Southerners...Civil War......GITT.
- Thread starter crusader
- Start date
SmokingPipes.com Updates
Watch for Updates Twice a Week
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
- Status
Lee wasn't the only one with an opinion that mattered.
Of course the war was about slavery, or at least the economics of it, or the fear of it being made illegal, or whatever. Any issue you want to say the war was about ends up being about some states having slaves and others not.
Of course the war was about slavery, or at least the economics of it, or the fear of it being made illegal, or whatever. Any issue you want to say the war was about ends up being about some states having slaves and others not.
On a more positive note, and in keeping with the " spirit of this Forum "; the best thing that an old Navy Vet like me can do to pay my respects to the Blue and Gray is to Fire up a big bowl of "Brigadier Black Bull Run"
The best way I know to contemplate our nation's growing pains is with a giant bowl of the finest blend on this planet," Bull Run ."
The best way I know to contemplate our nation's growing pains is with a giant bowl of the finest blend on this planet," Bull Run ."
The debate over the balance of power between a central government and state governments is as old as the country itself. Whether you believe in a strong central government as Hamilton did, or a much more limited government to provide for common defense and support of trade and not much else, which is closer to Jefferson, continues to be debated throughout the country.
The economic concerns over the possible abolition of slavery were of great importance to the largely agrarian South. The economic concerns and concerns over territorial integrity as well as the ability to enforce the Monroe Doctrine in the face of session and possible dissolution of the nation were of great importance to the North.
Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.
Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.
I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.
As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. 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. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
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.
Yours,
The economic concerns over the possible abolition of slavery were of great importance to the largely agrarian South. The economic concerns and concerns over territorial integrity as well as the ability to enforce the Monroe Doctrine in the face of session and possible dissolution of the nation were of great importance to the North.
Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.
Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.
I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.
As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. 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. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
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.
Yours,
The country was not prepared for slavery to die a long, lingering death. The abolitionists wanted it gone now and some thought that only the sword would accomplish their ends. Lee was far sighted and hoped for slavery to go away without a war, he was willing to wait. For Lincoln, banning slavery in the offending states was a means to an end.
Cooler heads, on both sides of the debate did not prevail. The hot heads on both sides precipitated the war. I suspect that if this country was a democracy, as opposed to a republic, the majority would have voted to stave off the war as very few actually had a dog in the "slavery" contest and were most likely neither supporters of the abolitionists or the slave holders. Although, as I think about, we were a blood thirsty bunch in the 1800s. How we all loved a good war against any "heathen" we could find, Spanish, Native, Mexican, Canadian, English and so on. We were a such a cute, pugnacious, little up-start nation in our formative years.
Cooler heads, on both sides of the debate did not prevail. The hot heads on both sides precipitated the war. I suspect that if this country was a democracy, as opposed to a republic, the majority would have voted to stave off the war as very few actually had a dog in the "slavery" contest and were most likely neither supporters of the abolitionists or the slave holders. Although, as I think about, we were a blood thirsty bunch in the 1800s. How we all loved a good war against any "heathen" we could find, Spanish, Native, Mexican, Canadian, English and so on. We were a such a cute, pugnacious, little up-start nation in our formative years.
With duels, shootings, knifings, and canings in both Houses. Hasn't changed all that much. Except now it's done in the shadows.
Trust you to always "get it", sable. Always!
In shadows yes. Only when some "wronged" individual, mauled and bleeding, member whines to the press does the curtain sometimes part, just the tiniest bit, so to allow us a frail glance into the real inner workings of the august bodies of government.
In shadows yes. Only when some "wronged" individual, mauled and bleeding, member whines to the press does the curtain sometimes part, just the tiniest bit, so to allow us a frail glance into the real inner workings of the august bodies of government.
Our country is a democratic-republic, not strictly a democracy. A distinction with a difference. There is no "majority rules" and why we have three equal parts to our government. Each is expected to look out for the unrepresented and the underrepresented. Each has a mechanism to over-rule the other. A true safeguard against the "tyranny of the majority" which was much feared by our founding fathers..
Unless you consider the corruption and war profiteering that was going on. You can get a view on that here: The Land Of Shoddy
Not that I care that much, but what's with the ad homimen? If you want to point something out, I am perfectly fine with that, but why are you attacking the character of the person when you should be focusing on the argument? Do I need to remind you about the forum rules?
I can see it being a contributing factor, but look at who would have been able to afford slaves in the south at that time. Would have been solely the "ruling class".(on both sides for that matter)
I would be more inclined to believe southerners got involved in the war because they witnessed what the North was doing to their friends and families(events like Sherman's March, but not to say that was the starting point; just an example as many people are familiar with it)
I also feel that the educational system in place now paints a picture that the war was solely about slavery and racism, which in my opinion, is ignorant as well.
I would be more inclined to believe southerners got involved in the war because they witnessed what the North was doing to their friends and families(events like Sherman's March, but not to say that was the starting point; just an example as many people are familiar with it)
I also feel that the educational system in place now paints a picture that the war was solely about slavery and racism, which in my opinion, is ignorant as well.
To try to get the thread back on track.
I was in GA on vacation and there is a lot of neat history readily available. My wife and I visited a park near Villa Rica which used to be a large mining area. Gift shop had several examples of civil war era minie balls which were found on the grounds.
It was neat to hear some of the locals(not tour guides, but people who just happened to be in the area) tell stories of the local history. I have never seen another area of the country that well versed with their history.
I was in GA on vacation and there is a lot of neat history readily available. My wife and I visited a park near Villa Rica which used to be a large mining area. Gift shop had several examples of civil war era minie balls which were found on the grounds.
It was neat to hear some of the locals(not tour guides, but people who just happened to be in the area) tell stories of the local history. I have never seen another area of the country that well versed with their history.
Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but isn't the Southern term for the Civil War, the War of the Northern Aggression? Aside from the question of slavery there was the question over the rights of states to self determination and limits to central authority. I believe, and again correct me if I'm wrong on this, that such considerations were paramount in Lee's decision to refuse command of the Union Army when it was proffered to him at the outbreak of hostilities.
One of the issues discussed back then was if the central government could claim to have rights none of the union members had for themselves. This is a very important issue closely related to the idea of "nullification." See Compact Theory. About the economics of the Civil War I recommend to review the so call Tariffs. Also, I think it is important to quote the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions and the idea that the federal Alien and Sedition Acts were unconstitutional:
Kentucky and Virginia resolutions 1798/1799
That the General Assembly doth particularly PROTEST against the palpable and alarming infractions of the Constitution, in the two late cases of the "Alien and Sedition Acts," passed at the last session of Congress; the first of which exercises a power no where delegated to the federal government, and which by uniting legislative and judicial powers to those of executive, subverts the general principles of free government; as well as the particular organization and positive provisions of the Federal Constitution; and the other of which acts exercises, in like manner, a power not delegated by the Constitution, but, on the contrary, expressly and positively forbidden by one of the amendments thereto...
Kentucky and Virginia resolutions 1798/1799
That the General Assembly doth particularly PROTEST against the palpable and alarming infractions of the Constitution, in the two late cases of the "Alien and Sedition Acts," passed at the last session of Congress; the first of which exercises a power no where delegated to the federal government, and which by uniting legislative and judicial powers to those of executive, subverts the general principles of free government; as well as the particular organization and positive provisions of the Federal Constitution; and the other of which acts exercises, in like manner, a power not delegated by the Constitution, but, on the contrary, expressly and positively forbidden by one of the amendments thereto...
sablebrush52's first post addresses the heart of the matter imo. Lincoln's primary motivation was to preserve the Union...slavery was of little to no concern to him either way as he openly stated.
As for whether his desire to preserve the Union was a good thing, or whether all of the means he employed to that end were moral and/or lawful are of course other questions entirely.
As for whether his desire to preserve the Union was a good thing, or whether all of the means he employed to that end were moral and/or lawful are of course other questions entirely.
It did, and I apologize for my part in it. I will now cease and desist. I'm not from the south, and the closest to Georgia any of my 19th century ancestors would have been is the Georgia near Ukraine. My great granduncle did, however, live in Chattanooga.
So bring on the local stories!
- Status