Post 1861 Peace Convention, were there any other attempts to bring seceded states back into the Union?

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Duncan

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 17, 2020
You start a war, you'd better be prepared for the consequences.

The Southern leadership underestimated the will of the North. Then they refused to accept the reality of that war and continued it far longer than necessary.

It takes two to fight and only one to win.

Ditto. And the USA paid for their "win" with 350,000 lives and their President.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

NedBaldwin

Major
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Location
California
The USA was based on that very unethical code. That anyone defends its existence is a discredit to them.
The US was based on a very different code ("all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...") An imperfect nation, it has struggled mightly to live up to this code, resulting in things like the Civil War as its flaws are fought out.

In contrast, the CSA was created as a rejection of the US ethical code, preferring forced slavery over freedom (as Texas put it "the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race" or Mississippi " Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery "),
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Duncan

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 17, 2020
The US was based on a very different code ("all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...") An imperfect nation, it has struggled mightly to live up to this code, resulting in things like the Civil War as its flaws are fought out.

In contrast, the CSA was created as a rejection of the US ethical code, preferring forced slavery over freedom (as Texas put it "the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race" or Mississippi " Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery "),
[/QUOTE


"All men are created equal"? I'm expected to believe that that was the guiding sentiment of the Slave-Rebellion of 1776? Let's not forget that the fellow who wrote those words thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery himself, inasmuch as he owned approximately 200 human beings, slaves, who he held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race. So much for that "all men are created equal" nonsense. The USA was founded by white-supremacists, slavers, tax-cheats, secessionists, and traitors. Unethical miscreants when you get get right down to it.
 
Last edited:
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Duncan

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 17, 2020
The people of the rebel states were entitled to be free, all the people - white and black.
And so was "loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword"

Just like all the people, black and white, were entitled to be free in the USA. Except they weren't. Slavery, white-supremacy, and overt racism characterized every Colony, then State, in the Union. And so was "loosed the fateful lighting of his terrible swift sword". Still, the Union-loyal state of Kentucky bitterly clung to its slaves until well after the guns fell silent.
 

Duncan

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 17, 2020
Something worth fighting and dying for, the country they saved and left for us to continue protecting.

Worth dying for? Not for Abraham Lincoln's precious baby boy. While the horrific carnage wore on, and mother's lost their sons, wives lost their hubands, and sons and daughters lost their fathers, Lincoln's little boy got to play soldier safely tucked away from the front line danger on Gran'ts staff. Worth dying for indeed.
 

NedBaldwin

Major
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Location
California
They may have been "Unethical miscreants", Jefferson being among the worst, but they recognized their shortcomings and aspired to a better future. I personally think aspiring to achieve freedom and equality is a good thing; but I understand your opinion differs. That's what the preamble to the Declaration of independence is -- an aspiration. Regrettably progress has been slow and painful, especially with obstacles like confederate rebels
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Duncan

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 17, 2020
They may have been "Unethical miscreants", Jefferson being among the worst, but they recognized their shortcomings and aspired to a better future. I personally think aspiring to achieve freedom and equality is a good thing; but I understand your opinion differs. That's what the preamble to the Declaration of independence is -- an aspiration. Regrettably progress has been slow and painful, especially with obstacles like confederate rebels

The real obstacles were the ruthless New England slave-traffickers. I hear that the Middle-passage was a most unpleasant voyage. I mean, being chained in pools of your own vomit, urine, and feces. Ooops. That must have been the "better future" to which they aspired. Better for them anyway. The Boston textile mills could now buy cotton cheaper.
 

NedBaldwin

Major
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Location
California
The real obstacles were the ruthless New England slave-traffickers....
It was not really that big an obstacle -- the US made trafficking illegal (despite efforts of southern states) and the navy was deployed to stop it. Some illegal activity continued but very little and those pesky New Englanders did things like defended the kidnapped africans in court (see Amistad case) securing them their freedom
 

Duncan

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 17, 2020
It was not really that big an obstacle -- the US made trafficking illegal (despite efforts of southern states) and the navy was deployed to stop it. Some illegal activity continued but very little and those pesky New Englanders did things like defended the kidnapped africans in court (see Amistad case) securing them their freedom

Here's what else those pesky New Enlganders did:

"For a century and a half, wealthy northerners built their fortunes off sugar, rum, and human misery"

It's a wonderful article, really. It has cool little passages like this:

"From the 1620s until the United States of America outlawed importation of slaves in 1807, New Englanders participated enthusiastically and profitably in the slave trade as buyers and sellers of kidnapped Africans, as well as being financiers, shippers, owners, manufacturers, and providers of goods and services crucial to the practice."

Again, it's a wonderful article. And pesky. Just downright pesky, those New Englanders.
 
Last edited:
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Worth dying for? Not for Abraham Lincoln's precious baby boy. While the horrific carnage wore on, and mother's lost their sons, wives lost their hubands, and sons and daughters lost their fathers, Lincoln's little boy got to play soldier safely tucked away from the front line danger on Gran'ts staff. Worth dying for indeed.
@Duncan ,

Yes, worth dying for to preserve for future generations. Now the fact of the matter is, there was this assumption by the Confederate leadership that the rest of the nation would back down and didn't have the will to fight. The US was not Lincoln's baby, it was all of the citizens who decided on their own that their nation, their form of government, should be preserved.

The rest of the US citizens gutted out four years of bloody civil war because, in the end, they knew they were fighting for something more, something better, a better future that even Jefferson Davis came to realize after the war.

In my own time, in the military, when serving in foreign nations, I have seen dictatorships, kings, and military rule in several of the nations I was stationed at. NONE of them governed well. Coming back to the US was like a breath of fresh air. People were not afraid to speak their minds, criticize their government officials, nor protest their actions. What a change it was back in the USA!

You want to pick at the edges and find fault, I'm sure you will be able to do so. But in the end, when all is said and done, this world is better for having the nation Lincoln saved in it, than without it.

And it is indeed far better off not having the Confederacy in it.

It was worth the cost.

Unionblue
 

Duncan

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 17, 2020
@Duncan ,

Yes, worth dying for to preserve for future generations. Now the fact of the matter is, there was this assumption by the Confederate leadership that the rest of the nation would back down and didn't have the will to fight. The US was not Lincoln's baby, it was all of the citizens who decided on their own that their nation, their form of government, should be preserved.

The rest of the US citizens gutted out four years of bloody civil war because, in the end, they knew they were fighting for something more, something better, a better future that even Jefferson Davis came to realize after the war.

In my own time, in the military, when serving in foreign nations, I have seen dictatorships, kings, and military rule in several of the nations I was stationed at. NONE of them governed well. Coming back to the US was like a breath of fresh air. People were not afraid to speak their minds, criticize their government officials, nor protest their actions. What a change it was back in the USA!

You want to pick at the edges and find fault, I'm sure you will be able to do so. But in the end, when all is said and done, this world is better for having the nation Lincoln saved in it, than without it.

And it is indeed far better off not having the Confederacy in it.

It was worth the cost.

Unionblue
Gee, what a wonderful thing free speech is. But if you dare to choose simple political independence and self-government, the guns will open fire and the bloody merciless slaughter will commence. Just like under the rule of any King, Dictator, Military Junta, or Mafia Don. Lincoln betrayed the sacred right to alter and abolish systems of government and made a mockery of the equally sacred idea of government by consent. And we are all diminished by his presidency.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Duncan

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 17, 2020
The Confederacy never believed in the idea of government by consent, they believed in government by the lash
And we are all elevated by their failure

Government of the lash? Sounds serious. Actually it sounds just like the U.S. And we are all degraded by its slave States.
 
Last edited:

NedBaldwin

Major
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Location
California
Government of the lash? Sounds serious. Actually it sounds just like the U.S. And we are all degraded by its slave States.
Well then you should agree that it was a great thing that Lincoln presided over the end of there being "slave" states
I like living in a country that made the effort to eradicate slavery rather than one that took up arms to perpetuate it
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top