A Class War

[blue_zouave]

Thea, I was only concurring with George about his post, and adding an example of how it goes on today. Somebody mentioned Kennedy and DuPont and Rockefeller, do you think THEY have a place in the discussion?

Now I've read some of your posts, and have seen your agenda, and I'll oblige you and stay out of it from now on.

Zou

[tulip]

The Constitutional questions and the need to prove the rightness of secession never fails to amaze me. Why is it so important given the results of the CW? Personally, I'll concede the issue. Given the outcome, what does arguing the constitutionality of secession get us?

When the CSA was writing their own Constitution the question of secession within the Confederacy came up. Should they plug the hole that they believed was in the original Constitution? Finally, it was decided to ignore it because to shore up the wording may say to the world that the southern position in 1860 was ambiguous even to Southerners. In addition, no 1860 Southerner was eager to bring attention to earlier Southern arguments for Unionism especially during the Hartford Convention. Remember, Calhoun the father of the pro-slavery dogmatism began as a staunch unionist only changing his tune when it proved unpopular with his constituency and threatened his re-election.

IMO the question of secession was settled for all times through the conflict of war. Settling arguments through combat is as old as mankind and accepted as the reality. Therefore, the entire argument becomes moot in the new millennium. Except for bitter neo-confederates (who are northern as well as southern) with half-baked racial ideas and personal complaints against everything, few believe that the south would have been better off going it alone.

[tulip]

Thea, when and what was said about tariffs in the 50s at the time the secession movement was heating up? I can't recall any congressional arguments nor debates that played out in the press regarding tariffs. My research has always indicated that any frustration over unfair tariffs was over in the 1830s.

In addition, what state rights beyond slavery was mentioned in any of the pre-secession documents, speeches or press coverage? My research on the antebellum south mentions slavery first followed by its concern for state sovereignty, but only on the issue of slavery.

As to the early antebellum statements you quoted, if you delve into each you will discover a corresponding argument refuting it and just as often as not the argument supporting Unionism came from the South. In essence, state sovereignty was a convenient tool for pushing whatever regional agenda was hot at the moment. In other words, each section of the country used it at one time or another and was countered by the wags in another section. State rights was a convenient whine whenever a local concern was losing ground and in danger of being out voted.

[9thvacav]

Thea,

Your post was a good one.

These types of discussions become almost arguments because most folks can not put themselves into the era that produced the conflict without bringing to the surface their own modern responses. Everyone has a "take" on slavery issues influenced by their own 21st century prejudices. I sympathize with your attempt to educate and hope others can look at the question from the point of view of an early 19th century southern citizen (citizen = white male) because these fellows were the people who made the laws influenced by by their own situations or constituents. Money is generally the root of war no matter what kind of patriotic spin you place on it. The history of each southern state is a different piece to the puzzle and there are no pat answers.

Sincerely,
Linneus Ahearn

[unionblue]

Mr. Ahearn, I also agree that Thea's post was a good one. I appreciate that the post Thea provided the point of view she felt was the correct one and the effort to provide a large amount of information supporting that view.

As for the statement that everyone has a take on slavery and that none of us can be rid of our 21st century prejudices when we view the 19th century and it's issues, you are 100% correct.

I have been informed at many a Civil War reenactment, all the true authentics are in the graveyard. As much as we all try, there is no way to completely recapture the feelings and experiences of anyone, be he black or white, male or female, of the 19th century. I have a lot of trouble explaining to my grandchildren why we of my generation did the things we did back in the 60's! The Gulf War, as little as 11 years ago, is fast becoming both history and legend.

But we can all research, dig for the facts, discuss and debate in the hopes that we do the one thing that is worth while, learn. Be startled. Be surprised. Rethink and reevaluate. But learn from the past.

There are many things and ideas about the Civil War that are presented on this board that I do not agree with. Tariffs is one of them. But I admit this is my own opinion formed by my own research, much of it generated on this board. I can no way shed my 21st perceptions of history, in spite of how much I try in my attempt to understand one of the most important events in my country's history. I would have to stop breathing to do so.

Now, as to opinions, we all have those. I just want to know why and how people get to those opinions, with what information and historical fact they have dug up during their research. Not to belittle or anger, but to try and understand. There may be no pat answers, but isn't it fun to keep looking?

Sincerely,
Unionblue
PS Cpt. Ahearn, had a chance to check out your 9th VA site, excellent job on it's construction & presentation! I very much enjoyed your article on taking a safe hit from horseback!

(Message edited by Unionblue on February 11, 2003)

[tulip]

Very diplomatic post Neil.

I would only add that opinion without supporting evidence is very unpersuasive. For instance the tariff argument is used over and over again, yet no one is able to supply any primary documents from 1860-61 to support the claim. The tariff disputes were resolved in the 30s and secession documents written by the secessionists do not claim it as a cause for dismemberment of the Union.

So what is the point to these forums unless provable facts are shared? I participate to learn more about time, place, culture and people. Unfortunately, the good nuns who taught me also demanded that any paper I submit better have facts supported by sourcing and be fully annotated. As you noted earlier, an opinion disconnected from the evidence loses its value.

So again, I'll ask both Thea and Mr. Ahern what evidence they have demonstrating that tariffs were a cause of secession?

[9thvacav]

Facts can be used in different ways depending on the bias of the researcher/historian, so in actuality those facts are informed opinion, especially if the researcher looks to substantiate personal opinion with primary sources but ignores other primary sources that conflict or muddy a clear opinion.

I never said anything about tariffs in my message yet maybe by assumption my statement of money was taken to mean tariffs when I actually meant much more than taxes and tariffs.
For the south - land, slaves, history, ancestors and their individual or collective means of wealth.
For the north - natural land resources and fisheries, cheap labor, industrial projects and their own individual or collective means of wealth.

As we all know, tariffs were around since this country was first involved in money-making ventures and needing to protect those ventures from loss. The British government did it and our own government did it. When wealth is channeled away from the ones who pay those taxes/tariffs it forms resentment - that resentment can go on for years and only takes some spark to ignite it. It shouldn't matter that a tariff was initiated in the early 1800's to be a valid argument in 1861.

Part of the Republican Party platform of 1860 was to adopt an increase in the protective tariff due to a recession within the northern manufacturery.

I personally believe the reasons for the secession of southern states was much more than taxes or tariffs and individual to each state. It involved a whole bunch of things with only one thing in common - where does the money go? Money in this instance means anything that has value, not just greenbacks. At the start of the war, slavery was threatened, not by the threat of erradicating the institution within the south but by not allowing slave owners to go anywhere outside the south with their slaves and by the feeling that the fugitive slave law was not being acted upon by the north. The fire-eaters provided stirring political impetus by using the fears of the people (surprisingly similar to modern times). The "enemy" is made less human, diplomacy becomes irrelevant, rumors take on reality and things build up to the point secession was looked at as a viable option. Of course each state was different and gave more emphasis to their own concerns.

If bible scholars can not agree on one interpretation of the bible how can historians agree on American history? We have plenty of primary documents, many with conflicting views. At best we must admit there are varying circumstances and no pat answers.

Respectfully,
Linneus Ahearn

[unionblue]

Mr. Ahearn, I will admit to the idea of many conflicting views and that there were varying circumstances, but what was the one thing that brought everything to a head in 1861? What was the primary subject that folks had on their minds and hearts? What, in your opinion, above all else, sparked the Civil War?

Sincerely,
Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on February 12, 2003)

[thea_447]

Hello again,
First, let me say how sorry I am to hear of the death of Connie Boone.
I have not been online since last Friday due to my computer getting fouled up while switching to digital pipeline. It had to be completely re-formatted and all mail was lost. I am having to start all over again, so please bear with me while I catch up.

I had written a couple of thoughts down before I had to relinquish my computer, so I'm passing them along, as Neil Hamilton had told me this would be most welcome.

First off, to Zou: I did not in any way mean to insult you. On other boards I've been on we were not allowed to bring any subject other than the topic into the conversation. To do so meant that your message would not even be posted. If I sounded rude, I did not mean to. Getting to know members on a new board is hard but I don't want to start off on the wrong foot.
Please accept my apology. I'm simply here to debate about the War. I love the subject and want to learn differing viewpoints. To me, it's all about history and people that love it!

Realizing with great sadness now that I cannot put these few tidbits to Connie, I will pass this along anyway, as Mr. Hamilton had suggested. As I've said, I've got to get caught up and will be glad to pursue this topic in more detail later. Right now I'm just getting my bearings in these new surroundings on my computer.

In regard to some questions Connie had for me, she had some questions in regard to tariffs in the 50s,states rights being a big issue before secession and had made some remarks concerning Sherman and used Halleck as a reference in some areas. I cannot seem to be able to draw up her quotes in this message form so I'm addressing these in this fashion.
<<thea,>>

Hmm, I hope to write more on this later but what about the tariff being a major plank in the Republican platform of 1860? Pushing through the Morrill tariff was a big key in them winning in the states where slavery wasn't such a big issue.

<<<<in>>

Actually, on this, you seem to have missed fair portions of a number of causes of secession, Toombs speeches, etc. Even in 1850 an event in Texas almost caused secession. A dispute arose when a federal army officer called a convention to form the state of New Mexico on land that was claimed by Texas. Gov. Bell of Texas called for force to be used to maintain the integrity of Texas. War was averted only by a compromise giving Texas ten million dollars and 33,333 square miles of land. In this case the South stood by Texas, not over the matter of slaves, but about land claimed by Texas and by the federal government. Which brings up another thought... Why was the South never offered money for her slaves if the North was so moralistically inclined to set them free? Rather than turn brother against brother, wouldn't greasing the palms be worth more than the bloodiest battle ever fought on American soil? After all, other countries had done this in the past, hadn't they?

And finally, concerning your remarks on Sherman: You mention Halleck. I believe he was like Lincoln's commander in chief of the Army.
Halleck didn't think much of Lincoln's, and Sherman's and Sheridan's total war. It went against the laws of nations in wars as defined in 1859, and even Frantz Liebers "Lieber Code', which was written by Lincoln's legal advisor in order to justify Lincoln's methods of war. Hell, even Lieber didn't feel good about Sherman and Sheridan's methods. For that matter, even Sherman was aware of the fact that if he followed the rules of war that had been accepted by civilized nations, he would be hung for what he'd done.

This was, IMHO, a group of supremely vengeance-minded men that worked far harder at warring on unarmed civilians, especially women, the elderly, and children, than they did at destroying an army. These methods appear to be near genius when applied to Lincoln, or Sherman by some people. (I'm not one of them.) These same people detest it when the same principles are applied by the Nazi's or the Japanese, or even Saddam. They believe that wholesale looting, and the burning of homes and crops at a time that would surely lead to starvation of the population isn't really the same as a scorched earth policy. That's total bs. All this is really doing is applying morality selectively. I suggest such people would feel considerably different if the Confederates had invaded PN, burned or stolen all of the crops and homes, killed or stolen all of the livestock, and forcibly displaced women and children by rail to cities in the south where they would arrive, without belongings or any means of support. If that had happened and the Union had still won the war, the same people who support Sherman and Sheridan and Lincoln, would be screaming bloody murder at the attrocities committed by the Confederates. These methods were applied to their own countrymen, something I cannot condone.

<<<in>>
}}}
Hmm,have you never wondered why the power of the Federal government was restricted in the CSA Constitution?

[unionblue]

Thea, thank you for your reply and for continuing the thread on this question.

In answer to you question why didn't the North offer to buy/compensate the South for their slaves, they did. Lincoln and Charles Sumner worked out a plan to get the Border States to emancipate their slaves by offering compensation.

On March 6, 1862, Lincoln called Sumner to the White House and had him read a message he was sending to Congress. In the message, the President urged the Congress to adopt a joint resolution declaring "that the United States ought to cooperate with ANY state which may adopt gradual abolishment of slavery, giving to such state pecuniary aid, to be used by such state in it's discretion, to compensate for the inconveniences public and private, produced by such change of system."

The President's proposal met with an overwhelmingly positive reception by Congress and the press. One paper called it, "just the right thing, at the the right time, and in the right place."

Lincoln followed the press reactions to his proposal closely. When the New York Times complained in an early addition about the cost of compensated emancipation, the President informed the editor less the one-half of a day's cost of the war would pay for emancipating all the slaves in Delaware and the cost of 87 days of the conflict would free the slaves in all the border states plus the District of Columbia.

But the Border States congressman fritted away the entire plan.

On February 3, 1864 aboard the steamer River Queen, Lincoln again told the Southern representatives that he would, "be willing to be taxed to remunerate the Southern people for their slaves." He had all along favored compensated emancipation, and he believed that many Northerners were "in favor of an appropriation as high as Four Hundred Millions of Dollars for this purpose."

Lincoln drew up the proposal when he returned to Washington, which asked Congress to appropriate $400,000,000 to be distributed to the Southern States in proportion to their slave population. Half would be paid by April 1, if all resistance to the national authority ceased, and the remaining half by July 1, provided that the 13th amendment was ratified. Lincoln's cabinet nixed this idea in the strongest terms, even when he explained it would be cheaper to pay the $400,000,000 than to continue with the war. "You are all against me," Lincoln said sadly, and he reluctantly gave up his proposal. (The above information was taken from the book, LINCOLN, by David H. Donald)

As for Sherman and his methods, he pointed the way to win the war. To say that war is anything but cruelty is to be rather self-deluding. Sherman recognized that and realized that the South had to be convinced the war was lost by bringing the war home. I again also repeat the post at the start of this thread that very, very few persons were killed as a result of military action, in no way even close to Germany or Japan of WWII nor of Saddam Hussien. Connie's post on this thread also concerned the lack of actual deaths concerned with Sherman on his campaign, stating that no genocide, no mass murder of civilians, nothing that could match all the barbaric acts in Serbia, Kosovo or Nazi death camps or Japanese war crimes of our 20th century.

Lincoln, at this stage of the war, understood that only the toughest measures could win the war and save the Union. He embraced the concept of total war, and undertook the measures that had been unthinkable at the conflict's outset. Eventually Sherman's march unleashed hundreds of miles of destruction.

But if Lincoln and Sherman was gulity fo war crimes, so were George Washington and other Revolutionary War rebels who defied the prevailing rules of war (fighting out of uniform, picking off officers with sharpshooters). According to Lee Kennett, the author of "Sherman: A Soldier's Life", the following should be noted. According to the British legal authority J.M. Spaight, he violated the rules of war only once in the Atlanta campaign: when he failed to give a 24-hour warning before bombarding the city on July 20, 1864.

From the Marcdh to the Sea, Sherman issued Special Field Orders 119 and 120, which also conformed to the traditional norms of warfare. Noteworthy was the injunction, "Soldiers must not enter the dwellings of inhabitants, or commit any trespass." But his soldiers paid more attention to another passage, encouraging them to "forage liberally on the country," which they saw as giving them a broad license. As a result, there was considerable petty theft, vandalism and, here and there, arson--but few serious crimes against individuals.

Sherman had made strenuous and continuous efforts to stop such things in previous campaigns. At least twice he had ordered daylong general inspections of his entire command that resembled a prison shakedown, producing a rich harvest of stolen items. But in the Georiga campaign, as commander of an army group, he lay down the basic rules and left enforcement--and responsibility--entirely to subordinates commanding his three armies.

As for all the reported destruction of Sherman's march, consider the following. There is little doubt that the Georgians who were in Sherman's line of march during 1864 went through a wrenching ordeal they would never foreget. The march from Altanta to Savannah has traditionally been portrayed as a sinister version of Exodus, with pillars of fire and columns of smoke. The army's track, the "burned country" was marked by what were known as "Sherman's sentinels" forlorn chimneys, mile after mile of them, standing over the ashes of farmhouses and manors. But here exaggeration seems to have crept in with the telling and the retelling; the tragedy gradually enhanced.

In the 1950s a geographer armed with old maps was able to trace the fate of houses along a 60-mile stretch of the "fiery trail" between Covington and Millegeville. He found that "a great many houses, perhaps even most of them" survived the Yankees' passage. A similar study of Milledgeville and its environs found almost no evidence of arson there. Your view of the subject depends on which side of the fence you are on at the time, I have been told.

In the Army of which I was a member ten years ago, we were often faced with the problem of getting a new recruits attention. It was said the only way to get that attention was to cause that recruit to have "A Significant Emotional Event" or if you prefer, some form of shock treatment.

The South was not convinced that it was losing the war until Sherman proved to them they were. It was tough on them, hard in fact, but by the end of the March to the Sea, even they were convinced it was over.

Sincerely,
Unionblue



(Message edited by Unionblue on February 13, 2003)

(Message edited by Unionblue on February 13, 2003)

(Message edited by Unionblue on February 13, 2003)