Confederate War Aims

[mobile_96]

is "citizen" mentioned in the Constitution + Bill of Rights, let alone defined?

Constitution citizen 4, citizens 18
Before the war, not defined, but aferward defined in 14th Admendment,, Article 1 Passed June 13, 1866

Bill of rights, 0
DoI citizens, 1

 

[OpnCoronet]

Sorry for typo in my last sentence. I gather u saw that I meant that Northern Dems had long since QUIT volunteering for the war, esp after Grant's fiasco of the Overland Campaign, which convince Lincoln his goose was cooked for re-election in Nov, despite whatever schemes Stanton had up his sleeve (and he had many).

My response was to note that the post I was responding to was a side light to the OP and not really relevant to it. As is this one. The state of Union volunteerism in 1864, does not really apply to the question of Confederate War Aims. But, even if true, your fact here have no real relevance, IMO, without comparing it the state of volunteerism in the South.



P.S. As a matter of historical accuracy, through various political devices, by Federal, State and Local efforts, the majority of Union troops were volunteers. The same kind of efforts used by the confederacy in its attempts to increase its forces.

 

[edfranksphd]

Not clear on how this shows my claim to be incorrect. My point was that there was no criteria for US citizenship, per se, esp when it came to voting. In 1795, what were the criteria for US citizenship? The court doesn't say. It only says, it seems, that this native born guy was still a US citizen, I guess b/c he was native born? Was there a law ever passed by Congress before the end of the Civil War that stipulated the criteria for US citizenship. I don't think so. Can you send me a link for this case? Thank you.

Just for the record, I checked the Constitution of the Bill of Rights for citizen. I was wrong to say it doesn't even use the word, as it appears 12 times. But I was was RIGHT in that my main claim and the reason for this debate is my contention that these docs did absolutely nothing to DEFINE what it meant to be a citizen. It was apparently left up to the states, or maybe not even them, but it was certainly a topic NOT tackled in the Constitution of the Bill of Rights. Doing this search took 5'. Reading even the abstract to your 1795 case will take probaby 2 hours, so I thought I fire this off first. Ur feeble minded interlocutor.

 

[LetUsHavePeace]

I don't think we have yet answered the central question: why did the Confederacy immediately attack Washington, D.C. - either by cavalry raid or organized infantry assault? The lesson from America's own successful military experience - the Revolution, the Mexican War - was that a weaker force determined to strike first could succeed against the odds. Yet, the early efforts by the Confederacy were all made as part of a defensive strategy. Even the shocking triumph at Bull Run came as a defensive action against the invading Union Army.

 

[edfranksphd]

Many African Americans did emigrate outside the South. Many states never had Miscegenation Laws at any time such has NY. Yes many years after the ACW there were laws that limited Asian Immigration with no protest from Southern politicans or civic groups. Yes Indians were removed by force as they were in the South. No Southeners had any problems with that policy in the Nineteenth Century. If we critize Grant for not supporting a repeal of the racist Miscegenation Laws then to be fair we must also critize all states that had them including California although California got rid of it's Miscegenation Laws well before the South did and on its own accord something we say about the South.
Leftyhunter

Southeners are not in a position to critize anyone in regards to how they treated Indians as they themselves happily used violence to clear Indian's from their land. I have already documented that in my thread " the Confedracy was not nicer to the Indians". It's not a moral escape mechanism to point out the truth that the Confedracy was a white racist ideology and that Southern whites violated the constitutional rights of Southeners of color and it wasn't Southern whites who reversed racially discriminatory practices.
Leftyhunter

both north and south were racists against every non-WASP ethnicity antebellum. The only difference was over the institution of slavery. South embraced chattel slavery, North embraced wage slavery. Either way, if u were among the "slave" class, u lived a life of grinding poverty and hard work. get over it, yankee apologists, who do u think owned the ships the carried the slaves to the western hemisphere, before and after 1807 and 1833?

 

[edfranksphd]

I don't think we have yet answered the central question: why did the Confederacy immediately attack Washington, D.C. - either by cavalry raid or organized infantry assault? The lesson from America's own successful military experience - the Revolution, the Mexican War - was that a weaker force determined to strike first could succeed against the odds. Yet, the early efforts by the Confederacy were all made as part of a defensive strategy. Even the shocking triumph at Bull Run came as a defensive action against the invading Union Army.

b/c jeff davis made it clear from day one that the CSA wanted no war and only wanted to leave the Union in peace. attacking DC right off the bat would have put a slight ding in the credibility of Davis's argument, no?!

 

[jackt62]

South embraced chattel slavery, North embraced wage slavery

This is a false equivalence that was often used by southern slave owners to justify the existence of chattel slavery. No matter how onerous the life of a northern wage worker, it did not include forced family separations, the denial of marriage rights, the use of the lash and other barbaric devices to impose discipline, slave patrols, a prohibition of education and literacy, and the forced and widespread abuse of females.

 

[leftyhunter]

N

both north and south were racists against every non-WASP ethnicity antebellum. The only difference was over the institution of slavery. South embraced chattel slavery, North embraced wage slavery. Either way, if u were among the "slave" class, u lived a life of grinding poverty and hard work. get over it, yankee apologists, who do u think owned the ships the carried the slaves to the western hemisphere, before and after 1807 and 1833?

Not true at all. My high school was intergrated over a hundred years ago long before Southern high schools. LAPD had an African American police captain long before Southern police departments allowed AA Officers.
My Great Grand Parents were low paid immigrant workers but they could move where ever they could afford and their children could go to school and their wives and daughters weren't plaything for their boss like AA woman were so no it's not the same.
Leftyhunter

 

[atlantis]

In the declaration that a state of hostilities existed between the CSA/USA is there a war aim.

 

[unionblue]

b/c jeff davis made it clear from day one that the CSA wanted no war and only wanted to leave the Union in peace. attacking DC right off the bat would have put a slight ding in the credibility of Davis's argument, no?!

@edfranksphd ,

Sorry, but the CSA was committing numerous acts of war long before even Lincoln was sworn in as President and way before Ft. Sumter was fired on.

Davis inherited all of those acts even before any consideration was made to attack Washington, D.C.

Unionblue

 

[beverett]

I think Davis said that All the confederacy wanted was to be left alone to live under their own govt and enjoy their peculiar and unique way of life as they saw fit, that it had no ambitions outside their own borders, but to enjoy peaceful relations and trade with all the world who would. I would not argue that this was not accurate enough of their intent.

Unfortunately the confederacys intended goal, required its rending apart the fabric or an already existing Nation, of which the South was an integral part, without its consent, to accomplish.

I wouldn't agree with the "peculiar and unique way of life". There way of life had been the norm. Maybe the South was lagging a bit. Mechanization would've changed the slave system dramatically. Should Lincoln have tried other means to solve the issue? The mechanical cotton picker was already invented just not mass produced. Perhaps it was more of a Northern issue than we realize.

 

[Rebforever]

I wouldn't agree with the "peculiar and unique way of life". There way of life had been the norm. Maybe the South was lagging a bit. Mechanization would've changed the slave system dramatically. Should Lincoln have tried other means to solve the issue? The mechanical cotton picker was already invented just not mass produced. Perhaps it was more of a Northern issue than we realize.

More of a Lincoln issue for sure. He want to save his "impost".

 

[unionblue]

More of a Lincoln issue for sure. He want to save his "impost".

Disproven more than once on this forum.

 

[unionblue]

I wouldn't agree with the "peculiar and unique way of life". There way of life had been the norm. Maybe the South was lagging a bit. Mechanization would've changed the slave system dramatically. Should Lincoln have tried other means to solve the issue? The mechanical cotton picker was already invented just not mass produced. Perhaps it was more of a Northern issue than we realize.

@beverett ,

It was a "peculiar and unique way of life" to the outsiders who toured the slaveholding South, both from up North and from other countries. Reading some of their accounts is quite an eye-opener.

What other means should Lincoln have tried? He and members of the Republican Party stated they had no intention, nor right, even under the Constitution, to interfere with slavery where it already existed. Southern slaveholders were given 3/5ths of extra votes for each of their slaves, giving the South political power in the US government all out of proportion with the number of white voters. Lincoln had won a free and fair election. Should he have went back on his party's platform and promise to the voters to keep slavery out of the federal territories simply because he HAD won the election?

You might also want to check on whether the mechanical cotton picker "was already invented" in 1860. It is my own understanding from other member's posts here that the first truly mechanical cotton picker was not produced and in use until the mid-20th century.

Slavery was the issue and that issue was firmly rooted in the slaveholding South.

Unionblue

PS: Found out about mechanical cotton pickers. Hat tip to @trice :

Rust Cotton Picker demonstrated in 1936.
International Harvester introduced the first commercially successful cotton picker in 1944.
Allis-Chalmers Company introduces their cotton picker after WWII.

 

[beverett]

@beverett ,

It was a "peculiar and unique way of life" to the outsiders who toured the slaveholding South, both from up North and from other countries. Reading some of their accounts is quite an eye-opener.

What other means should Lincoln have tried? He and members of the Republican Party stated they had no intention, nor right, even under the Constitution, to interfere with slavery where it already existed. Southern slaveholders were given 3/5ths of extra votes for each of their slaves, giving the South political power in the US government all out of proportion with the number of white voters. Lincoln had won a free and fair election. Should he have went back on his party's platform and promise to the voters to keep slavery out of the federal territories simply because he HAD won the election?

You might also want to check on whether the mechanical cotton picker "was already invented" in 1860. It is my own understanding from other member's posts here that the first truly mechanical cotton picker was not produced and in use until the mid-20th century.

Slavery was the issue and that issue was firmly rooted in the slaveholding South.

Unionblue

PS: Found out about mechanical cotton pickers. Hat tip to @trice :

Rust Cotton Picker demonstrated in 1936.
International Harvester introduced the first commercially successful cotton picker in 1944.
Allis-Chalmers Company introduces their cotton picker after WWII.

I believe the mechanical cotton harvester had a patent issued in 1850 to a couple of guys whose name I've forgotten. My understanding is there were problems with the picker making it not a viable solution with its design therefore no one would invest. My thought is couldn't or shouldn't Lincoln have convened a group to perfect the design for cotton and other ag crops cultivators? May not have prevented the most costly war but who knows!

 

[unionblue]

I believe the mechanical cotton harvester had a patent issued in 1850 to a couple of guys whose name I've forgotten. My understanding is there were problems with the picker making it not a viable solution with its design therefore no one would invest. My thought is couldn't or shouldn't Lincoln have convened a group to perfect the design for cotton and other ag crops cultivators? May not have prevented the most costly war but who knows!

I believe the patent was earlier than that, (1839 or 1849?) but proved to be unworkable.

So, you are of the opinion the President of the United States should come up with a better design for a cotton picker? I do know he did have a patent already on file for something to do with boats on the river or some such, but don't you think it a bit of a stretch to hold Lincoln responsible for cotton picking machine improvements?

Too bad that slaveholders didn't push for such developments in the picking of their cotton, but then, they already had a tried and true (and cheap) method for picking their cotton, didn't they?

Unionblue

 

[edfranksphd]

N

Not true at all. My high school was intergrated over a hundred years ago long before Southern high schools. LAPD had an African American police captain long before Southern police departments allowed AA Officers.
My Great Grand Parents were low paid immigrant workers but they could move where ever they could afford and their children could go to school and their wives and daughters weren't plaything for their boss like AA woman were so no it's not the same.
Leftyhunter

I disagree completely and forgive me if I do not find your anecdotes compelling.

 

[edfranksphd]

This is a false equivalence that was often used by southern slave owners to justify the existence of chattel slavery. No matter how onerous the life of a northern wage worker, it did not include forced family separations, the denial of marriage rights, the use of the lash and other barbaric devices to impose discipline, slave patrols, a prohibition of education and literacy, and the forced and widespread abuse of females.

I didn't say the were equivalent; the point is that they both resulted in extremely unjust, uncomfortable, difficult, qualities of life, tho, ironically, the avg life expectancy and health of slaves was higher than it was for the avg wage slave in the North (b/c they had to provide for their own room and board, unlike slaves, who their owners had much incentive to keep healthy as they were very valuable as chattel property, and in many cases they were the collateral for bank loans that had been used by the property owner to purchase the slave in the first place!). As for punishment, do you really think the northern wage slave was spared barbaric punishment simply b/c he/she was "free?!" Life was hard for just about everyone back then, whatever the legal status.

 

[jackt62]

Life was hard for just about everyone back then, whatever the legal status

Well that's an accurate statement. But I would still not compare chattel slavery with so-called northern "wage slavery." The differences were too great to draw any reasonable analogy between them. Moreover, the conditions that prevailed for northern workers were not at all consistent, ranging from skilled laborers and mechanics who could command greater flexibility in their working environments, to unskilled workers who at least had the option of changing their circumstances, one of the factors that played a role in the large emigration of persons westward during the 1850's.

 

[atlantis]

The aims were pretty basic, secure the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the confederacy. Also to uphold and defend the CS constitution against enemies both foreign and domestic.