What, in your PERSONAL opinion, was the cause of the War, and how did you come to your conclusion?

Daniel,

So by your logic the founders of our nation and the authors constitution were dishonorable as well as traitors. Interesting.

You are right. I will not accept the cause of state's rights was dishonorable no matter what it was the state's had wished to support or not support. To me it is not important what they wished to support but that they are allowed do decide for themselves. As well as leave when they are no longer satisfied. Yet like slaves, the states are bound to servitude forever regardless how much they would desire to be free of those shackles.

Thing is, by rights we are now total slaves to a central government with no rights to govern ourselves. People such as Neil like it this way. I personally loathe it.

It is popular to tell people who disagree with America to "Love America or leave it" but when the south tried they were hunted down and killed for it.

I am unsure of your desired interpretation of dichotomous regarding this discussion. Sorry....

As to our hashing and rehashing of this topic. Oh well. Sorry.


As to being contentious. Not at all. Feel free to express how you feel and what you believe. That is what this is all about. I wouldn't dare speak for everyone but please do not hesitate on my account.


YMOS
tommy

I have seen this topic, discussed a number of times, and even though, it does seem to flow, into the same ole debates, there's always some new idea's, and facts, that come out of it.

I'am not in agreement, that George Washington, and the people, of that period, were traitors. Nor, Lee and Davis, and the people of the south. If Washington, and his colleagues, were claiming to still be loyal English citizens, but secretly, planning, to overthrow the
English government, then they would have been traitors. Same thing applies for the south. The south, broke away from the union, and wanted, to do their own thing. Which certainly wan't trying to overthrow the U.S. government.
Even when the south fired on Fort Sumter, that didn't make them traitors. They were a fledgling nation, that was trying, to remove a threat, to their sovereignty, by an aggressor, that stated, that Fort Sumter world be supplied, whether they liked it or not.
The debate on whether it was against the constitution, about secession, probably will go on forever. I'am not an expert, on the constitution, but I've read some reports by others, and in Battle Cry, it mentions, that there wasn't anything, in the constitution, at that time, against it.
Gunsmoke

[thea_447]

First of all, I would concur on all points made by Tommy. The War was not a treasonous war. The Southern states had the right to secede and they did so.

I refer again to the very documents signed at the close of the War naming TWO nations, not one divided nation as the parties involved.

In my family, the legends are legion of the treatment of blacks by the yankees.
And the blacks for a very large part stayed in the South for these very reasons. Something the North has never understood is that despite all the rumblings Northerners hear about the South, we get along very well with our black counterparts. Of late I hear more of race riots in the North rather than in the South. And of course there are the complete falsehoods being bandied about concerning church burnings. It has been proven that out of 77 church burnings, only two were racially motivated. Most of the others were burned by blacks.

Time and reason and experience have taught us all lessons. Except for the racial leaders determined to set us apart we are progressing, slowly, but on steady ground. As one of my Marine nephews has said, when you're out on the battlefield, you don't see color, you see a band of brothers.

With rabid voices like John Brown leading the fray, many people were afraid they'd be murdered in their beds. Some would like to call that man a religious zealot. I would call him a murderer, nothing more.

This country has always been a potpourri. And the cultures were much more divided in the 1800's than now.

I am proud of each and every one of my relatives who fought in the War, just as I'm proud of the ones who fought in all the wars the United States has ever been involved in.


Slavery was not the primary reason for this War, in my opinion. Uppermost in these Southern minds was the fact that they truly believed they were in a compact with the Northern states, one which would proved mutually beneficial. When it didn't work out that way, they seceded.

I won't bore you with the import/export stats, etc. that I have quoted before, they're available under "A Class War". Their right of self-determination which was engrained in them from birth was a just one. It still is. And this gets right into whether you believe in a highly centralized government. I do not.

The Northern industries greatly needed the wealth of the South to sustain their industries and if they couldn't get it peaceably, they would take it by force.

Between the North and the South there were quite a few differences. The protective tariffs imposed on Southern cotton did not benefit the South, but helped the North in its states tremendously.

There was a basic difference in their attitudes, the rise of modern nationalism in the North fighting the original republic which the South had always believed in.

I firmly believe that secession was the right of all states, hence the South cannot be called treasonous. This was a compact, pure and simple. When it was not beneficial, the South left, and they should have been allowed to go peacefully.

The slow entrenchment of the Federal government since the War also raises my hackles. I do not believe in the type of vastly centralized government that we have today. States rights will always be uppermost in my mind.


On one end, after TWO years with the implementation of the Emancipation Proclamation, it sounds quite noble to think that Yankees went to war for their black brethren. What'd ol' Abe wait so long for? Did he see that he needed more support and couldn't win without it? This is just another example of Lincoln's perfidy. Example, his meeting on the riverboat wherein it was suggested that after the War the EP would no longer be in effect.

I grew up in the South, know these people and my mother in particular taught me a love of all history to rival anyone's. Many a week-end we spent tramping through old Indian burial grounds, then as I grew older my parents took me to all the major War sites. My mother and I spent a lot of time in the Archives reading letters home to our family long ago and reading anything else we could find on the subject.

She was the sweetest woman in the world except for one thing: The Battle Hymn of the Republic. As a teen-ager in defiance (weren't we all?) I sat at our Baby Grand and proceeded to play this piece that I'd found. I don't know how it got in our house, but it didn't remain long, as she took her Zippo to it and said "Don't you know what the grapes of wrath are, that they are trampling out? Those are your uncles, your great grandfathers, etc." I won't ever forget that.

Some day I will tell you how I stood on the star where Jefferson Davis was inaugurated and sang Dixie, not once but twice (I think they must have liked it because they asked me to come back and sing it again! LOL) on Secession Day this year.

Till we meet again.

Thea,
You speaking of your mother’s reaction to “The battle hymn of the Republic” struck a cord with me. I really love Irish music and last night on PBS there was a program featuring the Irish tenor John McDermott. He was singing. I was quite enjoying it and then he starting singing the battle hymn of the republic....I turned the TV off. Your mother was right. Those grapes were Southern people. Fighting for their homeland.

It brings to mind to me a President we had. One that I admire. I admired him as President and I admired after his term ended and I still do. Jimmy Carter. As a plebe at Annapolis he was paddled and hazed for refusing to sing “Marching through Georgia.” Later as president, many places he went, bands, knowing only he was from Georgia, often chose “marching through Georgia” to play for him. He hated it. It still bugs him.

Oh yeah...by the way I sure wish I could have heard you sing Dixie.

YMOS
tommy

[jeffdavislegion]

Tommy,

You said: So by your logic the founders of our nation and the authors constitution were dishonorable as well as traitors. Interesting.

Absolutely not! That's a restatement of my comment, with added meaning which I did not include. I did NOT call George Washington, et. al. traitors. I did NOT call them dishonorable. What I actually said was that they committed treason. They rebelled against a sovereign nation, and by THAT nation's laws their actions constituted treason. Further, they all knew it and admitted it. That is a long ways from calling them dishonorable. Please note that I also said (twice) that treason for an honorable reason is an honorable cause - although consequences may be expected if the honorable cause is lost.

By dichotomous, I was restating what is becoming pretty evident here - that there is a sincere (and honest) belief by many that the Civil War was about slavery, and there is a sincere belief by many that it was not. My position doesn't work for you because you believe the war was fought over states' rights. Your position doesn't work for me because I believe the war was fought over slavery. All the logic of our discussion follows from those two opposing beliefs, so we can't end up on common ground.

I appreciate seeing your comments, because it helps me understand the other side of the argument. It won't necessarily convert me, but it widens my knowledge base. You are fervent defenders of your position. Keep it up.

V/R

Daniel

LMAO....Alert the media!!! Neil and Tommy agree....Film at 11....

I get the feeling the Know Nothings were not so much anti anything for real. Yet they did feed on the fears and predjudices of the people. Yet they were so clandestine it makes it difficult to pin down real facts. I remember years and years ago I read of a Know Nothing that was anti immigration etc but actually owned ships that brought them in. That the less immigrants came in the more money he made off of his. I think they were chinese. It may have been a work of fiction though. Also they were into behind the scenes politics in a big way. I know they had at least two secret societies officially.
Scary group when you think about it.

Later
YMOS
tommy

[unionblue]

Tommy,

Ever read Taylor Caldwell's, "The Captains and the Kings?" You think the Know-Nothings might have been sort of a secret society in that way?

I used to belong to a secret organization called military intelligence or more simply the Intelligence Security Command or INSCOM for short. We worked directly for the National Security Agency or Big Daddy as we used to to call them.

Now you got my interest going and I think I want to try and find out a bit more about the Know-Nothings. I think you are on to something and it might be kind of fun to track down some info on it.

Unionblue

[johan_steele]

Gents and lady,

War isn't pretty but you might note that the Campaign I mentioned, Atlanta to Savannah, has been mentioned over and over again by pro confeds as being rampant w/ rape, pillaging, looting and burning. Burning yes, looting yes... though much less so than I was led to believe. Rape, yes there were rapes, how many. My own belief is around 20-30 by Union troops and about the same number by CSA deserters. The crime of destruction of property were great and well documented. Anything that could be used for the purpose of supporting the Confederacy was burned or otherwise destroyed. It broke the back of the CSA and ended the War.

One thing that caught my eye was the mention of the order to shoot guerillas and to send families north... This is mentioned as an atrocity. Excuse me, being fired on by a non combatant has been harshly punished by armies around the world for a LONG time. Should I pass on the German, French or English treatment of such? Forced resettlement was quite common, I think the family generally lived through it.

One question I have is where did all that loot from Shermans Army go? It certainly didn't stay in the hands of the looters for all that long, where was it? Why isn't there tons of antique Silver and such in Iowa and Indiana today? I don't recall anyone speaking of Shermans men carrying loot during the Grand Review. They certainly weren't carrying it in their baggage on the way through SC... So then Savanna must have had a HUGE stockpile right?

There is no doubt there were atrocities commited by both sides w/ a viciousness that can only come from a Civil War. While I admit the Union Army was far from pure and gentle... they were little different than their Southern brethern. I'm familiar enough w/ many Union actions, but I don't think I've heard anyone mention Confed excesses.

In short I get enough demonization of the US from the media. Forgive yes, forget no. I'm not a Southerner, lived there but was quite happy to move north. The South today is not the South of 1865. The people are not the same either. Hopefully those of us who enjoy history can learn from the mistakes of the past. It would be criminal to repeat them. I just wonder how much hate is fostered by not letting things go. What would you have the US do? Prosecute the descendents of men who fought in the Civil War?

So again I'll ask: Would the world be a better place if the Confederacy had won?

[thea_447]

Shane, if you're interested in where the loot when, please refer to my post of
Sunday, May 4, 2003, 3:16 a.m.
If you need more evidence there are plenty of sites that will further demonstrate where the stuff went. This is merely an example.

[tamaroa]

Shane,

I for one feel that the Confederacy had they achieved their independence would not have remained independent for more than a a few years. I have read too many books dealing with the background and sociology and psychology of the people in that era to think that there would have been a permanent schism. The farmers were alike, North and South, shopkeepers were alike North and South.

The two economies were very interdependent on one another. Reading many of the letters and diaries of that period, a recurring theme constantly comes through: The common man north and south felt that they could settle their differences quickly and with much less bloodshed if it were not for the politicians mucking things up.

E. Porter Alexander says in his autobiography that he was glad the north won and that even if the south had won, they would have reunified in 10 years. Add to that the alacrity that both armies reacted with respect to wanting normalized relations after Appomattox and I think a trend can be seen where they wanted nothing but peace and a normal life ahead of them.

There were of course exceptions such as the irascible Henry wise former governor of Virginia, but by in large, people just wanted to get on with life.

Bill