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

Hey Ya’ll
What do I think? I am pretty much in agreement. Whereas I have thoroughly loved this voluminous thread. I do not think we do it disservice for making another thread. Especially if it is causing any problems, no matter how small for others. I had thought “Polemical Potpourri” would be an apt title, although admittedly probably not a very workable one. So I say go for it, start a new thread, call it what you will. I will, as usual, just follow along with what ya’ll see fit to do. Will be glad to do so. Make as many as you like. I read them all.

Bill’s post made me realize something. I used to be interested in the war but only from the strict military point of view. I read somewhere that most southerners really do not get into the actual politics of the time. They tend to focus on military alone, that the politics was pretty much periphery. Much the same way the average southerner then was I expect. In truth I think they were pretty much like us today. But what I realized was that since I started discussing the politics here. I have learned more, in depth, about the politics of the time, than I’d have thought possible. I’d have thought it’d have bored me to death. Yet to the contrary it has been very stimulating and enlightening. Thanks.

So, somebody start a new thread..........

Thea, if there is anyone contrary here, I'd say that your Abrams and Neil's darkly secret and arcane ceremonies really are mild compared to my “confounded cussedness.”


As Always
YMOS
tommy


P.S.
Howdy All,
Now before I start I want to say I am fully aware of just how inappropriate this may be. Yet in a way it can be directly connected to several incidents in the history our country. The topic has been touched upon before in comparison. I refuse to debate the right or wrong of it, each person will believe what they will and this is incorrect forum for this particular discussion. But I thought I'd draw your attention to it by showing the comparison. Not trying to debate the right or wrong of this topic but I felt ya'll had a right to be informed, if you did not know already.


The suspension of Habeas Corpus during the CW...Adams Alien and Sedition Act of 1798. The Espionage Act of 1917, ...Now we have The Patriot Bill.....I was just watching “The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer” on PBS. Ashcroft is now pushing for even more power. “In addition, federal suspects in gun, drug and organized crime cases "where public safety is a concern" automatically are held indefinitely when they are arrested, Ashcroft said. "It seems as though the crime of terrorism should have the same presumption," he said. ".... Bear in mind, they are held with being charged, no access to legal representation, no means whatsoever to prove they are innocent.


P.S. Part the Second
I thought I'd add this here rather than a seperate post. More history on the Know Nothing Party.

The Know-Nothing Party

The Irish famine of 1845 shovelled thousands of Irishmen into their graves, but it sent tens of thousands of them into the United States, along with their wives and children. The men made good Democrats as fast as they became citizens, while the women devoted themselves to the production of little Irish-American Roman Catholics, with true Genesis 9:1 zeal.

In order to combat the influx of these good Roman Catholics, a political party was formed. It came to be called the "Know-Nothing" Party because it was secretive and when anyone asked questions of its adherents they would say they knew nothing about that which was asked. One of the oaths of this party was to solemnly promise and swear in the presence of almighty god never to vote for any man for any office if he be a Roman Catholic. The party participated in the presidential elections of 1852 and in numerous local elections. At its height it had 1.5 million qualified voters in its ranks. The most notable victories for the party were in the municipal elections in Baltimore, Washington and Philadelphia. At least forty Congressmen from half a dozen states had at one time been associated with it.

In 1854, the party swung the state of Massachusetts with both houses of the legislature almost one hundred percent Know-Nothing in composition when the ballots had all been counted. In Delaware various of their candidates were elected to state offices. In Protestant New York they totalled 122,000 out of a total 435,000 votes polled.

In Louisville, Kentucky, a celebration was held in observance of election day on August 6, 1855. When the smoke cleared the Louisville Roman Catholic cathedral was found to have been entered by a roaring Know-Nothing mob and 25 Irish-Americans were killed in a running street war. The Roman Catholic Church charged that "city authorities, all Know-Nothings, looked calmly on, and they are now endeavoring to lay the blame on the Catholics."

But this was precluded by the presence of Archbishop Bedini in the United States for seven months during 1853. There was a question of legal title to some church property in Philadelphia and Buffalo and the Vatican had sent the archbishop to the United States to solve the problem. Bedini was the highest Catholic dignitary exhibited in person in the United States. Naturally a plot to assassinate him was hatched in New York. In Cincinnati, a howling mob collected outside the Roman Catholic cathedral desirous of making him a guest of honor at a lynching party. The police wounded several of the would-be lynchers. He finally left New York, in secret, to escape another Protestant mob there.

But from the Know-Nothing/Catholic engagements, we find that the following occurred on a year by year basis:

1853 -- Bedini riots in Boston, Baltimore, Wheeling, St. Louis and Cincinnati.

1854 -- A gang of Know-Nothings and Ulstermen from New York City raided St. Mary's Church in Newark, one Irish-American shot and killed, some statuary destroyed; St. Anne's Church in Manchester, New Hampshire, raided on the 4th of July; a Society of Jesuit priest (John Baptist) tarred, feathered, and ridden around Ellsworth, Maine, on a rail; a Roman Catholic church burned at Bath, Maine; Catholic churches at Dorchester, Massachusetts, and Sidney Ohio, blown up with gunpowder; a Roman Catholic church at Massillon, Ohio, burned; an attempt made to burn the Ursuline convent in Galveston, Texas; fires were started in the Roman Catholic churches of St. Peter and St. Paul in Brooklyn, New York; numerous fights in New York City between Irish gangs and the "Wide-Awakes," a young Protestant gang wearing wide-brimmed felt hats as insignia; the convent of the Sisters of Mercy in Providence, Rhode Island, threatened by a Know-Nothing mob, but saved by Roman Catholics, who rallied and threatened to shoot anyone setting foot on the convent grounds; ten killed in a riot in St. Louis; a "ducking party" for Roman Catholics in Washington.

1855 -- "The Bloody Monday Riot" ravaged Louisville, Kentucky.

1856 -- There were election riots between Know-Nothings and Irish Catholic Democrats in Baltimore.

The Know-Nothing Party later died, in part over the slavery issue.

But this did not stop the small wars. On July 12, 1870, 2,500 Orangemen, with their wives and families, were picnicking in Elm Park in New York City. Six hundred Roman Catholic Irish rushed them to revenge the death of a Roman Catholic alderman some months before. Several on both sides were killed and many others were wounded.

The bloodiest massacre of Irish Roman Catholics came one year later on July 12, 1871, when New York militiamen killed fifty-one. One hundred Orangemen had determined that no such dirty thing should take place. Yet, the Orangemen paraded. They were chaperoned by five companies of militia. At 24th Street and 8th Avenue the parade was rushed by the Roman Catholics. The militia fired one volley to kill 51 of the attackers.


Although I have not seen it, I believe the recent movie "The Gangs of New York" directly involves the Know Nothings....So then, it would appear the Know Nothings were the ones embroiled in the Tammany Hall Riots and gang wars in NYC. So it appears the Know Nothings were a very powerful, violent gang, but a gang that operated on a national level. Maybe International. A gang, not only of thugs but of very influential people. Ones that put a president in the White House (Fillmore) and two others courted them Buchanon and Lincoln.





(Message edited by aphillbilly on June 05, 2003)

(Message edited by aphillbilly on June 05, 2003)

[unionblue]

Friends,

I like Thea's idea (NEVER thought I would say that!) about a part 2 to this thread and I very much like the idea of calling it something like, "Personal opinions on the War" or some such (sorry, Tommy, but 'Polemical Potpourri' only gives me a headache!) as mostly that is what this thread has turned into.

I have learned much on this thread, in the course of debating and listening, and would hate to see it die. So one of your poor souls (I only say this as you realize you will ALL be leaving yourselves open for more Yankee poundings and such) please go ahead and have the honor of opening 'Part II' of this thread, but be sure and explain what the heck we are up to so that poor newcomers can have an idea and decide if they should run for their lives or dive in.

Sincerely,
Unionblue (Smiles while reloads with buck & ball!)

[thea_447]

Hey you guys! I'm the brainy one that figured out the blue arrow, remember? I don't know "nothin' about birthin'" a new thread so Neil, I think, you should do the honors for our Part 2.

Did you want to just table the idea of the other thread I mentioned? I'm open for anything.

So whatever ya'll want is fine with me.
Thea

[unionblue]

Tommy, Thea, Doug, Bill, Daniel, Shane and others,

I have started work on making a small book out of the two threads here in this section (What in your personal opinion was the cause of the Civil War.., parts I & II. As soon as I get into it somewhat, I will inform you of its progress and what my plans for it will be.

Right now my plan is to use only the two mentioned above threads and entitle the book, "Threads, An on-line debate about the causes of the Civil War."

Let me know if you have any ideas or suggestions. Right now, my plan is to use each of the postings on each thread with footnotes to explain terms or names we use and to include documents from any web sites we mention or list.

We'll see what happens in a few weeks.

Until that time,
Unionblue

[thea_447]

The South, faced with a big federal government intent on seizing more power than the Constitution delegated to it, chose to leave the Union rather than stay in it. "Ah, but this was because they didn't want to lose slavery!" you may say. Was slavery an issue? Yes. Was it THE issue? No.

Abraham Lincoln, that supposedly great hero of Illinois, announced to Illinoisans long before his election as President, when he was campaigning to be an Illinois Senator that "I have no purpose directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists." He did, however, make it clear in his Presidential election that he would push for protectionist tariffs; in fact, after his election, he pushed through the infamous Morrill Tariff, which taxed Southern ports a ghastly 47% on their trade with Europe. Of this, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, in "The Civil War in the United States" pg. 58, said in 1861: "The war between the North and the South is a tariff war. The war is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for sovereignty." The great English writer Charles Dickens said in 1862, "The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern states."

Now comes the good part. Even more telling are the following three facts. After the Southern states seceded, Abraham Lincoln did what no previous U.S. President had done - he signed a Constitutional Amendment - the ORIGINAL 13th Amendment - before Congress had even voted on it. Both the House and the Senate passed it. What did it do? It prevented the Federal Government from interfering with "institutions" of the States - including slavery - and was meant as an olive branch to bring the South back into the Union. Did the Confederacy return? No. If the South was fighting to keep slavery, then the ORIGINAL 13th Amendment should have brought them cheerfully back into the Union. However, they didn't - so the South clearly had more important things (i.e. State's Rights vs. big government, and particularly Money) that they were fighting for. Besides, by this point, the Federal Government had already begun the invasion of the South, which was THE reason Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas joined the Deep South in secession.

Here's another fact: after the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, the Union admitted another slave state. The Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves in "states still in rebellion," and specifically EXEMPTED the Northern States and particular counties and territories in the Southern States held at that point by Union troops (for example, West Tennessee). Those loyal to the Union got to keep their slaves. In July of 1863, the northwestern-most counties of Virginia voted to join the Union as a SLAVE STATE, now known as West Virginia. In fact, the Union continued to have slavery (even using unpaid African-American labor in Washington, D.C. as late as 1865) until the current 13th Amendment was passed after the war. Confederate President Jefferson Davis informed Northern diplomats in 1864 that the North was welcome to emancipate every slave, North and South, if they could provide for them, but "we will have our freedom."

My final fact (of tonight..<grin>) I'd like to offer. General Robert E. Lee, freed the slaves that he inherited from his father-in-law as soon as it was legal for him to do so. He said in 1856, "There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil." Contrast this with United States General Ulysses S. Grant, who owned slaves after the war, when the 13th Amendment freed them. He declared, "The sole object of this war is to restore the union. Should I become convinced it has any other object, or that the Government designs using its soldiers to execute the wishes of the Abolitionists, I pledge you my honor as a man and a soldier I would resign my commission and carry my sword to the other side." To go by the attitude of the leading generals on each side, you would think that the South was anti-slavery and the North was pro-slavery! (Too bad Grant didn't value "his honor" very much.)

There you have it, Neil, more gasoline on the unquenchable fires.
Now let me have it! Paraphrasing the Postman's Creed, ...Neither your slings nor arrows, nor bullets, or badgering shall keep me from delivering my message of the sanctity of the Southern right to secession!

That being said, I bid you Good evening, Gentlemen
(and Ladies, of course)

[unionblue]

Thea,

'Message of Sancity?' I bet you really liked to have your parents read you fairy tales at bedtime when you were a little girl, right?

As for throwing more gasoline on the unquenchable fires, Thea, I wish you would use a higher octane rating instead of the economy brand.

Number 1. What big federal government? Where the heck are you hiding this feared institution? A 16,000 man army, a handful of federal marshals, judges, officals and postmasters, of course. Ah! Now I see it! It was the Post Office personnel the South was afraid of! I repeat, what big federal government? And lets go for some facts here instead of rhetoric. Simply stated, their WAS no big federal government before OR after the Civil War. The very way troops were called up by Lincoln should shatter this notion, calling upon the States of the North to raise them and such.

Number 2. Intent on seizing more power? OH! You mean the idea of limiting slavery and keeping it out of the territories! No, maybe not, as that power Congress already had as it had jurisdiction over the territories. So what power was that again Lincoln wanted to seize?

Number 3. Was slavery THE issue? Not for the North, but yes, in a very BIG way for the South. It was THE issue that brought about the war. Nothing else comes close to the heat of debate in the country at that time as this one subject.

Number 4. Thea, you are misquoting AGAIN the article by Karl Marx! Read all of it please! Marx is stating what OTHER English papers are saying. He states further on in the article the war IS about slavery!

Number 5. The North had not invaded ANYTHING or ANYONE, not until the South fired on Ft. Sumpter first. And I don't care about who suckered who to do what, the fact is the South fired first. And please, not the old argument the North was 'intruding' on Southern soil by manning the nation's forts. This too, is more than explained by the Constitution and the law the South chose to ignore.

As for the rest of this gas-inspired fire, I want to do some research, but Thea, didn't we go through a talk a while back about the supposed Grant quote about not rasing his sword or such and found out he DID NOT say this? I'll check and get back to you on this for sure.

And I hate to say this as it is almost a religion with some, but Lee did NOT free his slaves on time, but hung onto them for a while past the contract or will I have read somewhere on this board and on the inter net.

Until that time,
Unionblue

[thea_447]

This is what I have about Lee's slaves. I don't have any more time tonight to debate because my students have a big competition tomorrow and I've got to get some sleep, but I'll be back.

Lee's father in law requested the slaves be freed. The will that was probated in 1857, stipulated that 5 years from the time of his death, the slaves were to be freed. Source Douglas Southhall Freeman's Robert E. Lee. Professor Connelly's The Marble Man, The Image of Robert E. Lee, makes the same remark. The late Professor Connelly, who taught at L.S. U was the author of The Army of the Heartland, and Autumn of Glory, about The Army of Tennessee. Letters and Recollections of the Civil War by Captain Robert Edward Lee Jr. also sited the will.

[unionblue]

Thea,

Found what I wanted on the supposed US Grant quote you use above. No such quote. Grant never made such a quote. Please check under the heading "Secession and Politics Discussions" section (this one!) and then check out the thread labeled, 'Grant, Slavery and Cyber Pitfalls,' and on the very first post, October 12, 2002, 02:10 pm, you will get the background on why the quote never happened.

YMOS,
Unionblue

[unionblue]

Thea,

Two sites about Robert E. Lee and slavery.

http://www.swcivilwar.com/LeeLettertoSenHunter.html

http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/RobertELee2.htm

Your views on the above, please.

Unionblue

[thea_447]

As to the first site you mentioned, I cannot help but feel that not only Lee, but Davis,Forrest and Jackson all felt that emancipation would be coming, but it was the MANNER in which it should be accomplished. They felt that these black people should be taught, shown marketable skills and needed to learn basic business principles to fend for themselves before being thrown out into the real world. The abolitionists' view that, with their freedom, these negroes would be capable of handling their own affairs was naive to say the very least. Look what happened when the carpetbaggers and scallawags conned these innocents. The freedom they were given in these circumstances did them no great service and in fact, has created divisiveness, bitter resentment, and acrimony that lasts even unto modern times.

It was too late in coming but had the Negroes been offered their freedom in return for fighting for the South, I believe the war not only would have ended sooner,on less bloody terms, but would have left the door open for future negotiations for decent relations between North and South. Also, I believe the reason that these leaders didn't want to use the blacks from the very beginning as soldiers (although they were all over the place as cooks, etc.)was the idea that the Negro was inferior mentally to the white and would not make soldiers (although Forrest certainly didn't think this). After all the blacks had been told what to do all their lives, how would they behave under fire? Would they stand their ground and fight or would they run?

The North didn't want the blacks coming north. That would deprive whites of factory jobs. They certainly weren't wanted out West where Lincoln had already said he wanted those lands opened for "white people". And most Northerners felt that they were an inferior race too. (Off topic a bit here, but Southerners get maligned for the KKK,and Northerners continue with their blind mind-set that this is representative of all Southerners. NOT! But I watched "Far From Heaven" the other night and saw a glimpse of what the North felt about blacks, even in the fifties or sixties....hmm, glass houses.)

In the end, nobody won, but the South was brought to its knees, never to be allowed to regain their rightful place in this so-called Union. I believe we now have three MAJOR components in this country, all vying for what they can get: the South, the blacks, and the entire rest of the country which continues to vilify the South, and goes out of its ways to insult and degrade us with their "Bubba syndrome". (The Hispanics are making progress towards being a larger voice here but from what I've seen, they don't HATE!) In return, although we may talk slow, we're definitely not stupid and resentment over this continued treatment turned into a slow boil about 20 years ago.

As I've pointed out before, the South did not fall, it lost the war.
BUT, if Southerners and their conservative views are not taken into consideration, one thing is abundantly clear. The pen may be mightier than the sword, but the VOTE beats the hell out of both.

What Clay and his pupil Lincoln began has turned into a behomoth and the federal government envisioned by the founding fathers was buried at Appomattox. Furthermore it is my opinion that all the wars we've been involved in since that fateful April day can be laid directly at the South's defeat. Without the restraint of Southerners (and yes, I believe we have changed considerably from the hotheads of the WBTS)this country has plunged into more power grabbing, land lusting, etc. than the world has ever seen. What this country cannot have or control by peaceful means, we take or destroy. Why? Because we CAN!
And what is the end result? More war, more waste. How many Beethovens or Einsteins have bled out on foreign soil before they reached their potential? Did we EVER try to learn restraint (think dead buffalo lying across endless plains) from the Indians who held out friendly open arms to us when we arrived on THEIR land? No, instead we gave them our horrendous diseases and when that didn't wipe them out, we traded them beads for their lands, crammed them on reservations, or just killed them outright.

There is no peace, there will never be enough power and we've alienated almost every country on the planet.

Now that I've vented a little, I will add this: I think Robert E. Lee was one of the most honorable men who ever lived. I think he tried mightily to do the right thing by ALL men. We in this day and age can look back cynically if we wish, and call him sanctimonious. I prefer to think that he actually walked with his Lord and tried to be a good man. We cannot judge these men by our own mores. Heck, Neil, stop and DON't smell the incense to your Lincoln/Sherman shrine. Sherman didn't even want the blacks in his army, he didn't have any because he felt they were inferior. And he certainly didn't want them following him. (Think river crossing.....)

That's all for now. I have to go visit my Aunt Zodie. I want to tell her I just read something about what she was talking about, about the deeds to property being taken. Seems Sherman had them taken out of courthouses and burned in the town square on the presumption that the plantation owners wouldn't be able to prove ownership. He was right about that and I have to admit, that was a slick maneuver. Dishonorable, but slick, like everything else that b------ did.

I remain, YMOS,