for our women, their fate will be too horrible to contemplate even in fancy.” Thus, secession would maintain not only slavery but the prevailing ideology of white supremacy as well.

South Carolina specifically seceded because they knew that Lincoln becoming president was the death knell to slavery in the US.

 

[sophie]

*back on topic*

The US might as well adopt Isreal as the 51st state, considering the billions of dollars we've poured into that country...

Any thread on cfc about states and in which dommy participates will invariably slide into a "debate" about the illegality of secession.

 

[Farm Boy]

South Carolina specifically seceded because they knew that Lincoln becoming president was the death knell to slavery in the US.

I already conceeded the big issue. Oh gee. Lets citation wars instead of thinking! That's fun. Here we go! --

When asked about the American civil war, Foote resorted to an anecdote. Early in the conflict, he used to say, a squad of Union soldiers closed in on a ragged Johnny Reb. Figuring that he did not own slaves, nor had much interest in the constitutional question of secession, they asked him: "What are you fighting for, anyhow?" The Confederate replied: "I'm fighting because you're down here." Foote regarded that as "a pretty satisfactory answer".

By all means, I'm sure my source is crap and yours is awesome. The simplest answer is surely right. Lets make this easy on all of us. Thinking and empathy are both hard.

 

[GhostWriter16]

No clue. I was being discussed and quoted before I even arrived. NickyJ was explaining what my quotes actually meant while Hobbsyoyo was taking them out of context to try to make me say things that I never said.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I already conceeded the big issue. Oh gee. Lets citation wars instead of thinking! That's fun. Here we go! --

When asked about the American civil war, Foote resorted to an anecdote. Early in the conflict, he used to say, a squad of Union soldiers closed in on a ragged Johnny Reb. Figuring that he did not own slaves, nor had much interest in the constitutional question of secession, they asked him: "What are you fighting for, anyhow?" The Confederate replied: "I'm fighting because you're down here." Foote regarded that as "a pretty satisfactory answer".

By all means, I'm sure my source is crap and yours is awesome. The simplest answer is surely right. Lets make this easy on all of us. Thinking and empathy are both hard.

I never claimed your "source is crap" because you didn't even bother to provide one above. When are you going to stop with the absurd personal attacks instead of even trying to discuss the issues?

Again, South Carolina clearly seceded for one primary reason, and none of them were "because you're down here". The South brought the Civil War upon itself by seceding. Looking back on it, I think it can be argued that the North made a huge mistake by not allowing them to do so.

 

[Dachs]

Any thread on cfc about states and in which dommy participates will invariably slide into a "debate" about the illegality of secession.

Or a "debate" about abortion. One or the other.

By all means, I'm sure my source is crap and yours is awesome. The simplest answer is surely right. Lets make this easy on all of us. Thinking and empathy are both hard.

Actually, Shelby Foote was hilariously biased on all this and was one of the standard-bearers of the Lost Cause. I wouldn't say his books are "crap" sources, but they are not where you should go for good analysis - unless you're already positively predisposed to secessionism. Much like Bruce Catton, on the other side of the line.

 

[Dachs]

double-post pls delete

 

[Farm Boy]

Again, South Carolina clearly seceded for one primary reason, and none of them were "because you're down here". The South brought the Civil War upon itself by seceding. Looking back on it, I think it can be argued that the North made a huge mistake by not allowing them to do so.

Agreed. Ok. Let me be honest. I do not understand what is being missed in common comprehension here. Obviously the South seceded over the issue of slavery. It's the issue that drove the whole affair. That is not a contention I am making.

History is big. People are little. Unless we all are so smart and influential on this board that we fancy ourselves as steering common issues of the day. When the world goes insane and decides to start shooting instead of talking what is an average person going to do? Side with their neighbors and friends or side with an ideology? If you answer that differently from me I will give one of the most sincere condemnations on human understanding I know how to issue(for whateverthehell that is worth, not much). They side with their friends. The rest is rationalization. They're with their friends. The issue, the one that drove the movers and the shakers, is slavery. It is the issue of import. The North was right. But it's not why the Southern boy died. He died because the people he knew and the places he knew where under attack by a bunch of similarly illiterate bumpkins that were also fighting for their friends and neighbors. Eventually that becomes "because you're down here."

 

[Formaldehyde]

I find it difficult, if not impossible, to believe that there were many Southerners who waited until they were being invaded by Northern troops to join up. Do you have any sources to corroborate this theory?

 

[Farm Boy]

Ok, look up southern conscription and desertion rates(with timing). There you go. You sauce me, it's late, and I don't actually want to play that game at the moment.

 

[Dachs]

Ok, look up southern conscription and desertion rates(with timing). There you go. You sauce me, it's late, and I don't actually want to play that game at the moment.

I dunno. Kentucky was occupied by the Federals and provided virtually no manpower to the South at all, even when Kirby Smith and Bragg rolled through expressly to recruit troops from there. Louisiana didn't exactly furnish large numbers of soldiers, either. While North Carolina had ridiculously high desertion rates and was in significant part away from the fighting (if you ignore New Bern, which you probably shouldn't), it's hard to calculate how much that desertion was inflated by reenlistment at the end of harvest time. South Carolina was even less threatened and provided large numbers of troops, along with some of the better quality regiments (in terms of manpower refills anyway). And in North Carolina and Georgia, you have to account for their governors' unwillingness to bolster the national armies by sending state troops out.

My point is that there isn't really much of a pattern, at least not the sort of pattern you're looking for. Proximity of Federal armies didn't really seem to play much of a role in getting the boys back home out to fight.

While it'd be pretty stupid to say that everybody who served in the traitor armies was a diehard secessionist and pro-slavery crazy, I don't really see what that has to do with anything. The motivations of soldiers have a very uneven relationship with the motivations of the politicians who start a given war, and always have. Even if the men who fought on both sides didn't necessarily see it as a crusade against slavery or a jihad to protect same, the fundamental reason why the traitor states' governments launched their rebellion remains the protection of their "peculiar institution".

 

[bhsup]

Actually, Shelby Foote was hilariously biased...

We should add up now many times you've said "traitor" in this thread.

 

[Dachs]

We should add up now many times you've said "traitor" in this thread.

Rebelling against the United States government makes you a traitor: "levying war against the United States" is a pretty impossible definition to get around. That's not bias, that's objectivity.

 

[bhsup]

So then the Spanish soldiers who fought against America in the Spanish-American war were traitors for levying war agains the United States, yes? The CSA was a separate, sovereign country, so treason wasn't really possible.

Also, keep in mind it was a war of northern aggression. The Union invaded the Confederacy first.

 

[Phrossack]

So then the Spanish soldiers who fought against America in the Spanish-American war were traitors for levying war agains the United States, yes? The CSA was a separate, sovereign country, so treason wasn't really possible.

Also, keep in mind it was a war of northern aggression. The Union invaded the Confederacy first.

First you must prove the CSA was in fact a sovereign nation. The CSA said it was, the US said it wasn't, and the issue was resolved in the US's favor.

Second, it becomes very difficult to claim the Union started it when the rebels were the ones firing on Union forces and property first (Fort Sumter).