Discussion Confederate War Aims

edfranksphd

Private
Joined
Aug 30, 2019
Agreed that much of northern opposition to slavery was not because they espoused civil rights for African Americans but rather because the free soil movement argued that a slave society depressed wages and opportunities for white men. That being said, I would never claim that the south was "more progressive" when it came to race. Both north and south were guilty in their treatment of the Black population with the difference being the additional oppressive burden of slavery that existed in the states in which it was still lawful.
i think we agree but let me clarify. the South was guilty of slavery, and probably that required most of them to be racist in order to justify the righteousness of it, but they didn't mind being awash in blacks, esp in the deep South, but the North was guilty of both plain old greed (they didn't want to have to compete with slave farms and/or companies that could always undersell them) AND racism (not wanting to live near blacks, whether slave OR free). Whites in the South were dropped into a vast sea of slaves, at their own choosing, whereas Whites in the North had no Blacks to deal with, as the free ones often kept moving to Canada so that the actual % of northern population was likely well below 5%, vs 40 to 50% for the seceded South?
 

John S. Carter

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Agreed that much of northern opposition to slavery was not because they espoused civil rights for African Americans but rather because the free soil movement argued that a slave society depressed wages and opportunities for white men. That being said, I would never claim that the south was "more progressive" when it came to race. Both north and south were guilty in their treatment of the Black population with the difference being the additional oppressive burden of slavery that existed in the states in which it was still lawful.
The New York draft riots offer proof of feelings toward the blacks. Then there is Lincoln's fear that once free that the races would not be able to live in this country together. He and the administration attempted to find countries as Africa or even islands of the Caribbean to which to relocate the free black. I do not know if that included the free black of the North. Similar to the one that Monroe attempted during his administration {Monroeville is a city in Africa named after him}.What changed was the moral issue of the black having fought in the war changed Lincoln's thoughts concerning this. But could you explain what is meant by ''progressive" thinking or action. I do not see such action as progressive more of a moral principle, as maybe Lincoln would have.
Please to explain how slavery in the South is STILL lawful. The South has carried this mark of Cain since the end of the was. If it is not slavery it is starting the war. The 13TH,14TH,and 15th amendments resolved issues that were left to be after the war>{The Second Founding, How the Civil War and Reconstruction remade the Constitution} author Eric Foner Then there is the Bill of Rights which solidifies those rights for all. The sins of the father are not inherited by the children.
 

atlantis

First Sergeant
Joined
Nov 12, 2016
After the twin defeats of Gettysburg/Vicksburg was there a path to victory for the prime aim of independence.
 

John S. Carter

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
After the twin defeats of Gettysburg/Vicksburg was there a path to victory for the prime aim of independence.
Only if the European countries were to ship the Confedercery military ordinance and troops. Which could mean declaration of war against the North .What would be the chance of this ?
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
Many in North were opposed to slavery not b/c they hated slavery but b/c they hated Blacks and didn't want a country in which in would be possible for free blacks and whites to live side by side!? This was esp true among northern democrats, Copperheads. if so, then, yes, the south WAS more progressive when it came to race, ironically, and, of course, this is not intended to justify in any way the peculiar institution of chattel slavery.
Lynchings and Jim Crow Laws Post ACW argue otherwise.
Leftyhunter
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
Many in North were opposed to slavery not b/c they hated slavery but b/c they hated Blacks and didn't want a country in which in would be possible for free blacks and whites to live side by side!? This was esp true among northern democrats, Copperheads. if so, then, yes, the south WAS more progressive when it came to race, ironically, and, of course, this is not intended to justify in any way the peculiar institution of chattel slavery.
Lynchings and Jim Crow Laws Post ACW argue otherwise.
Leftyhunter
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
Only if the European countries were to ship the Confedercery military ordinance and troops. Which could mean declaration of war against the North .What would be the chance of this ?
The Confedracy never had a problem of finding willing weapons sellers with the partial exception of the Laird Ram Affair and the unwillingness of the French to sell the war ship " Stonewall " to the Confedracy but the Confedracy purchased it via third party transfer. The problem for the Confedracy was all sales were cash and carry and by at least mid war had to be in an internationally convertible currency or specie. Also if course there was at least a ten percent chance of the weapons being confiscated by the USN.
Leftyhunter
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
Only if the European countries were to ship the Confedercery military ordinance and troops. Which could mean declaration of war against the North .What would be the chance of this ?
The Confedracy never had a problem of finding willing weapons sellers with the partial exception of the Laird Ram Affair and the unwillingness of the French to sell the war ship " Stonewall " to the Confedracy but the Confedracy purchased it via third party transfer. The problem for the Confedracy was all sales were cash and carry and by at least mid war had to be in an internationally convertible currency or specie. Also if course there was at least a ten percent chance of the weapons being confiscated by the USN.
Leftyhunter
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
Only if the European countries were to ship the Confedercery military ordinance and troops. Which could mean declaration of war against the North .What would be the chance of this ?
The Confedracy never had a problem of finding willing weapons sellers with the partial exception of the Laird Ram Affair and the unwillingness of the French to sell the war ship " Stonewall " to the Confedracy but the Confedracy purchased it via third party transfer. The problem for the Confedracy was all sales were cash and carry and by at least mid war had to be in an internationally convertible currency or specie. Also if course there was at least a ten percent chance of the weapons being confiscated by the USN.
Leftyhunter
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
Only if the European countries were to ship the Confedercery military ordinance and troops. Which could mean declaration of war against the North .What would be the chance of this ?
The Confedracy never had a problem of finding willing weapons sellers with the partial exception of the Laird Ram Affair and the unwillingness of the French to sell the war ship " Stonewall " to the Confedracy but the Confedracy purchased it via third party transfer. The problem for the Confedracy was all sales were cash and carry and by at least mid war had to be in an internationally convertible currency or specie. Also if course there was at least a ten percent chance of the weapons being confiscated by the USN.
Leftyhunter
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
Only if the European countries were to ship the Confedercery military ordinance and troops. Which could mean declaration of war against the North .What would be the chance of this ?
The Confedracy never had a problem of finding willing weapons sellers with the partial exception of the Laird Ram Affair and the unwillingness of the French to sell the war ship " Stonewall " to the Confedracy but the Confedracy purchased it via third party transfer. The problem for the Confedracy was all sales were cash and carry and by at least mid war had to be in an internationally convertible currency or specie. Also if course there was at least a ten percent chance of the weapons being confiscated by the USN.
Leftyhunter
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
Only if the European countries were to ship the Confedercery military ordinance and troops. Which could mean declaration of war against the North .What would be the chance of this ?
The Confedracy never had a problem of finding willing weapons sellers with the partial exception of the Laird Ram Affair and the unwillingness of the French to sell the war ship " Stonewall " to the Confedracy but the Confedracy purchased it via third party transfer. The problem for the Confedracy was all sales were cash and carry and by at least mid war had to be in an internationally convertible currency or specie. Also if course there was at least a ten percent chance of the weapons being confiscated by the USN.
Leftyhunter
Why don't talk to them about changing the topic? The topic is Confederate war aims not social changes.
War aims and social changes are the same thing. Fear of miscegenation was frequently cited by pro Secessionists.
Leftyhunter
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
Only if the European countries were to ship the Confedercery military ordinance and troops. Which could mean declaration of war against the North .What would be the chance of this ?
The Confedracy never had a problem of finding willing weapons sellers with the partial exception of the Laird Ram Affair and the unwillingness of the French to sell the war ship " Stonewall " to the Confedracy but the Confedracy purchased it via third party transfer. The problem for the Confedracy was all sales were cash and carry and by at least mid war had to be in an internationally convertible currency or specie. Also if course there was at least a ten percent chance of the weapons being confiscated by the USN.
Leftyhunter
Why don't talk to them about changing the topic? The topic is Confederate war aims not social changes.
War aims and social changes are the same thing. Fear of miscegenation was frequently cited by pro Secessionists.
Leftyhunter
 
Joined
Jun 27, 2017
The South would not wait for the these territories to become states in order that the North become stronger and therefore have greater political control in Congress. There was also the thought that these states were not suitable for agriculture. That was the reason that the South had filibusters sent to the Caribbean to attempt to possible annex those islands and even Mexico. Those islands were suitable for the plantation system. How close they came would be interesting to know. This was no different than Northeast desiring to move into Canada .How many attempts were made ? The political leaders were fearful,with the attitude of the North and West becoming more hostel towards the slavery and the South generally , that to wait would risk their own way of life with NORTH assuming the mantel of authority in Washington. Then there was the fact that the emotions of the people over years of feelings of hostility that the North had expressed towards the South's particular life style and with the election of "that Black Republican" this would be the ideal time. Secession was their political banner that they would carry believing that they had the authority to bring their states to this act, and convincing the states they dd .
That's the point. All the South had to do was to say NO. Look at how states were admitted to the Union over the previous half century--one slave for one free. There is no legal mandate that requires a territory is entitled to become a state, not matter how large its population has become.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
The Confedracy never had a problem of finding willing weapons sellers with the partial exception of the Laird Ram Affair and the unwillingness of the French to sell the war ship " Stonewall " to the Confedracy but the Confedracy purchased it via third party transfer. The problem for the Confedracy was all sales were cash and carry and by at least mid war had to be in an internationally convertible currency or specie. Also if course there was at least a ten percent chance of the weapons being confiscated by the USN.
Leftyhunter

War aims and social changes are the same thing. Fear of miscegenation was frequently cited by pro Secessionists.
Leftyhunter
Southerners seceded because they thought the racist Lincoln was going to force miscegenation on them?🙄
 

uaskme

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Location
SE Tennessee
The Confedracy never had a problem of finding willing weapons sellers with the partial exception of the Laird Ram Affair and the unwillingness of the French to sell the war ship " Stonewall " to the Confedracy but the Confedracy purchased it via third party transfer. The problem for the Confedracy was all sales were cash and carry and by at least mid war had to be in an internationally convertible currency or specie. Also if course there was at least a ten percent chance of the weapons being confiscated by the USN.
Leftyhunter

War aims and social changes are the same thing. Fear of miscegenation was frequently cited by pro Secessionists.
Leftyhunter

Cotton was as close to specie as you could get. The reason for the embargo, Keeping the South from shipping Cotton. Lincoln tried to procure all the Cotton he could get. Traded the Confederacy for arms and food. Took the Cotton and sold some of it to England for Gold. Used the Gold to pay the coupon on Yankee Bonds. Also Confederacy had a 5 million bond backed by Cotton.

The North was never going to allow the Cotton States to Direct Trade with England. Prime reason they wouldn’t let their Economy Secede.

Yankees had a unique solution to miscegenation. Have a exclusive Lilly White society. Yankees ran off, sold South and Excluded Blacks. Fought a Race War to get rid of Native Americans. Eventually Banned Asians. All threats to thier Exclusive White Supremacist Society.
 

jackt62

Captain
Joined
Jul 28, 2015
Location
New York City
But could you explain what is meant by ''progressive" thinking or action.
Since I was quoting another post, I put the term progressive in quotation marks. That being said, I would say the term refers to a more enlightened view on race relations than existed in both north and south during the 19th century. Meaning full and equal civil rights for people of all races.
 

jackt62

Captain
Joined
Jul 28, 2015
Location
New York City
After the twin defeats of Gettysburg/Vicksburg was there a path to victory for the prime aim of independence.
Practically speaking, no. But if Lincoln did not win re-election in 1864 and McClellan became President, it might have offered some kind of pathway to achieving southern aims, although not independence. McClellan, as a War Democrat, believed in preserving slavery and restoring the Union. So if the southern goal was simply to attain independence, that likelihood had already started to slip away after the Union breakthrough in the west in 1862.
 

John S. Carter

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Since I was quoting another post, I put the term progressive in quotation marks. That being said, I would say the term refers to a more enlightened view on race relations than existed in both north and south during the 19th century. Meaning full and equal civil rights for people of
 

John S. Carter

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
The North had one concept of equal rights which limited free blacks. along with Irish and Jews. The South equal rights were to just to whites with the aristocracy having addional and , slave zero.. As to equal that has always be a word that has been interpreted according to the courts. in different periods of this country's history each with a different interpretation. What is equal? DO not forget the Ladies.! as Abigale Adams wrote John. Now that is a struggle for equal rights!
 
Top