Oops, big lump of your posts....

[WJC]

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 January 1863. The opportunity for peaceful resolution of issues had largely passed. And yet, in spite of this anger, there still was an opportunity for a just peace as late as February 1865.

 

[GwilymT]

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

Wait, a radical abolitionist said radical things about the people fighting a war against the United States in order to preserve the very institution that said radical abolitionist dedicated his political life to destroying?

 

[Rebforever]

For one thing, it was a source of necessary food and forage for the ANV.

Where did all that happen?

 

[Tailor Pete]

Reason doesn't have much to do with it. It's merely a repeated back-door attempt to defer from slavery being the primary cause of secession and the war. If the TRR precept can be sold, it is hoped someone will be swayed that Secession and the war were not primarily caused by slavery. In other words Lost Cause.

We can expect the attempt to be repeated as many times in this coming year as it has been over the past year, and it will be met with reason as many times this coming year and it has been over the past year, just to be prepared.

edited by moderator jerseybart for off topic content

With that more clearly stated, I contend that, while there is no proof as yet to support the theory that political wrangling over the TRR INDIRECTLY precipitated the conflict, I could certainly see where such an effort COULD have resulted in the war that tore at the very heart and soul of our Nation.

The long-term results of which created a Capitalist's paradise. A TRR that benefitted Industrial concerns, and a national environment that made it even easier for Industrialists to influence the political system. Folks, this theory, no matter how far fetched, certainly seems viable, and could have only worked with slavery, and it's abolition, as being the major causes of the ACW.

 

[7th Mississippi Infantry]

In 1862 when the American consul to the Kindom of Morocco heard Henry Myers and Tom Tate Turbstat insulted the United States, he asked that they be arrested. When the Morocco arrested them it caused some international problems. Raphael Semmes asked any Europen diplomat he could find in the Kingdom of Morocco to help get them resealed the Moroccans refused. Both the British and the French would not intervene as they did not recognize the Confederates as a nation.

Europeans living in Morocco staged a small riot, but the Moroccans were unmoved and and the captives were loaded aboard a US ship to be sent to prison in the US.

Lincoln ordered the prisoners be released rather than be sent to a US prison. Morocco forbid any Confederate ship from entering any of its ports.

For forum members aware of it, the Kindom of Morocco was a close friend of the United States. It appears the Kingdom of Morocco was the first nation to recognize the US as a nation early in the American Revolution.

Very interesting article !

This is the the first I've ever heard of this incident.

 

[Viper21]

I agree with this, though I think you have to go all the way back prior to the Declaration of Independence to understand where the idea of state sovereignty originated and how it developed alongside federalism and nationalism. The Civil War was the culmination of everything that came before it, in my view.

The best way to get a glimpse into the minds of the people making the decisions at the time is.... to do as you suggest. Go back to the DOI debates. The what, why, how, of those conversations, along with what was actually put to paper, set everything in motion.

Much of the Constitution is ambiguous. Plenty of folks believed secession was legal, & states maintained a status of sovereign entities. I continue to believe, these issues were not set in stone at the time. It wasn't declared illegal, until after the fact. The morality, & emotional parts of learning this historical period, cloud many of the other, & or constitutional issues of the day.

 

[Tailor Pete]

With such spirited debate, it seems only logical that 'active moderation' is a must. Thank you for moving in this direction!

 

[uaskme]

That is not necessarily correct. We know that only at most an estimated 15% supported the Abolition Movement. I have seen nothing that accurately breaks down the other 85%. Most likely the majority considered it someone else's problem while the remaining small number supported slavery.
As to "Doughface Lincoln", I have never heard him referred to as a Southern sympathizer before: I expect that this will come as a great surprise to some of our membership.
As for slavery, there can be no doubt of Lincoln's well-documented abhorrence of the practice.

What would you call a politician who vowed to leave Slavery alone, where it stood. And to enforce the FSL. Eric Foner says Lincoln is more of a Pro Slavery Democrat Politically. He was against Immediatism. Wanted a slow gradual Emancipation of at least, 50 years. He extended DCs Abolition thru the weekend, so his Friend could remove his Slave, before enactment. Then, felt sorry for the Whites who had lost their Labor. All of this adds up to be Pro Slavery. His Words.

 

[Mosby]

I agree with this. Not just the TRR, but tariff increases were to the benefit of some northern business interests, and would be passed if the southern states seceded, regardless of who won the war. The Homestead Act was of interest to many ordinary northerners and also would be passed if the southern states seceded.

 

[CSA Today]

Because there was much more to the conflict than just slavery.

For one thing, Marylanders thought of themselves as Southerners, many of their citizens were offended that Federal troops were passing through one of their cities to attack the South. The concern that the same thing would happen in their states led the four upper-South states to secede.

 

[James Lutzweiler]

What's wrong with the current, generally accepted definition? Antebellum is widely understood as the period after the War of 1812 and before the Civil War. That is, 1815 to 1861.

Nothing wrong at all as far as I am concerned. I don't dispute the widely recognized meaning of antebellum. However, I use it generically. One could even go all the way back to Julius Caesar, as Mark Twain did, when lectured on how he became an American. He said it was because Caesar crossed the Rubicon. He said that if that had not happened, perhaps civilization might have migrated East instead of West and he would be a Chinaman --of all things. But I do not bring this up in my incontrovertoble assertion that China is the Central Theme in American history. No question about it.

 

[leftyhunter]

Because there was much more to the conflict than just slavery.

Such as? Not tariffs because who is going to have their son die to pay a few cents less on an item. Not states rights since no one can identif what state right was lost that can never be reclaimed. Not a TRR since Congress was about to fund two TRR's just before the ACW started.
Not big government since big government didn't even start until the election of FDR seventy odd year's latter.
Leftyhunter

 

[James Lutzweiler]

Has anyone suggested that only literature from 1860-61 should be considered?

Of course the words of the secessionists at the time of secession are the most important, but that doesn't preclude studying the entire history. The possibility of the Union breaking apart was a concern from the moment of its inception, with one issue the most likely cause.

I know of no one who has ever said that or ever will, if by "that" you mean someone verbalizing "Nothing matters except literature from 1860-61 in the study of Civil War causation." However, many have said that exact thing by their actions, and their actions speak louder than words. Those who cite only 1860-61 documents and nothing else are screaming exactly that, even though they might not use the explicit words.

Single Causers or whatever they wish to be called remind me of the two hillbillies who once rode a train. As they rode along, they ate their first banana. They took their first bite just as the train entered a tunnel. One asked the other how it tasted. His buddy replied, "It tastes great but it will make you go blind." This is the logical fallacy known in Latin as "post hoc, ergo propter hoc," which being translated means "after this, therefore, because of this." This is how I see those into cherries rather than into planets like Pluto.

Sincerely,

Plutopicker #1

 

[leftyhunter]

edited by moderator jerseybart for off topic content

With that more clearly stated, I contend that, while there is no proof as yet to support the theory that political wrangling over the TRR INDIRECTLY precipitated the conflict, I could certainly see where such an effort COULD have resulted in the war that tore at the very heart and soul of our Nation.

The long-term results of which created a Capitalist's paradise. A TRR that benefitted Industrial concerns, and a national environment that made it even easier for Industrialists to influence the political system. Folks, this theory, no matter how far fetched, certainly seems viable, and could have only worked with slavery, and it's abolition, as being the major causes of the ACW.

Who is going to send their son to fight and die over the path of a railroad? Congress was willing to fund two TRR's one from the South and one from the North. Southern politicians were quite articulate of why they wanted to secede and they never mentioned California or a TRR.
Leftyhunter

 

[Greywolf]

That is not necessarily correct. We know that only at most an estimated 15% supported the Abolition Movement. I have seen nothing that accurately breaks down the other 85%. Most likely the majority considered it someone else's problem while the remaining small number supported slavery.
As to "Doughface Lincoln", I have never heard him referred to as a Southern sympathizer before: I expect that this will come as a great surprise to some of our membership.
As for slavery, there can be no doubt of Lincoln's well-documented abhorrence of the practice.

He like 95% of white Americans was a racist, we have plenty of his speeches to back that up, plus his dabbling in colonization. But you are correct he didn't care for slavery.

 

[Greywolf]

No, but I think your analogy, giving credit to Whites for Freeing the Negro is irrelevant Edited. Blacks fought for their Freedom. Blacks were recruited, to save White Lives. Two different Concepts.

Just imagine if all those northern men were conscripted. Male population of the north was roughly 11 million, knock out 4 or 5 million either too young, old, or infirmed and you still have enough to easily roll over the 2 million at most the csa could field. I think old Shelby was right, the north did have one arm behind it's back. Why they could have easily put a 100k army in coastal NC or SC to drive inland, gave grant another 100k, added another 100k army to help Sherman, and get this...still have plenty of men left over. The question is why not? Why did it have to drag on si long?

 

[Tailor Pete]

Who is going to send their son to fight and die over the path of a railroad? Congress was willing to fund two TRR's one from the South and one from the North. Southern politicians were quite articulate of why they wanted to secede and they never mentioned California or a TRR.
Leftyhunter

@leftyhunter, you miss the point. This wasn't a move made openly, but one done in the smoke filled back rooms of industrial America. If this theory is to be believed, it must be understood that the TRR wasn't a cause, but a desire pushed through by politically motivated people who used the South's weakness to their advantage.

 

[WJC]

What would you call a politician who vowed to leave Slavery alone, where it stood. And to enforce the FSL. Eric Foner says Lincoln is more of a Pro Slavery Democrat Politically. He was against Immediatism. Wanted a slow gradual Emancipation of at least, 50 years. He extended DCs Abolition thru the weekend, so his Friend could remove his Slave, before enactment. Then, felt sorry for the Whites who had lost their Labor. All of this adds up to be Pro Slavery. His Words.

Thanks for your response.
My reading of Foner indicates that he believes Lincoln's position was one that Southern slaveholders should have found agreeable compared to the other option: immediate emancipation. That does not, as I understand it, mean that Lincoln was "Pro Slavery". He was not.
Lincoln agreed not to disturb slavery in the States where it then existed. But he intended to outlaw it in the Territories. He did not, in 1861, support immediate emancipation as he felt- as many did- that over time slavery would end on its own.
If you can cite where Foner has a different view please share it with us.

 

[WJC]

He like 95% of white Americans was a racist, we have plenty of his speeches to back that up, plus his dabbling in colonization. But you are correct he didn't care for slavery.

Thanks for your response.
Racism was not limited to American Whites, or even to Whites. Colonization seemed to many an appropriate solution with precedents in the Holy Scripture. Interestingly, when the Lincon Administration contacted Central American countries with largely Black or mixed- Black populations about resettling Freemen, they were rejected. The non-White governments (themselves ex-slaves) were prejudiced against Black former slaves from the U. S.!

 

[Robin Lesjovitch]

Such as? Not tariffs because who is going to have their son die to pay a few cents less on an item. Not states rights since no one can identif what state right was lost that can never be reclaimed. Not a TRR since Congress was about to fund two TRR's just before the ACW started.
Not big government since big government didn't even start until the election of FDR seventy odd year's latter.
Leftyhunter

Things tend to cut a lot of different ways. Bradley T Johnson, Marylander wrote:

"'on April 15th President Lincoln issued his proclamation, calling on the States for 75,000 militia "to maintain the Union and to redress wrongs already too long endured." He did not specify the wrongs nor the period of endurance. "

Politicians have a way of saying things that will get people worked up.
A politician probably would not say: "Hey, Bub, y'know them Southrons we been wantin' to be rid of...well they done left on their own..wanna go get 'em?"