Confederate War Aims

[Stone in the wall]

And the ships?

Forts, arsenals and ships--Northern money subsidizing the South. Was compensation paid? Taking someone else's property has a nasty name.

I take "subsidizing" here to mean "pick up the tab for". Did you intend it differently?

 

[Fairfield]

I take "subsidizing" here to mean "pick up the tab for". Did you intend it differently?

According to the dictionary, subsidizing means "to pay part of the cost of something"--not paying for the whole thing.

 

[Stone in the wall]

According to the dictionary, subsidizing means "to pay part of the cost of something"--not paying for the whole thing.

Miss understood, my bad.

 

[leftyhunter]

Which S

We get it, you told us half dozen times.

I never said the South didn't take it seriously.

Some repeatedly try to claim the North wanted Equality and Free Love. Murdering Natives, rejecting Black emigration, banning Chinese, Colonizing Northern Free Blacks, is neither.

Which Southern whites joyfully participated in doing a d didn't complain about it at the time it occurred.
Leftyhunter

 

[unionblue]

Even in a divorce the couple splits the dishes.

Yeah, I understand a divorce takes place in a court of law, not at gunpoint.

 

[leftyhunter]

Which S

We get it, you told us half dozen times.

I never said the South didn't take it seriously.

Some repeatedly try to claim the North wanted Equality and Free Love. Murdering Natives, rejecting Black emigration, banning Chinese, Colonizing Northern Free Blacks, is neither.

Which Southern whites joyfully participated in doing a d didn't complain about

Then why did it take 100 years for the Black Americans to have the same privileges as white Americans. You can't lay that on just the South.

That's modern politics but a good history book can help and yes Southern whites had something to do with it.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

Which S

We get it, you told us half dozen times.

I never said the South didn't take it seriously.

Some repeatedly try to claim the North wanted Equality and Free Love. Murdering Natives, rejecting Black emigration, banning Chinese, Colonizing Northern Free Blacks, is neither.

Which Southern whites joyfully participated in doing a d didn't complain about

Then why did it take 100 years for the Black Americans to have the same privileges as white Americans. You can't lay that on just the South.

That's modern politics but a good history book can help and yes Southern whites had something to do with it.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

The finger pointer's ensuring would be more convincing if they set a good example themselves before pointing fingers at other people. ​
"A meddling Yankee troubles himself about every body's matters except his own and repents of everybody's sins except his own." ​
General Daniel Harvey Hill ​

No Southern white fought to ensure racial equality at least well into the modern era. I can't go by what dead Confedates say there not my role model.
Leftyhunter

 

[Rebforever]

Which S

Which Southern whites joyfully participated in doing a d didn't complain about

That's modern politics but a good history book can help and yes Southern whites had something to do with it.
Leftyhunter

So did the Northern whites.

 

[Piedone]

I must admit that I deem the "the good, the bad and the ugly"-approach not very helpful. People were born into a certain society and (especially when the access to literacy and literature was not that easy) shared the ideas and beliefs of their environment. Of course we can identify people in history who followed a more modern and innovative and even moral course (and we do rightly praise such people) - but it seems somehow pointless to me to judge common people of another age / living in a totally different society as "bad".

But I am from Europe and have no direct experiences with eventual present time repercussions of (a willfully distorted) "lost cause"-picture of the South,
So maybe in an american forum it may be necessary to put up some resistance against such moves by emphasizing a critical view on the South...

 

[CSA Today]

No Southern white fought to ensure racial equality at least well into the modern era. I can't go by what dead Confedates say there not my role model.
Leftyhunter

I suggest a little reading on the subject and you should learn that virtually no one advocated racial equality in the 19th century, not even the abolitionists, Charles Sumner probably came the closest to it. I recommend as starters Leon Litwack's North of slavery. Unlike most leftist professors, Dr. Litwack tells both sides of the story. Litwack is or was a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and as far as I know, has never written an article for the Abbeville Institute.

 

[CSA Today]

Which S

Which Southern whites joyfully participated in doing a d didn't complain about it at the time it occurred.
Leftyhunter

Did Yankees? Did Californians?

 

[atlantis]

War aims can change and we see this with the confederacy what started out as secure independence became by April 65 securing reasonable terms in return for surrender.

 

[edfranksphd]

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.

The bill of rights do not include the 13th, 14th or 15th amendments, all of which were passed illegally, by extorting passage by the Southern states in exchange for allowing them back into the Union, despite the fact that for the entire war, the Lincoln admin maintained those states had never left the Union. West VA was illegally formed, or, if not, then CSA secession was not illegal. South was only more progressive in the very limited sense that they were happy to live with Blacks outnumbering them sometimes 3 to 1, as long, of course, as they were chattel slaves and not free, tough VA had about 300K Free blacks as I recall (based on 30 yr old memory). 14th amendment disenfranchised 100 of 1000s of Whites, and GOP operatives flooded the South registering Blacks by the millions, creating a GOP gold mine for the next 10 to 15 yrs. I'm pretty sure this isn't the kind of recon that Lincoln would have countenanced. Foner is right (usually), and brilliant, and I've read much of his work and heard his lectures, but the South surrendered once at Appomatox, again in 1867 when the new radically controlled Congress took power (had 2/3rds control), and then again in 1876, and then again in 1965, and now it's being made to surrender all over again, but this time to a set of law that, if imposed in April 65, might have guaranteed that the war would have continued?! And the South is not the only guilty party, as even Lincoln conceded in final inaugural. And, finally, as to who started the war, that depends on your definition of starting a war. SC, after months of patience, and despite Yankee duplicity (agreeing to depart, and then secretly rowing out to occupy ft sumter at the last minute with the intention on lincoln's part of forcing the south into firing the first shot), finally fired on Sumter and after 36 hours it was over with zero casualties. Lincoln sees his chance, and with Congress not in session, takes it upon himself to issue call for volunteers to suppress the insurrection, even from the many slave states that had yet to secede. By issuing this call, within a week became clear that he was, by that proclamation, going to double the size and strength of the CSA (VA, TN, NC, AK), with Missouri and Maryland and even southern Indiana hanging by a thread!! And then he marches and army of 30k troops into VA in July, and southern Missouri about the same time, thereby invading what the south saw as sovereign territory and shooting and killing 100s of people in the process. I ask you, then, who started the war? PGT Beau with his harmless cannonade of 36 hours that injured no one, or the invasion of the South by two Yankee armies (similar events likely around Paducah, but I dont recall them). Nobody said Lincoln was required to invade the South b/c of the loss of Sumter. Compared to the loss, at that point, of 7 Deep South states, Sumter was a drop in the bucket, and on of many US forts to have been overrun by then. Why start a war that kills the equivalent of 8 million in todays terms (prorated) over that, at least why the rush to war. He could've waited a few months, in which case the South might have remained at just the 7 original Deep South seceders, in which case the fervor might have begun to subside. But he never gave it chance. The South didn't start the war by seceding from the Union, the Union started the war to force the South back into the Union.

 

[edfranksphd]

Yet, many of those same Northerners supported and fought to Free those same slaves and make them U.S. Citizens.
It must t have been a very important cause in the War for such to fight against their own prejudices ... one might even say Noble.

At the time we didn't even have a concept of citizenship. Nobody was a US citizen per se, they were either native born or not. and being native born or not had nothing to do with whether you could vote, in many cases. Late in the war many Northern Democrats still fought, but as a percent of the able bodied population, that % was likely very low, which is why, by Jan 65, the million man Yankee army was about only 40% native born whites, with another 20% germans off the boat and into uniforms, 20% irish off the boat and into uniforms, and the rest blacks, freeborn and contraband. Northern Whites had long since volunteering for the slaughter, esp after the Overland Campaign.

 

[Old_Glory]

I suggest a little reading on the subject and you should learn that virtually no one advocated racial equality in the 19th century, not even the abolitionists, Charles Sumner probably came the closest to it. I recommend as starters Leon Litwack's North of slavery. Unlike most leftist professors, Dr. Litwack tells both sides of the story. Litwack is or was a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and as far as I know, has never written an article for the Abbeville Institute.

Agree 100%. Some famous, modern historians promote the idea though, so its hard to blame casual civil war followers that believe it. America was wrong on race in 1860, North or South. Varying degrees of wrong for sure, but very wrong overall. Anytime someone brings it up when discussing war aims, they have missed or overlooked almost everything about the War. It cheapens the Civil War and tries to drag it into our modern society rather than see it for what it was and when it was.

 

[Copperhead-mi]

At the time we didn't even have a concept of citizenship. Nobody was a US citizen per se, they were either native born or not.

This is incorrect. As early as 1795 the SCOTUS ruled on a citizenship case. The August 22, 1795 case of Talbot v. Janson, 3 U.S. 133 was basically about a Virginia citizen, William Talbot, who renounced his state citizenship but not his U.S. citizenship, became a citizen of France who in turn acting under the authority of the French Republic, captured a Dutch vessel off of Savannah, Georgia and brought it in to an American port for adjudication in a prize court. Justice William Paterson wrote the majority opinion and ruled that just because he renounced his Virginia citizenship and became a citizen of another country, he still was a citizen of the United States and owed loyalty to this country and that in effect he was an American citizen that had captured a ship that was not an enemy to the United States.

 

[leftyhunter]

Did Yankees? Did Californians?

California always had lots of Southeners. No Southern politican or civic group had a problem with US Indian policy in California or elsewhere.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

Did Yankees? Did Californians?

California always had lots of Southeners. No Southern politican or civic group had a problem with US Indian policy in California or elsewhere.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

Did Yankees? Did Californians?

California always had lots of Southeners. No Southern politican or civic group had a problem with US Indian policy in California or elsewhere.
Leftyhunter