The American Civil War (no spam)

[HighLordDave]

Originally posted by Scayde

@HLD:...States rights were the key issue.

Slavery is the root cause of the Civil War. Period. If the United States had not been founded with institutional slavery, there would have been no secession because there is no other constitutional issue which would have driven 11 states to leave the Union. They all knew that the United States was stronger together than separately, so the issue that lead to the formation of the Confederacy had to be so vital that it was worth rebellion. That issue was slavery. Whatever other reasons people make up, you cannot discuss the causes of the Civil War without slavery not only entering the mix, but being the fundamental cause.

[Gwalchmai]

Incongruous tidbit of information:

John Adams argued adamantly for the anti-slavery clause in the original version of the Declaration of Independence. The Continental Congress eventually struck the paragraph, but Adams wrote (to his wife Abigail, I believe) “there will be trouble 100 years hence.”

Very prophetic, except that he was a decade off….

[Aegis]

Originally posted by fable
Even if the Confederates had won, how would that have pushed the US armies up into Canada? The Confederacy wasn't looking to take over the US--their stated goal throughout was to achieve legitimacy. If they'd won, it would have been through gaining recognition of the Confederacy as a separate nation.

Mind, I'm not saying *you* believe the argument you posted, but I'm trying to understand the POV of whomever came up with that.

Keep in mind that the memory of the war of 1812 (Which we did win, btw ) was still in our minds, and we were still a developing country. The main fear was that the Confederates were going to force the North into a retreat, bringing them into Canada. Following that, the Fed's would follow into Canada, in order to defeat the North completly, and possibly attempt another take at Canada. Mind you that isn't what happened, and may not have even been an idea, but the possibility did exist, and thats what the Canadians were afraid of. So, in a sense, not only did the ACW influence American Culture and identity, but Canadian as well, as it brought us together, in order to stay together.

[fable]

Originally posted by Gruntboy
Nice topic area fable, civil war buff are we?

I studied the ACW at university and wrote several papers on ACW battles and issues, including the Generalship of McLellan and the battle of Antietam, Grant and the Wilderness and the hypothecated indestructibility of civil war armies (Nashville being the closest).

Neat, @Grunt.

I've always been fascinated with this one particular war. Better than any I know of, it shows just how politics, military, economic and cultural aspects of a fullscale war are entwined--and heavily documented, too. Then, there's the way the indivdiual personalities of leading officers played in each theatre of the conflict. I've yet to see a PC game that reproduced either aspect of the ACW, though they all pride themselves on accuracy of landscape and equipment.

[Scayde]

@BS: Well said my friend..*KUDOS*

@HLD: I am aware of this opinion, however it is not shared by many historians, nor is it shared by me. At the time, the south was being crippled by protectionist tarrifs, in an attempt to force the agrarian south to sell their products to the fledgling industies of the north for a fraction of what they could bring on the world market, while at the same time forcing the south to purchase products made by these same industries of North America, even though the same products could be had cheeper, and of a better quality by purchasing from Europe. The Southern lifestile was so very different from the north..very genteel and layed abck..They loved the opulence of the European goods, and were lothe to purchase the planer fair fo the north. As far as slavery went, the north employed immigrant labor, from a constant growing pool,starving in the streets of NY. They would be worked to death in the sweat shops, and replaced for pennies ...I defy anyone to defend that their conditions were better than the slaves of the south..and if you would make the argument that at least they were free..then you are remiss in your studies.they wedre most often endentured to their landlords who also were usually their employeers, with no hope of ever paying off their debts. We are talking about the blackest time in the arena of human rights in America.when people were considered a disposable commodity, and many were not even considered human at all..

[HighLordDave]

Originally posted by Scayde
@HLD: I am aware of this opinion, however it is not shared by many historians

I am very interested to hear which historians you are reading who do not believe slavery to be the root cause of the Civil War and at the heart of any discussion concerning the causes of the Civil War.

I heard a talk by James McPherson, a professor of history at Princeton University and one of the leading authorities on the Civil War speak a couple of years ago and he contends that the singular issue behind the Civil War was slavery. The third chapter in Battle Cry of Freedom, a seminal reading for any student of the subject, is entitled "An Empire for Slavery" and devoted to talking about the implications of slavery and its relationship with the causes of the war.

In addition, every work which attempts to cover the Civil War must address slavery. To discuss the causes of the Civil War without bringing slavery to the top of the list is simply not feasible. If you were to write a paper which said that slavery had nothing to do with the Civil War, you would be ridiculed by historians and academics.

If you could please supply me with some texts or authors who do not believe slavery is at the heart of the Civil War, I would be very much interested in what they have to say.

As to your second point, about how wage slaves were treated in the industrial cities; their living conditions are not relavent to their basic human condition of freedom. There is a fair argument that southern apologists use that has a degree of truth to it; being property, slaves were often supplied a basic level of nourishment and maintenance because they were property. That is, slave owners were often reluctant to treat their slaves too badly for fear of damaging their investment.

Factory workers or indentured labourers could not be bought and sold. Nor could their families be broken up at the will of another man. They had rights, could vote and were (in theory) equal before the law.

Whatever their material condition, a slave's life and denial of his or her fundamental human freedoms is far worse than living in squalor. Let me ask you this: would you prefer to have all of your material needs met but be forced to serve another person who is your superior in every way and not have any choices in your life, or would you prefer to be free to make your own destiny no matter what your station in life, despite any hardships you may encounter?

[Scayde]

Originally posted by HighLordDave
I am very interested to hear which historians you are reading who do not believe slavery to be the root cause of the Civil War and at the heart of any discussion concerning the causes of the Civil War.

I will try to compile a list for you.

If you were to write a paper which said that slavery had nothing to do with the Civil War, you would be ridiculed by historians and academics.

I agree. the origional assertion was not that it had nothing tio do with it, but you said it was the only issue... It was this premiss I disagree with


Factory workers or indentured labourers could not be bought and sold. Nor could their families be broken up at the will of another man. They had rights, could vote and were (in theory) equal before the law.

You are only partly correct on this point. Only free, land holding males were alowed the vote, often after paying a voting registration tax, fee, or bond., this excluded almost all of the immigrants untill after the reformation laws were passed.

Whatever their material condition, a slave's life and denial of his or her fundamental human freedoms is far worse than living in squalor. Let me ask you this: would you prefer to have all of your material needs met but be forced to serve another person who is your superior in every way and not have any choices in your life, or would you prefer to be free to make your own destiny no matter what your station in life, despite any hardships you may encounter?

LOL. You just described the lives of women in America untill just after the turn of the century.

[Maharlika]

Just a thought, fable...

Originally posted by fable

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the two capitals of both sides "near" each other? Thus, if the Confederacy got their opponent's capital, the Union would be easy prey for the Europeans?

How do you mean, "easy prey for the Europeans?"

...that a very much weakened Union after losing the confederate states would allow the British (or even the French perhaps) to "expand" and perhaps would come up with an eventual Canada whose borders are extended further south.

Just hypothetical thoughts, really.

[fable]

Re: Just a thought, fable...

Originally posted by Maharlika
How do you mean, "easy prey for the Europeans?"

...that a very much weakened Union after losing the confederate states would allow the British (or even the French perhaps) to "expand" and perhaps would come up with an eventual Canada whose borders are extended further south.

Just hypothetical thoughts, really.
[/b][/QUOTE]

During this period, the British were consolidating their hold on India, and encroaching further on China. Neither the British government nor its people were interested in engaging the US in another war. France would probably have intervened on the part of the US, as well, leaving the British fighting a war along two fronts.

War nearly did arise, however, because of US actions. Secretary of State Seward made some surprisingly belligerent remarks early in Lincoln's administration, and these were reported in British newspapers. Supposedly Prince Albert helped to smooth things over diplomatically, although I'm left wondering whether the anger might have been a surface squall. British merchants didn't want to lose American markets, however much they enjoyed their cotton underwear whose raw materials were harvested in the Confederacy.

[fable]

As to your second point, about how wage slaves were treated in the industrial cities; their living conditions are not relavent to their basic human condition of freedom.

I'm not sure I agree with this, but it is an interesting subject. IMO, personal freedoms can be very easily and thoroughly curtailed by a lack of economic freedom. You don't have to be a Marxist (thank the gods) to perceive the trap of the "industrial slave," and the horrible working conditions that were designed to be self-perpetuating. For example, Braudel, in his Civilization and Capitalism, provides stark modern surveys on the working conditions of what we would term the "inner city sweatshops" in 19th century Industrial England. While not slavery-on-paper, I think an understanding of the economic processes at work would have to consider them slaves in fact. Many reformers of the period did.

Mind, I do agree that slavery was a vital issue leading to the ACW. I just happen to think, like Scayde, that its removal was one component of an overall economic agenda the South held against the industrial North and the agrarian West (what we call the Midwest, today). The South was essentially a one-note economy. It's fortune as a whole was tied to what they called King Cotton. In the boom times of the early 19th century it helped to realize a semblance of the dream of the Virginian Arcadians, men like Jefferson and Madison with a peculiar mixture of elitist views and French revolutionary ideals.

In the North, few people understood why Southerners employed slave labor when they could just as easily use the same workforce as cheap, unskilled, so-called free labor: slavery-on-paper was offensive (and rightly so, since this reaches beyond facts of day-to-day existence into the realm of assessing the worth of an individual). They also failed to understand Southern aversion to advanced forms of capitalism--like banks, exchanges, and limited liability corporations. Meanwhile, in the South, touching a very sensitive system with only a single cash cow was deemed impossible. Attacks on slavery, like protectionist Northern tarriffs and efforts to create "slave-free zones" before the fact from the new Western states (the federal Congress mandated that slavery be outlawed on all new states), were all viewed as attacks on a cherished way of life. And had the North been simply allowed to have its way, the Southern way of life would have perished.

I've only read a bit of the literature being produced on both sides prior to the ACW, but what little I have read leads me to the tentative conclusion that the North and the South were fighting different wars for very different causes. In large part, I thiink that's why the ACW dragged on as long as it did, consuming the youth of a generation on both sides. Each had its ideals at stake. It was a sort of double crusade, and nobody truly won.

[HighLordDave]

Originally posted by Scayde
LOL. You just described the lives of women in America untill just after the turn of the century.

Not quite. Despite the iniquities, women and poor people were still citizens, even if they rated second-class status. By definintion, a slave is not a citizen nor is a slave even human; it is property.

[Scayde]

Originally posted by HighLordDave
Not quite. Despite the iniquities, women and poor people were still citizens, even if they rated second-class status. By definintion, a slave is not a citizen nor is a slave even human; it is property.

Mmm lets see, could not buy or sell major items with out a male sponsor, could not own realestate, unless given to , or signed for by a man, could not enter into a contract with out a male sponsor, could not vote, or bring suit with out a male sponsor, could not even make decisions regarding their own life and well being if it was contrary to what their father/husband/brother/uncle/or who ever decided for them and on their behalf. This is just the tip of the iceburg.

As far as citizenship? at the time of which we are speaking, women were hardly "citizens" and were in fact treated in the law, along with children as chattle. When it states

"All men are created equal"..

the constitution means just that. It had to be ammended to include women, children, and people of color...Slaves were not considered "human" neither were the native American people, the Hawaiian People, the Asian people, or for that matter, any "non-white" people the people of European descent came across.

It is only in this respect that women enjoyed any status at all, even though it was hiddeously missguided. The White female consoled herself that at least she was not like them It was a hiddeous time in our histry all in all...

[fable]

It's interesting to read and note the implied cultural prejudice of the times, even in studies about the ACW that completely ignore the role of minorities. For example, Bruce Catton (who wrote the most mawkish ACW history I've ever read) mentions how Lincoln responded to a visit from General Fremont's wife: "You're quite the female politican, aren't you?" he supposedly replied, with heat. Of course, Fremont was making outrageous demands, and his wife had a domineering personality; two qualities that didn't sit well with a newly elected US president. But still, it shows how conventional (for time, for place) Lincoln's gender stereotyping was, at least, when put under pressure. I strongly doubt that Jefferson Davis would have even been that cordial, had the wife of a general come to make demands of him.

[fable]

We never did touch on the battle aspects of the ACW. @Grunt, who in your opinion were the best generals of the war--on either side--and why? Who were the worst of the prominent group?

I've always wondered at Lee's low estimation of Grant, and his high estimation of McClellan. Do you ascribe that to Grant's brutal, bloodthirsty bludgeoning tactics in the latter stages of the ACW, where he sacrificed endless men to whittle down Lee?

Any other takers on these questions?

[Koveras]

@fable I think if Lee had remained in the Union when the south seceeded, the North would've won much faster. But because the south had less resources, Lee couldn't make the war last and have the South win. Just my opinion though.

[Weasel]

Originally posted by fable


I've always wondered at Lee's low estimation of Grant, and his high estimation of McClellan.

My personal opinion..(no proof to back it up). Lee believed Grant was a drunk.

[Scayde]

It may also be of interest to some, that Lee was an abolitionist. He deplored the institution as inhumane stating that it was "Degrading to both the slave and master" Grant on the other hand was not in the least opposed to slavery, and felt, along with Lincoln, that people of color were somehow "less than human". Lincoln's solution was that if the north won the war, all slaves should be deported back to Africa...

[Bloodstalker]

I think the contrats between McClellan and Grant was over their styles.

McClellan was loved, to the point of adoration, by his troops. He had an overly cautios nature at times, but if you look at what he accomplished, in many ways he was a very effective reason why Grant was able to have so much success with that army. McLellan molded the Union Army of the Potomac into a disciplined and organized fighting force. IMO, this was his strongest point as a leader. He turned the Army into a real proffessional outfit. By the time Grant came to command, he had an efficient and formidable force whith which to conduct his campains.

On the other hand, I don't think Grant was in the same league as a tactician that Lee was. His whole approach was to operate under the simple principle that the north could afford to lose men, and the south couldn't. His counter to Lee's tactical prowess was simple, engage Lee's army, and press constantly, never giving Lee the space or the time to do much other than stay on the defensive. It was simple, but very effective. The south had no way to replace troops lost as did the north. Grant knew this, and took advatage of the situation. It's irtonic that the general who forced Lee into surrender was under constant criticizm, and Lincoln was urged by many to relieve him of his command, all because in many eyes, Grant had no remorse over how many Union troops died in the war. Still, he recognized his greatest advantage over the south, and used it. Without his attitude, I think the war would have lasted much longer than it had.

Also, by the time Grant assumed command, many of Lee's better commanders were out of the picture. I think losing Jackson was a major blow. So many of Lee's early victories came on the shoulders of Jackson abilities to execute Lee's orders. Factor that in with the loss of several other key southern military leaders, and the south's early advantage of having what I consider better people in the command structure was kind of evened out. You can't just look at the effectiveness of the general in command without looking at the ability of his subordinates.

IMO, once Vicksburg fell, it was all a matter of time until the south lost the war. And don't forget Meade. he was the general whos really showed that Lees Army of Virginia could be beaten, at a time when most people thought them to be invincible. It says a lot for his ability that Grant left his in command once he assumed total control of all Union forces.

@Weasel....everyone thought Grant was a drunk, so you're probably right

[Weasel]

Originally posted by Bloodstalker
Factor that in with the loss of several other key southern military leaders, and the south's early advantage of having what I consider better people in the command structure was kind of evened out. .

@Weasel....everyone thought Grant was a drunk, so you're probably right

IIRC, Longstreet was sent to the west to try and shore up the defense about the sametime (or not soon after) Jackson was killed.

As m_n said, A.P. Hill is another great one. D.H. Hill would had been another great one...if not for Bragg.

(@BS, I admit I hate Grant. )