Restricted The Mythical Civil War and the Historians' Civil War

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
The pro union mistake is calling it a civil war it was not. The pro confederate mistake is denying the critical role of slavery as a cause for the war. The abolitionists opposed the resettlement of freed slaves in Liberia which was the only viable option for the southern states if the uneducated slaves were freed. Current historians don't want to hold the abolitionists to account for triggering a war.
It was a Civil War. Civil Wars are not infrequent around the world. There were alternatives to forced resettlement of former slaves to Liberia and that is called education and jobs. The US has taken in uncountable numbers of uneducated people into the US and many of them thrived.
Leftyhunter
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
A possible dereliction of duty for Lincoln? Heck no, that never had a chance of happening! Lincoln goaded the southern attack on Ft. Sumter and got the war he wanted.
Supplying troops with food is not goading a Southern attack. In fact the US never fought the South since the South is just a region on the country. The US fought a war against Confederate rebels using over two hundred thousand American men from the South.
Leftyhunter
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
Consider this from a different perspective. When the fighting started, the South had no intention of invading the North. The South was only fighting to repel the Northern armies. They only invaded the North during the war in order to force the North to accept that the South had seceded. If Lee won his campaign in the North, the South would not have "occupied" the North and forced the states to adopt slavery or anything else (and racism towards blacks was quite prolific in the North so let's not entertain any fairy-tales about the moral superiority of the North). Lee would merely have gone back home with a peace agreement, content that the issue was settled and that the South was free to pursue its own course. The South was not seeking to subjugate the North.

The fact that the South had millions of people subjugated to slavery was entirely a different matter, and the moral code of mankind has evolved thankfully such that slavery of any people is considered a great evil. Every great civilization, and likely the not-so-great, practiced slavery...sadly, it was the way of the world since probably before history was ever recorded, but it is the South that unfairly seems to bear the burden of guilt for all slavery that was ever practiced by mankind (alas, the post-war record of "civil rights" didn't help with that).

In today's political climate, that would mean virtually ever historical statue, building, religious site, document, art or any other product of those prior civilizations should be taken down and destroyed too. Please text me in advance when they blow up the Sphynx in Egypt because it was built by slave labour...I don't want to miss that spectacle.

These are very complicated issues, clearly, and hence the debate rages 155 years after the ACW ended. But erasing history does not accomplish anything.
The first Hollywood blockbuster was the 1915 film " Birth of a Nation" based on very popular novel " the Clansmen" . This film showed Union soldiers and African Americans as stupid and evil and white Southeners as saintly victims. It's still available on Netflix and it makes every pro Confederate argument.
Leftyhunter
 

Belfoured

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
A possible dereliction of duty for Lincoln? Heck no, that never had a chance of happening! Lincoln goaded the southern attack on Ft. Sumter and got the war he wanted.
You have an interesting definition of "goaded" - resupplying a US installation with provisions. He had some nerve ...
 

atlantis

Sergeant Major
Joined
Nov 12, 2016
It's a bit much to blame a President for enforcing the law . No shooting by the Confederacy no war. Davis was a big boy he knew what he was doing.
Leftyhunter
Where is his authority to enforce the law in another country. SC had seceded, when it did all federal property in it went with the state. The garrison at Sumter should have been withdrawn promptly but Lincoln was looking for a way to provoke war.
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
Where is his authority to enforce the law in another country. SC had seceded, when it did all federal property in it went with the state. The garrison at Sumter should have been withdrawn promptly but Lincoln was looking for a way to provoke war.
By what legal definition is the Confederacy a country? We have had many threads on that subject but proponents of the Confederacy can not point to any statutory or case law to support the assertion that the Confederacy was an independent nation. No nation extended diplomatic recognition to the Confederacy just beligerant status.
Leftyhunter
 

atlantis

Sergeant Major
Joined
Nov 12, 2016
By what legal definition is the Confederacy a country? We have had many threads on that subject but proponents of the Confederacy can not point to any statutory or case law to support the assertion that the Confederacy was an independent nation. No nation extended diplomatic recognition to the Confederacy just beligerant status.
Leftyhunter
Do you assert the USA was not a nation when the articles of confederation and perpetual union were adopted in 1778. As long as you have a gov't and a military and can stave off subjugation you are an independent nation even without diplomatic recognition. Belligerent status is de facto recognition.
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
Do you assert the USA was not a nation when the articles of confederation and perpetual union were adopted in 1778. As long as you have a gov't and a military and can stave off subjugation you are an independent nation even without diplomatic recognition. Belligerent status is de facto recognition.
The Colonial Rebels were not a nation until they were first recognized by France. Before that they were just a bunch of rebels. There is a reason nations but a lot of effort into maintaining diplomatic recognition.
Nations aren't recognized just because of a piece of paper.
Leftyhunter
 

atlantis

Sergeant Major
Joined
Nov 12, 2016
The Colonial Rebels were not a nation until they were first recognized by France. Before that they were just a bunch of rebels. There is a reason nations but a lot of effort into maintaining diplomatic recognition.
Nations aren't recognized just because of a piece of paper.
Leftyhunter
In your opinion are historians responsible for the mythical civil war or someone else.
 

atlantis

Sergeant Major
Joined
Nov 12, 2016
I find the use of the label civil war to describe the conflict as a big problem. The Great Rebellion or war of the Americans is imho more accurate to describe the nature of the conflict.
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
In your opinion are historians responsible for the mythical civil war or someone else.
Not so much historians but figures such has Jubal Early who wrote the book " the Los Cause" Jefferson Davis who wrote his memoirs and Dixon who wrote his best selling novel " The Clansmen" that was adopted by D.W.Griffith in his blockbuster movie " Birth of a Nation". All sides in a losing war make up myths why they lost.
Leftyhunter
 

CowCavalry

First Sergeant
Joined
Aug 17, 2017
The Colonial Rebels were not a nation until they were first recognized by France. Before that they were just a bunch of rebels. There is a reason nations but a lot of effort into maintaining diplomatic recognition.
Nations aren't recognized just because of a piece of paper.
Leftyhunter
So it is your opinion that a nation is not defined by its ability to hold elections, levy taxes, form a working govt, field an army and a navy, etc etc but that it is only defined by the status conferred upon it by other nations?
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
So it is your opinion that a nation is not defined by its ability to hold elections, levy taxes, form a working govt, field an army and a navy, etc etc but that it is only defined by the status conferred upon it by other nations?
Exactly right. Either a nation is recognized by other nations of it is not. It's a zero sum game. The Confederacy wasn't recognized by any nation and could not even maintain territorial integrity as early as 1861 when it list what would become the State of West Virginia. For a nation to survive in the long term it must achieve diplomatic recognition. There is one partial exception but it proves the rule.
Leftyhunter
 
Top