Oops, big lump of your posts....

Status
Not open for further replies.

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
5,784
Location
Texas
You
"The army of the North fights for national ambition, fanatical hate and the profits of Southern trade. The army of the South fights to avert from the Southern people a tyranny most hideous and most abhorred. We must nerve ourselves to hear of a day of carnage. The attack has probably been made by our troops. They must carry the enemy's earthworks with the bayonet. The loss may, and probably will, be fearful. But, if we triumph, the victory will be worth the cost. Never was cause more just and holy than ours. The patriot owes his life to his country in the hour of her extremity; and, while we strike for independence, we must be willing, ungrudgingly, to pay the price." -Charleston Mercury, June 27, 1862
You believe what a Southern, South Carolinian newspaper said?

Kevin Dally
 

uaskme

Sergeant Major
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
1,959
No one claims that slavery was limited to the South and was not a national disgrace. What is asserted is that while some states saw fit to end the practice through at least a lengthy, gradual process, other states chose to cling to the practice and even destroy the Union and establish a new nation so that they could practice slavery in perpetuity and extend its reach.
We should, indeed, recognize the national 'sin'; but we ought not forget that some failed to see it as a 'sin', but rather saw it as "a positive good".
The North, found a population of White, Starving, Cheaper Replacements. Is that fact, not important? The North participated in every aspect of Southern Slavery. NYC became the Center of the Illegal Mid-Atlantic Slave Trade. Approximately 1.6 Million Negroes were trafficked, during this period. Northern Merchants participated in the Chinese Opium Trade. Part of that Trade was Trafficking poor, starving Chinese to Cuba and Peru. They were chained down in ships. At least as brutal as the Mid Atlantic Slave Trade or Worse. Is none of this, Important? Is the Exclusion of Events, Truth. I hear the term Truth a lot, just don’t see the Evidence of it. The North got rid of their Negroes and Slave owning Business. Which yes, they wanted no more Negroes. However the North never, Stop their involvement in Slavery. Does it make someone a Lost Causer, if they want to know these things? Should we not expect to learn, the whole story, instead of someone’s white washed version? Slavery is United States History, not just Southern History.
 

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
11,333
Did the various royals of Europe recognize Maximilian I as a real emperor? In the royal pecking order, do not emperors out rank kings and queens? Would not King of Mexico been a more honest title?
The rule of Maximillian I was recognized by at least these four countries: Britain, France, Austria and Spain. Given the power and prestige of those four at the time, I'd guess many others fell in line. Britain and Spain, of course, had both contributed forces to the intervention in 1861, but withdrew after a time. Napoleon III was determined to remain and stage-managed the selection of Maximillian of Austria as the new Emperor in 1864.
 

Viper21

Sergeant Major
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Messages
2,237
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
Lincolns eloquent reply to the Baltimore Riots:

"Protesting that Maryland soil should not be ‘polluted’ by the feet of soldiers marching against the South. The President had but one reply: ‘We must have troops, and as they can neither crawl under Maryland nor fly over it, they must come across it.'" as reported by the Baltimore Sun.
Interesting quote. Do you have a more detailed source for it..? As in, the date, & possibly a photo of the article in print..? I've briefly looked, & haven't been able to find it.
 

uaskme

Sergeant Major
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
1,959
I'll google it for you. Here is a link that explains the role of the Irish. Post Emancipation in the North.

https://www.irishcentral.com/roots/the-hands-that-built-america-93287044-237694541

Southern Planters used them, because they were Cheaper than Negros. Unfortunately, Slaves had a price tag on them. However, that was a determination of Value. What was the Value, of a Irishman, during this Period? They fed them Whiskey and what little else, they could get by with. Oh, but I forgot, it was Revolutionary Principles, why the North gave up Slavery? A Narrative, isn’t History.

Another problem with the Single Causer and the Single Cause Fallacy. Some study Slavery, and move on to study other aspects of the period. Not so much, the Single Causer . Thanks for your Participation.
 

19thGeorgia

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
2,721
Thanks for your response.
Not quite sure how relevant this excerpt from the Charleston Mercury (the newspaper of secessionist Robert B. Rhett) is to the discussion. However, it prompts an interesting question: just what was that "tyranny most hideous and most abhorred"? A revolution where the slaves would become the equal of the slaveholder?
Disfranchisement, confiscation of lands, extermination. All of these things were either done or threatened.

Imagine someone today in the US Congress threatening to exterminate an entire population.

"The adoption of the measures I advocated at the outset of the war, the arming of the negroes, the slaves of the rebels, is the only way left on earth in which these rebels can be exterminated. They will find that they must treat those States now outside of the Union as conquered provinces and settle them with new men, and drive the present rebels as exiles from this country....They have such determination, energy, and endurance, that nothing but actual extermination or exile or starvation will ever induce them to surrender to this Government."
—Thaddeus Stevens, U.S. House of Representatives, January 8, 1863
 
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
8,733
Location
District of Columbia
The North, found a population of White, Starving, Cheaper Replacements. Is that fact, not important? The North participated in every aspect of Southern Slavery. NYC became the Center of the Illegal Mid-Atlantic Slave Trade. Approximately 1.6 Million Negroes were trafficked, during this period. Northern Merchants participated in the Chinese Opium Trade. Part of that Trade was Trafficking poor, starving Chinese to Cuba and Peru. They were chained down in ships. At least as brutal as the Mid Atlantic Slave Trade or Worse. Is none of this, Important? Is the Exclusion of Events, Truth. I hear the term Truth a lot, just don’t see the Evidence of it. The North got rid of their Negroes and Slave owning Business. Which yes, they wanted no more Negroes. However the North never, Stop their involvement in Slavery. Does it make someone a Lost Causer, if they want to know these things? Should we not expect to learn, the whole story, instead of someone’s white washed version? Slavery is United States History, not just Southern History.
As @RobertP could tell, you are making a Tu quoque fallacy argument. {Tu quoque (/tjuːˈkwoʊkwi, tuːˈkwoʊkweɪ/; Latin for "you also"), or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s).}

It is true that white Northerners were complicit in slavery, and there was labor exploitation in the North.

But the point is that the Union, in alliance with African Americans, ended slavery in the United States. You can't take that away from them.

The North, led by the Republican Party, is responsible for the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. The gains of Reconstruction; and of the Civil Rights movement 100 years after the Civil War; were based in a very large part on those Amendments. You can't take that away from them.

At the end of the day, I am so blessed, that I am not somebody's property, that I have privileges and protections my ancestors could only dream of. You want me to feel bad for these gains, but I can't and I don't.

Having said that, it would be inaccurate to say that emancipation was solely a construct of moral imperative. Northerners and Southerners should certainly be taught that racism pervaded the North and South. But that doesn't mean that the end of slavery was any less significant or momentous, or that we should look at emancipation as something that just happened and nobody deserves credit for it. We should all celebrate emancipation and have a realistic understanding of how it occurred.

I would think that sentiment would be embraced by all. We'll see.

- Alan
 

19thGeorgia

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
2,721
1) If post-Confederates would have treated African Americans fairly and equally...
- Alan
That's fine and dandy except they were on the side that said things like this-

"The adoption of the measures I advocated at the outset of the war, the arming of the negroes, the slaves of the rebels, is the only way left on earth in which these rebels can be exterminated. They will find that they must treat those States now outside of the Union as conquered provinces and settle them with new men, and drive the present rebels as exiles from this country....They have such determination, energy, and endurance, that nothing but actual extermination or exile or starvation will ever induce them to surrender to this Government. —Thaddeus Stevens, U.S. House of Representatives, January 8, 1863
 
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
8,733
Location
District of Columbia
Disfranchisement, confiscation of lands, extermination. All of these things were either done or threatened.

Imagine someone today in the US Congress threatening to exterminate an entire population.

"The adoption of the measures I advocated at the outset of the war, the arming of the negroes, the slaves of the rebels, is the only way left on earth in which these rebels can be exterminated. They will find that they must treat those States now outside of the Union as conquered provinces and settle them with new men, and drive the present rebels as exiles from this country....They have such determination, energy, and endurance, that nothing but actual extermination or exile or starvation will ever induce them to surrender to this Government."
—Thaddeus Stevens, U.S. House of Representatives, January 8, 1863
That's fine and dandy except they were on the side that said things like this-

"The adoption of the measures I advocated at the outset of the war, the arming of the negroes, the slaves of the rebels, is the only way left on earth in which these rebels can be exterminated. They will find that they must treat those States now outside of the Union as conquered provinces and settle them with new men, and drive the present rebels as exiles from this country....They have such determination, energy, and endurance, that nothing but actual extermination or exile or starvation will ever induce them to surrender to this Government. —Thaddeus Stevens, U.S. House of Representatives, January 8, 1863
In the minds of many Union men, Confederates were traitors who were responsible for the the deaths of several hundred thousand Union men, not to mention many more who lost a limb or sanity. Darn right, many Union men were angry.

But the fact is, despite such voicing such declarations of righteous anger, there was no extermination. There was nothing remotely close to it. Those statements of Stevens mis-represent the final policies that were implemented by the United States, certainly by the end of the 1900s.

Former Confederates were bright back into the Union with their rights intact. Indeed, on a global comparative basis, Reconstruction was fairly unique for the lack of retribution imposed by the Union. In his recent book Reconstruction: A Concise History, Allen C. Guelzo said (p11-12): "Reconstruction followed the route of generosity—it created no conquered provinces, no mass executions for treason. As Walt Whitman wrote, almost in self congratulation, Reconstruction “has been paralleled nowhere in the world—in any other country on the globe the whole batch of the Confederate leaders would have had their heads cut off.” Ironically, most of the violence that pockmarked reconstruction was inflicted on the victors, not the vanquished."

Of course that didn't make former Confederates happy with their lot. Nothing would.

- Alan
 
Last edited:

Potomac Pride

First Sergeant
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Messages
1,593
Location
Georgia
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.
Thanks for your comments but I never said that he won a Pulitzer for his book on the Civil War. However, he is the only writer ever to win Pulitzer Prizes for both a novel and works of poetry.
 

Pat Young

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Forum Host
Featured Book Reviewer
Joined
Jan 7, 2013
Messages
30,092
Location
Long Island, NY
Thanks for your comments but I never said that he won a Pulitzer for his book on the Civil War. However, he is the only writer ever to win Pulitzer Prizes for both a novel and works of poetry.
For further clarification: I was not implying deception on your part. I just know that a lot of younger members might be unfamiliar with Penn Warren and, because of the subject of the thread, might think that his Pulitzers were in the field of history.

My mom only had a Catholic high school education, yet she was very familiar with Penn Warren's books, poetry, and journalistic essays. When I mention him to the college educated young people in my office they rarely have even heard of him, let alone read him. I have to admit that until the last few years I had not read his books either. They are very rewarding looks at America in his lifetime.
 

19thGeorgia

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
2,721
despite such voicing such declarations of righteous anger, there was no extermination.
Threatening to exterminate an entire population is righteous anger?

Former Confederates were bright back into the Union with their rights intact.
Hundreds of thousands were disfranchised. Lands were confiscated.
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,630
My Fellow Posters,

I pose a simple question here.

In the search for some kind of proportionate percentages of the several acknowledged different and total ingredients in the recipe for Secession and the Civil War, a/k/a "The War of Southern Aggression," what should be the scope of inquiry: Only literature from 1860-1861 or all the literature from 1830-1861?

Note: This is NOT a resurrection of the dispute itself over Civil War causation. Please address the dates and whether or not you feel that choosing only 1860-1861 is an exercise in literary cherrypicking, somewhat tendentiously and exclusively to support a view of admittedly unrequited cottonpicking as the primary cause of the War.

James Lutzweiler
Archivist (1999-2013)
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
Wake Forest, NC
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads




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