150th Anniversary of the Start of the Civil War

[beemerman2k]

What a terrible time this must have been for our country. What is most amazing to me, though, is how this war is still being fought in this country! No longer with bullets and cannons, but in terms of the significance and the meaning the war had for the two sides. Was it a war over slavery or a war over state's rights?

 

Anyhow, is anyone here doing anything special to commemorate this historical event? Any war re-enactors among us? Who here descend from Civil War veterans -- aside from me?

 

As I have told before on this forum, the white Granberry's who owned my enslaved ancestors literally excused them from their duties on the plantation so they could go and fight for the north. I was floored when I learned this, but this act on the part of the slave owners told me as clearly as anything that slavery in America cannot accurately be viewed by today's cultural lens. These were all very real people, real Americans, people devoted to the vitality of our nation, people like you and me -- and I'm talking about both Confederate and Union families.

 

I intend to sieze this time of reflection to carefully listen to the issues being debated. Not so I can arm myself to join the fray, but so I can better understand the nature of the conflict since that conflict is still very much alive to this day.

[Mike]

I think you're right when you note that it's nearly impossible for us to understand the Civil War through the lens of our 21st Century experiences, but it certainly was a horrific time for our nation. Some of the scars still remain. I'm not certain of any local commemorations, but I do have a tenuous--very tenuous--connection to one of the major players in the Civil War:

 

We lived in a Victorian home until a few years ago. Our dear, departed neighbors, Bill and Jan Hallwachs, lived in a home built just before the Civil War by Bill's grandfather, Levi Shafer, who was a member of the 8th Illinois Cavalry. Shafer's Sharps carbine was used by his superior officer to fire what is considered by many historians to be the first shot of the Battle of Gettysburg (there's a conflicting claim regarding the first shot, a conflict that will likely never be resolved with certainty).

 

Bill and Jane's son told me that he recalls seeing that Sharps carbine in their basement when he was younger. When his folks passed away, it was gone. Perhaps Bill or Jane gave it to a neighbor as gesture of kindness. Maybe some kid from the neighborhood swiped it. Regardless, one of the more significant artifacts of the Civil War once resided in a musty basement across the street from me, and it simply disappeared.

[tallman]

Wilmer McClean.

"It is said that the American Civil War started in Wilmer McLean's front yard and ended in his front parlor".

 

First Battle of Bull Run was on his property/farm.

 

Surrender at Appamatox was in his parlor.

He had moved to Appamatox in 1863.

 

One of the odd coincidences of the war.

[DiggerJim]

If it were being fought say today somewhere, would Ghadaffi be Lincoln or Jefferson Davis and would we be the Germans helping preserve a country's union or the French/British helping break it apart?

 

150 years ago we could massacre the civilians of both sides (Sherman on one side & some really nasty guerillas in the west for the other side) and we brooked no interference in our right to handle things on our own & unmolested by the world powers. Today, it seems we invoke a different standard.

 

Reminds me of the analogies drawn with the Star Wars saga. The Emperor & Vader are purported to be the villians. But the Emperor was elected by a majority of those duly authorized to vote & Vader was simply (although Shermanesquely) attempting to preserve the union from being broken up by the breakaway rebels.

 

Can you tell it's raining & not enough riding weather recently up here?

[beemerman2k]

Let's keep the topic on our own history and not that of the middle east history or politics.

 

Don't make me lock my own thread!

 

[ghaverkamp]

Was it a war over slavery or a war over state's rights?

 

Neither. It was a war over unlawful secessions.

 

Those secessions were certainly brought about by the slave states' economic dependence on (and moral acceptance of) slavery.

 

It could hardly be over states' rights. After all, those that claimed to secede intended to no longer be states at all.

[Deadboy]

You mean the war of northern aggression?

[beemerman2k]

Yeah, but Greg. Couldn't a situation exist where the southern states felt that their soveriegnty to own slaves was being interfered with by Washtington, DC? And since their grievances were going unheard, they then out of frustration, decided that their only option was sucession?

 

It isn't like Washington was offering to buy the slaves freedom. They weren't free to acquire in the first place, so now Washington is demanding countless families to let very expensive assets to simply walk away without anything in return. Couldn't a case be made concerning a forced and unlawful union? (wait, whose side am I on anyhow? ) It's very easy to see where the term, "the war of northern aggression" came from.

[Bob Palin]

I'm confused, The Civil War began in 1642.

[Kathy R]

My local historical society and newspaper published information and photos of folks from our area who participated.

 

I feel that Lincoln's untimely death stagnated our country well into the 20th century. Both the South and the North suffered for decades as a result. Had he been able to lead the whole country out of that horror we might have avoided the ignorance that followed.

 

 

[ghaverkamp]

Yeah, but Greg. Couldn't a situation exist where the southern states felt that their soveriegnty to own slaves was being interfered with by Washtington, DC? And since their grievances were going unheard, they then out of frustration, decided that their only option was sucession?

 

That is generally what occurred. However, that doesn't make the war about slavery or states' rights. Saying the war is about slavery sounds good, because it makes it sound like it was fought over right and wrong. Saying it was over states' rights suggests a right to secede.

 

It isn't like Washington was offering to buy the slaves freedom. They weren't free to acquire in the first place, so now Washington is demanding countless families to let very expensive assets to simply walk away without anything in return.

 

Secession occurred before any such thing happened. At the time, there was nothing to liberate such "property" from their owners.

 

Couldn't a case be made concerning a forced and unlawful union? (wait, whose side am I on anyhow?) It's very easy to see where the term, "the war of northern aggression" came from.

 

Just so I get this straight, you recently said that if someone robbed you that you would be justified in thumping them. Yet, in this case, in which someone (the CSA) was trying to rob a property owner (the USA) of its possessions with force (see Fort Sumter), said thumping is now somehow the aggression on the part of the victim?

[Linz]

That Oliver Cromwell got around Bob.

 

Linz

[beemerman2k]

Just so I get this straight, you recently said that if someone robbed you that you would be justified in thumping them. Yet, in this case, in which someone (the CSA) was trying to rob a property owner (the USA) of its possessions with force (see Fort Sumter), said thumping is now somehow the aggression on the part of the victim?

 

My position assumes that the slaves, like any asset, are first the property of the slave owner, the family of the slave owner, the county, and the state, before they fall under the "ownership" of the federal government. Therefore, it's the Feds who are doing the robbing, not the Confederacy. (whose taken over Beemerman2k's keyboard anyhow ) To purchase their freedom from their rightful owners would have been a far more appropriate thing to do.

 

So now my other question: why wasn't the path of a mass purchasing of the slaves pursued?

[Bob Palin]

If you decide that one man cannot own another man, and that freedom is a right, you do not have to buy somebody else's slaves.

[Quinn]

As far as state's rights: Built into the constitution is a limiting of Federal powers. All the powers not specifically designated to the Feds belongs to the states. Because the Northern, industrialized states had a majority in Congress, they were abusing their power and stepping outside the Constitution by creating laws to the detriment of the Southern States.

 

----

 

 

[ghaverkamp]

Just so I get this straight, you recently said that if someone robbed you that you would be justified in thumping them. Yet, in this case, in which someone (the CSA) was trying to rob a property owner (the USA) of its possessions with force (see Fort Sumter), said thumping is now somehow the aggression on the part of the victim?

 

My position assumes that the slaves, like any asset, are first the property of the slave owner, the family of the slave owner, the county, and the state, before they fall under the "ownership" of the federal government. Therefore, it's the Feds who are doing the robbing, not the Confederacy. (whose taken over Beemerman2k's keyboard anyhow ) To purchase their freedom from their rightful owners would have been a far more appropriate thing to do.

 

The federal government neither took nor freed the slaves. Therefore, the federal government had no responsibility to pay for the slaves.

 

It was the very real threat of the limitation on future slave states that led to secession, which was the theft of USA property, namely the land, by the CSA. (Again, secession was the cause of the war, not slavery or any attempt to end slavery.)

 

It was well after secession and the beginning of hostilities (again, started by the CSA against Fort Sumter) that freeing of all slaves became a national policy.

 

So now my other question: why wasn't the path of a mass purchasing of the slaves pursued?

 

To what end?

 

The South depended upon slaves to drive its economy. Simply freeing slaves through mass purchase could not have been reasonably accomplished.

[beemerman2k]

To the end of easing tensions and avoiding a very expensive war between the states.

[ghaverkamp]

To the end of easing tensions and avoiding a very expensive war between the states.

 

You continue to operate from the false premise that somehow it was the freeing of slaves that caused the war, and that somehow compensating slave owners ahead of time would have prevented it.

 

However, the problem was that the southern economies were dependent upon slavery, and their continued growth was being stymied by the federal government's failure to permit further expansions of slavery. Needing to expand slavery, they seceded.

 

Selling their slaves would not have eased the tensions, because it would have meant the collapse of the (white) southern economies.

[Matts_12GS]

It was the very real threat of the limitation on future slave states that led to secession, which was the theft of USA property, namely the land, by the CSA. (Again, secession was the cause of the war, not slavery or any attempt to end slavery.)

 

If the states agree to remain members of the union by their choice, their "federation" doesn't that make the land they held as accepted borders property of the peoples who resided on said land?

 

In that case, if their duly elected representatives voted to secede then it it's not an issue of land theft but one of lost revenue to a central government if you ask me.

 

Oh, and James, I applaud you for starting this thread... I have been reading a lot of the stories in local and national news the last few days and have enjoyed the sobriety of the commemorations.

[beemerman2k]

This is a great country, Matt. I'm proud of all who lived before me. Both your forefathers and mine

[ghaverkamp]

It was the very real threat of the limitation on future slave states that led to secession, which was the theft of USA property, namely the land, by the CSA. (Again, secession was the cause of the war, not slavery or any attempt to end slavery.)

 

If the states agree to remain members of the union by their choice, their "federation" doesn't that make the land they held as accepted borders property of the peoples who resided on said land?

 

States don't agree to remain members by choice. When they became states, they ceded those aspects of their sovereignty to the federal government.

 

Calling it "theft" was perhaps lazy, but I was making a direct analogy to earlier posts of James's.

 

In that case, if their duly elected representatives voted to secede then it it's not an issue of land theft but one of lost revenue to a central government if you ask me.

 

As above, under a standard definition of theft, there's little applicability to land, anyway.

 

Our central government does not permit the states to determine their own degree of sovereignty. Their leaders cannot vote on their own sovereignty. A vote by the government of one state to secede and become independent is akin to annexation of the territory of another sovereign (the USA).

 

"The doctrine of secession is a doctrine of treason, and practical secession is practical treason, seeking to give itself triumph by revolutionary violence. The late rebellion was without any element of right or sanction of law." White v. Hart (1871) 80 U.S. 646, 650.

[Matts_12GS]

What about TX then? Isn't there still a part of their constitution and the agreement from when they came back to the union? I don't mean that to be a smart ass, but I thought there was something to that agreement that allowed them to leave the union if they chose

 

[ghaverkamp]

What about TX then? Isn't there still a part of their constitution and the agreement from when they came back to the union? I don't mean that to be a smart ass, but I thought there was something to that agreement that allowed them to leave the union if they chose

 

No. For what it's worth, I'm a Texan, raised by Texans, and this was something I was always told. See this. (Which is new to me; didn't know about an agreement to break into more states. I guess that means we could still have Whipland.)

[tallman]

So we've somehow forgotten how we became the "owners" of the aforementioned land?

There might be some Native Americans who could shed some illumination on that premise.

Does time make the theft (taking possession of) land legal?

 

The national expansion through the concept of Manifest Destiny led to an ideological collision between slave owners and abolitionists in the newly formed territories.

Policies dictated by the federal government were based on appeasement not a moral high ground.

As much as the southern states depended on slavery to provide labor for the labor intensive economy the northern states depended on the economic boost that the aUnion received from King Cotton.

 

How different things might have been if Booth had not succeded or if early generals had psuhed advantages in the field to capture the opposing capital.

Both sides had an opportunity to do this.

 

 

[Bob Palin]

So we've somehow forgotten how we became the "owners" of the aforementioned land?

There might be some Native Americans who could shed some illumination on that premise.

Does time make the theft (taking possession of) land legal?

The indians said they didn't own it - what were we supposed to do?

[ghaverkamp]

So we've somehow forgotten how we became the "owners" of the aforementioned land?

There might be some Native Americans who could shed some illumination on that premise.

Does time make the theft (taking possession of) land legal?

 

Forgotten? No. It's simply not relevant.

 

Had the CSA won the war, the seceding states (or the CSA, depending upon what was given in cessation and how they formed post-war) would have had claims to the land.

 

The national expansion through the concept of Manifest Destiny led to an ideological collision between slave owners and abolitionists in the newly formed territories.

Policies dictated by the federal government were based on appeasement not a moral high ground.

As much as the southern states depended on slavery to provide labor for the labor intensive economy the northern states depended on the economic boost that the aUnion received from King Cotton.

 

Yes. The belief that somehow the Civil War was principally a moral battle is wrong.

 

How different things might have been if Booth had not succeded or if early generals had psuhed advantages in the field to capture the opposing capital.

Both sides had an opportunity to do this.

 

I reckon it could go either way. Once we accept that Lincoln wasn't a great moral crusader against slavery, insofar as he didn't launch the Civil War to put an end to it, it's tough to know what would have happened had he lived.

[SeanC]

Once we accept that Lincoln wasn't a great moral crusader against slavery, insofar as he didn't launch the Civil War to put an end to it, it's tough to know what would have happened had he lived.

Not sure what you mean.... Lincoln certainly was a great moral crusader against slavery. He didn't launch the Civil War to end it -- he didn't launch the Civil War at all -- but I'm not sure how that diminishes his moral position (and historical stature) against it.

[ghaverkamp]

Not sure what you mean.... Lincoln certainly was a great moral crusader against slavery. He didn't launch the Civil War to end it -- he didn't launch the Civil War at all -- but I'm not sure how that diminishes his moral position (and historical stature) against it.

 

There's a pretty wide gulf between being an avowed abolitionist (which he clearly was) and a "crusader". At least to me.

[Kathy R]

Once we accept that Lincoln wasn't a great moral crusader against slavery, insofar as he didn't launch the Civil War to put an end to it, it's tough to know what would have happened had he lived.

 

Lincoln favored a plan of leniency toward the south after the war. Northern political forces took advantage after his death in order to punish the South. This led to a less than ideal *reconstruction*. The successful growth of the KKK, carpetbaggers, etc were just a couple of the bad results.

 

I believe LIncoln had the skill to bring us out of that war like no other.

[SeanC]

Not sure what you mean.... Lincoln certainly was a great moral crusader against slavery. He didn't launch the Civil War to end it -- he didn't launch the Civil War at all -- but I'm not sure how that diminishes his moral position (and historical stature) against it.

 

There's a pretty wide gulf between being an avowed abolitionist (which he clearly was) and a "crusader". At least to me.

Yes, but I think he was much more than just an avowed abolitionist. The term "crusader" can mean different things, with both positive and negative cultural undercurrents attached to them. Someone like John Brown, for instance, would fit more into the classical definition of a crusader, but we can also define crusade as an active movement against some public evil, or an institution or class of persons considered as evil, in which case Lincoln would fit that description.

[ghaverkamp]

I'll accept that.