Oops, big lump of your posts....

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Apr 8, 2018
Messages
937
Location
Coffeeville, TX
I'm not sure Kingdom would have been more honest from a European point-of-view. Mexico is larger than most European kingdoms, and its size was certainly comparable to that of the Austrian Empire Maximillian had come from. Plus as it has already been stated Mexico had been an Empire in the past, though considerably larger.

As for recognition, I'm not sure who all recognized the 2nd Mexican Empire with Maximillian on it's throne. But I think I may have an idea who all probably would have.

2nd French Empire- It was Napoleon III's idea...

Austrian Empire- Maximillian's brother and Emperor till his death in WW1 Franz Josef cautiously gave his blessing and allowed the formation of the Austrian Volunteer Corps as Maximillian's body guards.

Kingdom of Belgium- Maximillian's wife, Charlotte or Carlota, was of the royal household and the Belgian Legion for her and Maximillian's protection. French Marshal Bazaine was accused of being responsible for the Belgian Legion being massacred Tacambaro by Carlota.

German Confederation- As Austria was the head of the Confederation, and usually demanded subservience from it to her actions, I would imagine it's a safe bet all the nations of it recognized Maximillian, including the vaunted Kingdom of Prussia which would put an end to Austria's dominance and the Confederation in 1866

Outside of them I'm not certain who recognized him and the Empire. As for Britain and Spain who had initiated the Mexican intervention with France they had pulled out after it became clear Napoleon III had his own agenda outside of forcing Mexico to honor its debt and had pulled out of Vera Cruz before yellow fever struck hard and made a deal with Juarez on repayment of Mexico's debt. So I'm not completely sure if they recognized Maximillian or not as they still had dealings with the Republic.

To be honest I'm not sure the C.S.A. recognized him, I know it was offered on conditions like Confederate recognition, but I don't know if it was ever done.

That conflict in Mexico is truly a sad one, Maximillian had good intentions and wanted to do right by Mexico. It was said he was too liberal for the conservatives, and too conservative for the liberals. Juarez and their so-called Republican forces were actually more guilty of atrocity than Maximillian, who infuriated Bazaine and the French on a daily basis for his pardoning of convicted Juaristas awaiting a firing squad, which shortly after they were pardoned by Maximillian they went right back to being Juaristas. It's worth noting that during their last stand during the Siege of Quaretaro there are accounts of Maximillian going to enlisted men asking them for a light or what not just to talk to them, and he would give them money for after it was all over, something unheard of for well bred royal types in the 19th Century. The naïve would be Emperor even gave the firing squad who killed him gold pesos telling them he forgave them and wanted them to live on, and only aske they shoot for his heart so his "mother could look upon his face" with the screwy part of being the firing squad then made a point to shoot him in the face! Yep the tale of the 2nd Mexican Empire is a tragic if screwed up one, one where the conservative monarch was more republican than the supposed freedom fighters who fit the bill of despots far more than the man who was claimed to be a despotic puppet.
 

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)

Potomac Pride

First Sergeant
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Messages
1,605
Location
Georgia
That's not true...a lot of black people economically still feels the affects of their ancestors being slaves because poverty can be inherited just like wealth.

As in 1932 when president Roosevelt asked for a study as to why the south was so economically poor, he was shocked when the report came back concluding that "the South in 1932, still after 67 years later, had not recovered from the disastrous effects of the civil war."

Then how do expect the overall black people's economic power today to have recovered from slavery in just 150 years.

Reconstruction was never the idea of "rebuilding the south from war damages"...reconstruction was the idea of integrating the former slaves into communities of American citizens (because as slaves they had no community...as their families were be sold apart, no rights to gather, no right to education).

Reconstruction failed because both Northern and Southern whites conspired to deny the integration of the black people into the American society for over 100 years or more after the civil war.

Slavery was not a myth, it was not a social experiment, it was a crime against human victims.
Thanks for your comments but I was talking only about the legend of the Lost Cause and not the war itself.
 
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
8,733
Location
District of Columbia
I think "American mythology" served us well, and the more we tear apart the past and the people of the past, the more we tear ourselves apart as well. Just my opinion, looking around at the landscape. There's probably a better path than we've followed in the past and are following today, but we don't seem to have found it yet. I don't see people attempting to come to any sort of mutual understanding.
In talking about problems with prior versions of the past, most of the people I talk to are black southerners. Many are angry that for so long, for example, the harshness of slavery, or their ancestor's agency in achieving the end of slavery, was kept out of southern history books. Something of a "peace" was achieved, but it was built on a house of cards. There is now a pent-up demand to create an accurate representation of the the past, and that does conflict with "traditional" views. The delay in dealing with the problem has probably made conflict resolution harder to achieve.

I do agree that we haven't found a better path that is mutually likable among all parties. One thing I do tell people is that history is not the home of happy endings. We can't expect a past that's going to make us "happy" or "proud" but that's what many people seem to want from the past. It's a self-defeating proposition.

- Alan
 
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
8,733
Location
District of Columbia
It is way too simplistic to say that the common soldier of the Confederacy, the great majority of whom were not slave owners, risked their life solely to preserve the institution of slavery. The many reasons for the war have been discussed in great detail on this forum and many good points have been stated. Was the main cause of the war about slavery -- perhaps for the politicians and the wealthy landowners it was. However, I venture to say that if you asked the everyday citizen of the South during this time why he was going to war, I bet he or she would state something other than slavery as their main cause. For many, I think it was simply because they wanted to protect their homeland and wanted to govern themselves without Northern influence.
When historians say that slavery was the "root" cause of the war, they are not saying that the common soldier risked his life to protect slavery.

"Common soldiers" rarely control events, it's the elites who do. Edited. Although certainly, soldiers in the 1860s were more in touch with the issues involved in secession than soldiers in the 1960s were in touch in global politics.

- Alan
 

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
11,337
I think this is a bit of a generalization. Statistics show that the Republican/Democratic split in New Jersey was more of a North Jersey/South Jersey thing. South and southwest of Monmouth, all counties except Gloucester voted for Lincoln in 1860 (including some of the most rural areas of the state). Monmouth and all counties to the north and northwest, save Morris and Passaic, voted for the Fusion. In 1864, the North/South split was even more pronounced, with all counties south of Mercer and Monmouth voting for Lincoln, and those two counties plus all counties to the north voting for McClellan. This would support your assertion that the state’s “anti-war” concentration may very well have been centered around Bergen County. It is also consistent with the reality that slavery in New Jersey, when it did exist as a legal institution, was heavily concentrated in North Jersey. Heavy Quaker influence in South Jersey largely precluded slavery gaining a foothold as an institution in the region in colonial times.
I am not sure when he moved there, but McClellan lived in Maywood after the Civil War (on the RR coming up through Hackensack). Bergen County was pretty sparsely settled farm country at that point. The Hackensack and New York RR had reached Hackensack by 1858, but wasn't up to Hillsdale until 1870.

Paterson in Passaic is only a few miles away from Hackensack and was one of the great pre-Civil War industrial cities of the US. Boonton Iron Works had been around since the 1770s and got bigger when the Morris Canal was built around 1830. Ringwood Iron Works had forged the Great Chain for West Point in the Revolution. Down in Allaire, the engine for Robert Fulton's Claremont was built at James Allaire's works. NJ iron production was generally bog iron, suffering from British competition/dumping after the Crimean War, and thus strong supporters were abundant in those areas for the Morrill Tariff in the election of 1860. I've never looked, but you might find strong support along the Delaware River as well, since that would tie the population to PA/Philadelphia interests. (NJ iron works were important contributors to the Union war effort -- Allaire supplied the engines for at least 17 Union warships, being owned by Cornelius Vanderbilt -- but many died out after the Civil War.)

Many of the manufacturers of cheap goods for the slaves of "the South" were in Brooklyn and the area around Bayonne, NJ (companies that it appeared the Confederacy was going to default debt payments to in early 1861).

If you haven't already seen it, you might want to take a peak at the New Jersey and the Civil War page on NewJerseyAlmanac.com where you'll find this paragraph:

The state's emerging industrial sector also provided needed support for the War. Charles Hewitt’s Trenton Iron Works made 1,000 musket barrels a week at the height of the war; textile factories in Paterson and Newark produced hundreds of thousands of uniforms; and former cutlery manufacturers in Trenton converted their production to supply thousands of swords and bayonets. Paterson’s Rogers, Ketchum and Grosvenor Locomotive Works built many of the railroad engines and locomotives that transported troops and supplies; its locomotive The General was the subject of the famous chase in 1862 when it was seized in northern Georgia by Union spies and Army volunteers in civilian clothes and driven to Tennessee to damage the railroad along its path while pursued by Confederates, with seven of the raiders, including its leader James Andrews, later caught and hung as spies.​
 

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
11,337
Interesting, as so many New Jersey regiments are notable for their valor and distinguished service (i.e., the 12th New Jersey at Gettysburg, the 33rd New Jersey at Chattanooga, etc). However, as Bergen County was one of the areas of greatest resistance to emancipation in NJ decades earlier, it is not entirely surprising that lack of enthusiasm for the war in the state would have been concentrated in that area.
For anyone interested in such matters, there is a truly excellent book called Remember You Are Jerseymen: A Military History of Jerseys Troops in the Civil War by Joseph G. Bilby and William C. Goble covering all the units raised in New Jersey for the Civil War. There is a chapter of each regiment of infantry or cavalry and (I think) for each artillery battery.
 

jackt62

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Jul 28, 2015
Messages
3,133
Location
New York City
I would say that it was more of a war between the salient concept of what the Republican party stood for (confining slavery to its existing borders), and what the southern wing of the Democratic party stood for (expansion of slavery to the territories). That after all, was what triggered the secession of the southern states after Lincoln's election.
 

Pat Young

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Forum Host
Featured Book Reviewer
Joined
Jan 7, 2013
Messages
30,151
Location
Long Island, NY
After the war, there was initially much resentment of Northern Democrats by Southern Democrats because only a minority of them had been Copperheads. There was a lot of mistrust of the Northern Democrats and the party really was only reunited in 1868.

The II Corps was so heavily urban Democratic that a recent history refers to it as the Democratic Corps.
 

Old_Glory

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Sep 26, 2010
Messages
2,906
Location
NC
“The Northerner, with his Treasury of Virtue, feels redeemed by history, automatically redeemed. He has in his pocket, not a Papal indulgence peddled by some wandering pardoner of the Middle Ages, but an indulgence, a plenary indulgence, for all sins past, present, and future, freely given by the hand of history."
Thank you CSA. The belief that it was all about slavery is 100% about feeling redeemed from their own sins and painting the North as heroes to point the blame to someone else.
 

uaskme

Sergeant Major
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
1,970
That's not true...a lot of black people economically still feels the affects of their ancestors being slaves because poverty can be inherited just like wealth.

As in 1932 when president Roosevelt asked for a study as to why the south was so economically poor, he was shocked when the report came back concluding that "the South in 1932, still after 67 years later, had not recovered from the disastrous effects of the civil war."

Then how do expect the overall black people's economic power today to have recovered from slavery in just 150 years.

Reconstruction was never the idea of "rebuilding the south from war damages"...reconstruction was the idea of integrating the former slaves into communities of American citizens (because as slaves they had no community...as their families were be sold apart, no rights to gather, no right to education).

Reconstruction failed because both Northern and Southern whites conspired to deny the integration of the black people into the American society for over 100 years or more after the civil war.

Slavery was not a myth, it was not a social experiment, it was a crime against human victims.

Maybe one failure of Reconstruction, was the failure not to Invest in the South post war. All of the Investment when to the West. The South had been decimated. Northern thought was that the South would quickly bounce back. Planters didn't have the Capital to do it. Black and White suffered and recovery was slow.

The North had their own problems with Social Integration. Free Labor during this period, Both North and South was less than free. Abolitionist Thought didn’t work out like they expected. Hirelings in the North had the same problems that X Slaves and others did in the South . Free Labor was more like, getting Labor as close to Free as possible. Instead of the Lincoln era theory of Free Labor. Piece meal jobs and landless Farmers change that concept.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
5,788
Location
Texas
Thank you CSA. The belief that it was all about slavery is 100% about feeling redeemed from their own sins and painting the North as heroes to point the blame to someone else.
The South seceded for slavery, started a war to gain independence for continued slavery, the North didn't! That makes the North a hero in the story of our history, they saved the Union, AND quashed slavery.

Kevin Dally
 
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
8,733
Location
District of Columbia
Thank you CSA. The belief that it was all about slavery is 100% about feeling redeemed from their own sins and painting the North as heroes to point the blame to someone else.
Northerners did not feel a need to be "redeemed from their sins." In their minds they were already heroes who preserved the Union against the insurrection of traitors. To them it was southerners who needed redemption.

- Alan
 

DanSBHawk

First Sergeant
Joined
May 8, 2015
Messages
1,208
Location
Wisconsin
I think it should be kept in mind that the cause of the war was not determined after the war by anyone.

And the cause of the war was not determined by those reacting to the rebellion (like Lincoln).

The cause of the war was determined by those who chose to try to secede and chose to start shooting. They made the actual cause very clear as to why they were doing these things. It was only after the fact that they tried to change the cause, and hence the Lost Cause excuse.
 

Potomac Pride

First Sergeant
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Messages
1,605
Location
Georgia
Thank you CSA. The belief that it was all about slavery is 100% about feeling redeemed from their own sins and painting the North as heroes to point the blame to someone else.
In his book, "The Legacy of the Civil War", Robert Penn Warren discussed the Treasury of Virtue. In addition, he also listed other causes of the war in addition to slavery. The other causes included the constitutionality of secession, economic rivalry, cultural differences and northern ambitions. Warren was a noted author who won several Pulitzer Prizes.
 
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
8,733
Location
District of Columbia
My Fellow Posters,

Relatively new to this very informative site, I have observed on numerous occasions that whenever anyone suggests an alternative to the primacy of slavery as a cause of the Civil War that such a debater is frowned upon with the stereotypical and vacuous sobriquet "Lost Causer." My own caption for those who resort to this kind of debate is "Lost Logicers." But I don't like the euphony of that response, even though I think the caption is correct. I find it intellectuallly feeble that the only argument against other causes is the simplistic, "Oh, so you are a 'Lost Causer,' are you?" which question is supposed to end all argument once and for all. It doesn't, of course, even though those who use it sail happily away, confident in their course of history.

That's not how I see it, and thus I characterize those who argue for the primacy of slavery as the cause as the true "Lost Causers." If anyone has a better neologism for responding to these advocates, I would like to find something better and more euphonic I prefer something in the 2-3 syllable range for some shorthand.

In this context let me add that those responsible for exalting slavery to a primary cause, i.e., those antebellum Seceshers who offered that sorry Saran-Wrap-thin and phony excuse for what they contemplated and then did, were actually joined in their hermeneutical gymnastics by Northerners AFTER the war. Those Northerners had to come up with something noble to explain to grieving mothers, fathers, sisters, and brother, and everybody else --like my spinster grade school teachers and other non-thinkers-- that their loved ones did not die in vain or for something as grubby as greed for western land and railroads. No, no, no! Good heavens, NO!! Gotta have a noble cause. Gotta extrapolate one! In fact, I think Northerners were probably even more responsible for the "Lost Cause of Slavery Primacy" argument, as it is so atypical for Northerners to take at face value the arguments of any Southerners, especially Southerners long since dead and their dead cause with them. Just a thought, not an argument --yet.

Will someone help me coin a useful and comprehensive neologism?

James
The South seceded for slavery, started a war to gain independence for continued slavery, the North didn't! That makes the North a hero in the story of our history, they saved the Union, AND quashed slavery.

Kevin Dally
The problem with the OP is that it posits that northerners needed the emancipation narrative to feel good about having fought the war. They didn't. They were quite happy feeling like victors who beat back traitors and insurrectionists. They were proud to have their men fight and die for their country.

There is another issue, which is: can northerners feel proud that they helped to end slavery, since that was not a wartime goal of the Union when the war started?

I know people who say they shouldn't, and it does seem like there are people on this forum who feel that way.

I feel that, regardless of the fact that that emancipation was prompted by military necessity, it nonetheless was a significant and momentous event in US history. It is no less significant and momentous because it happened due to the exigencies of war.

And it's not like emancipation was inevitable. Military necessity should have driven Confederates to adopt emancipation as well. But Confederates would not adopt that policy ~ and even then, only partially so ~ until their putative nation was on the brink of collapse. Differing social and cultural worldviews between the sections helps explain the differences in timing, scope, and extent of their policies.

I have no problem saying that US emancipation policy was driven mainly by wartime necessity, and only partially out of moral idealism. That makes me no less happy that the institution ended.

Abraham Lincoln took a much more introspective and even melancholy view of emancipation, which I think more Americans should look at. In his second inauguration speech, he said :
On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago, all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil-war. All dreaded it -- all sought to avert it. While the inaugeral address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war -- seeking to dissole the Union, and divide effects, by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came.​
One eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union, even by war; while the government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it.​
Neither party expected for the war, the magnitude, or the duration, which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict {slavery} might cease with, or even before, the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding {than the end of slavery}.​
Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!"​
If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one of those offences which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him?​
Fondly do we hope -- fervently do we pray -- that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether."​
- Alan
 
Last edited:

Pat Young

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Forum Host
Featured Book Reviewer
Joined
Jan 7, 2013
Messages
30,151
Location
Long Island, NY
In his book, "The Legacy of the Civil War", Robert Penn Warren discussed the Treasury of Virtue. In addition, he also listed other causes of the war in addition to slavery. The other causes included the constitutionality of secession, economic rivalry, cultural differences and northern ambitions. Warren was a noted author who won several Pulitzer Prizes.
I love Robert Penn Warren but we need to clarify. He won a Pulitzer for his novel All the King’s Men and two Pulitzer’s for his poetry.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads




(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top