How did duty and honor compel us into this awful war?

[OldGreyWolf]

Gentlemen, I apologize for asking such difficult questions.

Originally Posted by larry_cockerham
As you know, these are relatively simple questions with not so simple answers.

I know they require a complex response.

I want to thank each of you who attempted to respond seriously. I believe this is one of the most important aspects of American Civil War study and I encourage you all to contemplate these matters and expound upon your thoughts more thoroughly in this thread.

For those of you who chose not to respond or sat on the bench ...

Originally Posted by ole
I'm just going to sit here silent and impressed.

please be so kind as to express your thoughts on this matter. Gentlemen with 3500 plus posts on a forum devoted to the American Civil War ought to have something to say regarding these matters.

Originally Posted by M E Wolf
I highly doubt if any modern standard of what 'duty' or 'honor' remotely compares to the standard of 'duty' and or 'honor' of those during the Civil War.

I do not concur. I most certainly do concur with a lot of things you said and I thank you for your well thought out response. I shall respond directly to your post under a seperate heading, but as to our modern standard, I believe it has been passed down to us as it was passed down to them. We are after all their grandsons and the great grandsons. At least some of us.

In an attempt to stimulate this conversation even more, I will express my views on these matters for you now. I am my father's son and I wouldn't ask a question without knowing my own response, but I didn't want to just toss it out without first giving you all an opportunity to express your views.

Regarding the concept of "duty", I believe it begins with God. We have a duty to God. A duty to know God and to strive to do God's work in the world. I believe an open channel of communications with God leads to a better understanding of the differences between good and evil and helps us to distinguish between right and wrong. It is our duty to be a force for good in the world and to fight against evil. It is our duty to do what is right and to not do what is wrong.

Second only to our duty to God, is our duty to self. I have a duty to my self and you have a duty to your self. A duty to do what is good and to not do what is not good for our selves, respectivly. I have a duty to protect myself from evil and to defend myself against
those seeking to do me wrong. You do too. Even to the point of using deadly force against those seeking to do us harm.

Our duty extends from our self to our family, friends and neighbors, in that order. We have a duty to do what is right and good, for our family, friends and neighbors. Likewise, we have a duty to not do what is wrong or not good for our family, friends and neighbors, in that order. Our duty to our families exceeds our duty to our friends and our neighbors respectifully. It extends outward from us like the skins of an onion.

Much is made about one's duty to one's country. Patiotism. Nationalism. Certainly them that are in power encourage us to believe that it is our duty to do what is right / good for our country and to not do what is not right or not good. I agree. In the sense that it
exists like skins of an onion. Local, State, Federal. In that order.

Much is made about a soldier's duty. Duty to support and defend the constitution and to execute the orders of the officers appointed over them. I agree. Except when those orders conflict with what is right and good. In that case, it is the soldiers duty to not do what
is not right or not good. Certainly junior soldiers are exempt for the responsibility of determining right from wrong and good from evil in the strategic sense. But not in the tactical sense. Soldiers must be aware of and able to distinguish the difference. "Our's is not to question why, our's is just to do or die!" Is not correct. "I was just following orders!" Is not a valid excuse.

It is important to note that I believe we may be released from some aspects of our duty. Certainly not one's duty to God or self, but from our duty to family, friends, and neighbors and likewise, local, state and federal government. You do not have a duty to protect or
defend family members, friends or neighbors who are out to do you wrong. Likewise, you do not have a duty to protect or defend government when government is in the wrong. In fact, it is our duty to protect ourselves from thoses that are out to do us wrong and our duty to resist, rebel against and/or overthrow government when that government becomes tyrannical.

Regarding the concept of "honor", I believe it is contingent upon one doing one's duty. If we do our
duty, if we do what is right and good, if we do not do what is not right or not good, we bring honor to God, our selves, or family, friends, and neighbors, as well as our local, state and federal governement. If we do not do our duty, we do not.

[ole]

Old Grey:

The reason I have not and probably won't respond is that your answer is personal and as widely varied as there are personalities on this board and during the war. Duty, honor and patriotism mean different things to different people and, whether connected, also depends on the individual.

For example, I do not consider it honorable to demand satisfaction for an insult or slight, however real or imagined. I do not factor in a Creator among them. It is one's duty to defend oneself, one's family, one's community and one's greater organizations (and, one might hope) who are committed to the peace and well-being of all its parts.

Now you place God first and I don't count Him at all. So, other than an interesting discussion, there can be very little, if anything at all, on which to agree.

For another, I see no duty and honor on the part of the slaveocracy in stirring up others to fight and die for their right to own slaves -- nor to do the same to maintain their status of an aristocratic status quo. But I do see duty and honor in those who fought to preserve the idea that the common man was capable of choosing those he preferred to administer the affairs in which he was interested.

So now you know.

ole

[OldGreyWolf]

We might find more common ground than you realize.

Originally Posted by ole

So now you know.

I do not question your right to believe in God or not. In fact, I think it is my duty to defend with my life your right to believe or not as the case may be.

Originally Posted by ole

It is one's duty to defend oneself, one's family, one's community and one's greater organizations (and, one might hope) who are committed to the peace and well-being of all its parts.

This sounds very similar to my proposition regarding “the skins of an onion”.

I do not disagree with your right to oppose slavery either. I am not an advocate of slavery. I abhor the practice. It was / is a bad thing for all involved.

Let me say this with regards to property: I believe it is our duty to protect our property even today. Certainly during the American Civil War era it was our right to protect our property even with the use of deadly force. If someone was trying to steal your wagonload of grain or your best team of mules, you would be within your right to protect your property, wouldn’t you agree?

Slavery was the law of the land. It had been since the beginning and even before. Who are we to choose which laws we obey and which we do not? In fact, isn’t it our duty to obey all of the laws of the land, even those with which we do not agree?

[ole]

Oh shucks, Old Grey, now you've tipped the applecart.

It was, for sure, illlegal to to interfere with the practice of slavery. But it wasn't illegal for a few northern radicals to rail against it. Now, was it? What we have is some criers in the wilderness railing against the ownership of another person. This action led to a reaction which led to a reaction which led to a reaction.

I'm guessing, here, that you are not in favor the idea of an inferior race. And, I would hope, that you are not in opposition to the right of some do-gooders to oppose it. Would you allow that there were those in opposition; and that they had every right to be against it and be annoying?

It seems that the annoying, as opposed to the favoring factors, got their tutus in a knot and couldn't just shut up and sit down to work out a compromise.

It had been done before. It was in the cards, even given Lincoln's election, to be done again. He was clear in his platform: where slavery existed, it would not be interefered with. Somewhere in there, it all fell apart. The promise was not good enough.

I have a problem with that. He said, and I'm certain that he meant it, that you just keep that as your dirty little secret, and we'll all just wait until slavery goes away. Apparently, that wasn't good enough. It wouldn't have been good enough whatever the results. Some had decided that secession was inevitable and they went from there. Lincoln was not the problem. It was not a secession because of Lincoln's election; it was a secession no matter what: we don't own the ball, we're not going to play. Today, that would be considered unAmerican. Some call it treason.

ole

[OpnDownfall]

Honor is adherence (give support) to Right (just & good; correct) Principles (basic truth, rule, action etc.)
Duty is 'doing' those thjings one 'must' do. In this case Being honorable by Acting honorably.
Correct honor is Based on objectively proved principles. Not conveniently assumed ideas that may or may not exist, to gain an advantage or as proof of courage or excuse for actions.
Legal positivists have to be especially careful, because, for them, only law or legislation can legitamize Honor and duty.

[M E Wolf]

Dear Old Grey Wolf,

I still think there is a great canyon worth of a division between the honor and duty mentality of those around the Civil War and today's generation.

As I mentioned before--religion is not as important to this generation as it was to those founding fathers, through out the Civil War and perhaps up to the Korean War. It has deminished through time but, individuals who have 'faith' would not have to worry about being 'politically correct' and could comfortably talk about, praise God and include them in their Official Reports and correspondences.

Now days, there is some minority to whom complains if you wish to utter praise and or include your God into life and practice. One is hard pressed to find any school who will allow the Pledge of Allegiance [to the Flag], a prayer in said school - except 'church' schools.

Duty to God was paramount for so many through the formative years and through the Civil War and post Civil War era. Honoring God was equally paramount --so, yes--you may disagree with me when I say there is a vast difference; between then and now. As, religion is not as openly important yet; the principles yet remain as canon law (law of religion); has been the seed of 'civil' and 'criminal' justice/law since ancient civilization. How they are 'practiced' has changed and remain constantly in 'change' --now it is accomidating many 'Gods' and or 'Goddesses' and ethnic definition to their religious 'Gods/Goddesses.'

The Christian Bible writes of wars--their beginnings, their justifications and their explainations and their conclusions.

But, being realistic -- a Christian Bible can be manipulated as to mean almost anything by a clever pastor/preacher/minister. I am sure the same can be said for any religion.

For me--it is the 'motive' behind the use of religion, God and or the behavior. Religion has been used as justification for war, as it had been in the bloody Middle Ages, the Inquisition period and the like. Religion can be a form of coercion just as much as a uniformed and organized army.

How individuals view their 'religion' or 'faith', as well as their own 'understanding' of duty and or honor, has much to do with their journey in life. Yet, those who have never been exposed to religion have been known to be just as duty bound and honor bound in what that individual feels as his own spiritual guidance is 'the right thing to do.'

Just some thoughts.

Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf

[OldGreyWolf]

Originally Posted by ole

Oh shucks, Old Grey, now you've tipped the applecart.

It was, for sure, illlegal to to interfere with the practice of slavery.

Oh my! This from a gentleman with almost 6000 posts on a fourm dedicated to the study of the American Civil War. Thank you sir. I sincerely appreciate your concession. You bring honor to yourself and this forum and your integrity is beyond reproach.

No, it most certainly was not illegal for a few northern radicals to rail against it. In fact, I would say, it was their duty.

I think it was illegal for John Brown to seize the armory in Harper's Ferry and threaten to march through Virginia arming the slaves and encouraging them to revolt. We had had some experience with that type of thing here in Virginia and the catastrophy in Hati was fresh on everybody's mind. Did you know that our own Royal Govenor Dunmore did something very similar at the outbreak of hostilities during the American Revolution? Lord Conrwallis did it too before Yorktwon. It didn't work out too well for either of them or the black men and women who fell for their promises of freedom. In both cases they were used, abused and turned out, "Free to serve the King's men and free to die a traitor's death."

Originally Posted by ole

It seems that the annoying, as opposed to the favoring factors, got their tutus in a knot and couldn't just shut up and sit down to work out a compromise.

I don't want to get into a he said / she said debate with you sir. I fear I am out of my depth already. Suffice it to say, slavery didn't begin in Virginia and it did not end there either. It was around long before Jamestown and has lasted long after Appomatox. In fact, slavery still exists inthe world, even to this day.

[Beowulf]

Originally Posted by ole

Oh shucks, Old Grey, now you've tipped the applecart.

It was, for sure, illlegal to to interfere with the practice of slavery. But it wasn't illegal for a few northern radicals to rail against it. Now, was it? What we have is some criers in the wilderness railing against the ownership of another person. This action led to a reaction which led to a reaction which led to a reaction.

I'm guessing, here, that you are not in favor the idea of an inferior race. And, I would hope, that you are not in opposition to the right of some do-gooders to oppose it. Would you allow that there were those in opposition; and that they had every right to be against it and be annoying?

It seems that the annoying, as opposed to the favoring factors, got their tutus in a knot and couldn't just shut up and sit down to work out a compromise.

It had been done before. It was in the cards, even given Lincoln's election, to be done again. He was clear in his platform: where slavery existed, it would not be interefered with. Somewhere in there, it all fell apart. The promise was not good enough.

I have a problem with that. He said, and I'm certain that he meant it, that you just keep that as your dirty little secret, and we'll all just wait until slavery goes away. Apparently, that wasn't good enough. It wouldn't have been good enough whatever the results. Some had decided that secession was inevitable and they went from there. Lincoln was not the problem. It was not a secession because of Lincoln's election; it was a secession no matter what: we don't own the ball, we're not going to play. Today, that would be considered unAmerican. Some call it treason.

ole

I might suggest that you read Chapter X of Part One of THE RISE AND FALL OF THE CONFEDERATE GOVERNMENT by Jefferson Davis. It is on line with Project Gutenberg, and is a free read. Won't cost you a dime.

In it, you will be told that Lincoln and his 'party' were trying to contain Slavery in the South, and allow Northern Liberal (Blue State) Republican Party Abolitionism to establish itself out West, free of both Southrons and Negroes, and the period Conservatives, and indeed the Constitution of the United States, itself... as Davis says:

FROM RISE AND FALL, in re Dred Scott:

Instead of accepting the decision of this then august tribunal—the [pg 85] ultimate authority in the interpretation of constitutional questions—as conclusive of a controversy that had so long disturbed the peace and was threatening the perpetuity of the Union, it was flouted, denounced, and utterly disregarded by the Northern agitators, and served only to stimulate the intensity of their sectional hostility.

What resource for justice—what assurance of tranquillity—what guarantee of safety—now remained for the South? Still forbearing, still hoping, still striving for peace and union, we waited until a sectional President, nominated by a sectional convention, elected by a sectional vote—and that the vote of a minority of the people—was about to be inducted into office, under the warning of his own distinct announcement that the Union could not permanently endure "half slave and half free"; meaning thereby that it could not continue to exist in the condition in which it was formed and its Constitution adopted. The leader of his party, who was to be the chief of his Cabinet, was the man who had first proclaimed an "irrepressible conflict" between the North and the South, and who had declared that abolitionism, having triumphed in the Territories, would proceed to the invasion of the States. Even then the Southern people did not finally despair until the temper of the triumphant party had been tested in Congress and found adverse to any terms of reconciliation consistent with the honor and safety of all parties.

No alternative remained except to seek the security out of the Union which they had vainly tried to obtain within it. The hope of our people may be stated in a sentence. It was to escape from injury and strife in the Union, to find prosperity and peace out of it. The mode and principles of their action will next be presented.

End quotes:

Now, my question to you, Ole, is what could have been done by the North to prevent these hard feelings, and
this threat of insurrection, and these viewpoints?

The question of slavery is as relevant for the 94% who do not own slaves because of what is to be done with them after their release... and the crimes they shall be forced to commit against the countryside just to get enough to eat...

Your love of the Abolitionists c u m terrorists is charming, and indeed, can be seen as legitimately wanting the freedom of these negroes.

But there is a right way and a wrong way to free them.

The United States of America, like every great empire that ever lived, was built on Slavery. First White Slavery, which none of you wants to even talk about, and then Negro Slavery, which did much to civilize these people and
as Walter E. Williams said on SEAN HANNITY one evening, is accepted by Conservative blacks today as a type of blessing, from American blacks who visit Africa today, and the ones who "thank God their forefathers were brought over here as slaves..."

An American Negro's words, sir, not mine. Take it up with Mr. Williams. I heard it one night on the way home, and could do no follow up from the front seat of my car...

This astoundingly heavy weight you people put upon the South is not fair.

This Question of Honor you all are asking is moot: The government was threatening the safety and sanctity of the people. It was not a question of honor, but safety.

And, of course, invasion by the North. Without Constitutional authority to do so...

As Davis says in one of his subtitles for Chapter X.

SLAVERY NOT THE CAUSE.

Please. Read something else once in awhile.

Beowulf

[unionblue]

Originally Posted by Beowulf

I might suggest that you read Chapter X of Part One of THE RISE AND FALL OF THE CONFEDERATE GOVERNMENT by Jefferson Davis. It is on line with Project Gutenberg, and is a free read. Won't cost you a dime.

In it, you will be told that Lincoln and his 'party' were trying to contain Slavery in the South, and allow Northern Liberal (Blue State) Republican Party Abolitionism to establish itself out West, free of both Southrons and Negroes, and the period Conservatives, and indeed the Constitution of the United States, itself... as Davis says:

FROM RISE AND FALL, in re Dred Scott:

Instead of accepting the decision of this then august tribunal—the [pg 85] ultimate authority in the interpretation of constitutional questions—as conclusive of a controversy that had so long disturbed the peace and was threatening the perpetuity of the Union, it was flouted, denounced, and utterly disregarded by the Northern agitators, and served only to stimulate the intensity of their sectional hostility.

What resource for justice—what assurance of tranquillity—what guarantee of safety—now remained for the South? Still forbearing, still hoping, still striving for peace and union, we waited until a sectional President, nominated by a sectional convention, elected by a sectional vote—and that the vote of a minority of the people—was about to be inducted into office, under the warning of his own distinct announcement that the Union could not permanently endure "half slave and half free"; meaning thereby that it could not continue to exist in the condition in which it was formed and its Constitution adopted. The leader of his party, who was to be the chief of his Cabinet, was the man who had first proclaimed an "irrepressible conflict" between the North and the South, and who had declared that abolitionism, having triumphed in the Territories, would proceed to the invasion of the States. Even then the Southern people did not finally despair until the temper of the triumphant party had been tested in Congress and found adverse to any terms of reconciliation consistent with the honor and safety of all parties.

No alternative remained except to seek the security out of the Union which they had vainly tried to obtain within it. The hope of our people may be stated in a sentence. It was to escape from injury and strife in the Union, to find prosperity and peace out of it. The mode and principles of their action will next be presented.

End quotes:

Now, my question to you, Ole, is what could have been done by the North to prevent these hard feelings, and
this threat of insurrection, and these viewpoints?

The question of slavery is as relevant for the 94% who do not own slaves because of what is to be done with them after their release... and the crimes they shall be forced to commit against the countryside just to get enough to eat...

Your love of the Abolitionists c u m terrorists is charming, and indeed, can be seen as legitimately wanting the freedom of these negroes.

But there is a right way and a wrong way to free them.

The United States of America, like every great empire that ever lived, was built on Slavery. First White Slavery, which none of you wants to even talk about, and then Negro Slavery, which did much to civilize these people and
as Walter E. Williams said on SEAN HANNITY one evening, is accepted by Conservative blacks today as a type of blessing, from American blacks who visit Africa today, and the ones who "thank God their forefathers were brought over here as slaves..."

An American Negro's words, sir, not mine. Take it up with Mr. Williams. I heard it one night on the way home, and could do no follow up from the front seat of my car...

This astoundingly heavy weight you people put upon the South is not fair.

This Question of Honor you all are asking is moot: The government was threatening the safety and sanctity of the people. It was not a question of honor, but safety.

And, of course, invasion by the North. Without Constitutional authority to do so...

As Davis says in one of his subtitles for Chapter X.

SLAVERY NOT THE CAUSE.

In his post-war dreams.

Please. Read something else once in awhile.



Beowulf

Beowulf,

Read ANYTHING but what you have now, impress us with your own advice.

Unionblue

[Baggage Handler #2]

The simple answer would have been for the owners and their subjects to switch places for a couple generations.

By definition it would be "fair" and it would solve most of the problems identified in the preceding post.