Skip to comments.Is There Something Wrong With The Term: "War Between the States?"
Posted on 01/11/2014 11:16:07 AM PST by Davy Buck
click here to read article
States dont have rights. They have powers.
Of course, Marse Bob, you are correct. However, the spiritual impetus behind Abolition justified everything in the Yankee mind.
There were many southerners who were against slavery, too. Most on moral grounds, and a perceptive few on economic grounds.
General police powers, which have been patently ignored.
I shall forever remain, Unreconstructed.
Just a reminder. There were thousands of blacks who were slave owners.
Although the states had seceded the fort was still a sovereign territory of the US. This could have been negotiated but to block the supply of food to US soldiers was a provocative act. And the south paid with a horrible loss.
Of course till Lee’s worse than mediocre showing at Gettysburg, the south was winning. So it all looked good for Dixie till that time. And it could have easily have gone the souths way had they played it right. In the North McClellan was a fifth columnist and generals like Burnside were buffoons. Lincoln, a non military trained person, was doing a crummy job of being a general, via telegraph, from behind the lines.
Lee of course had his subordinates like J.E.B. Stuart who weren’t where they needed to be. But then Lee did not listen to superior tacticians like Longstreet who cautioned against Pickett’s charge.
Shoulda Woulda Coulda. But all over human bondage which still plagues us today(the aftermath not the bondage....think Holder, new Black Panthers, and the knockout game).
Cest la vie.
Another lawyer eh? That's the whole problem. Lawyers.
It should be noted that MD, MO, WV and various other states excluded from the Emancipation Proclamation freed their slaves by state action befoe the end of the War. The 13th Amendment freed slaves only in DE (a couple hundred) and KY (around 50k).
While this is all interesting history, all of the slave-holding Union States had emancipation plans, held in abeyance until after the war.
If you are going to make such an astonishing assertion, you need to be able to prove it.
For it to be true, one would have to assume southerners were all really, really stupid.
Any intelligent person of the time knew that the South's best hope for independence was foreign, particularly British, recognition. British public opinion was unaminously anti-slavery. As long as the War was between a pro-slave Union and a pro-slave CSA, British recognition was conceivable. Which was precisely why Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation. At a single stroke, it ended the possibility of UK recognition.
Intelligent southerners knew that passing laws for emancipation, even very gradual emancipation, would immediately revive the chance for foreign assistance. Yet it was never seriously considered.
IOW, given the choice between slavery and independence, the South could not choose, since the reason they insisted on independence was to protect slavery.
I'll await your evidence of state plans to abolish slavery after the war. I suspect I'll be waiting a very long time.
It’s a great phrase.
We have one helluva war between the states of New York and New Jersey going on right now over Bridgegate.
Which will be the first to secede?
Quite true. Slavery in all likelihood goes back to Neolithic times.
But what made African slavery in America so intractable was its combination of the ancient institution of slavery with the newly invented ideology of racism. Slaves who could run away and just disappear into the general population would have quickly undermined the institution, just as slavery of whites disappeared in (western) Europe during the Middle Ages.
But the idea that this visually distinct group was somehow not fully human and therefore fair game to be enslaved was somehow more compatible with democracy, freedom, etc. In the minds of confused people, anyway.
Of course they had no legal right to declare independence.
They nowhere claimed they did. In colonial America, all Law flowed from the King in Parliament.
The Founders based their declaration not on Law, but on moral principles, overriding Law by Revolution, which is by definition the abandonment of Law for more direct action. (Hopefully with Law to be reinstated at some later date on a more sound footing.)
As Lee and other southern leaders recognized, the South had a similar moral right to revolution, although weakened by their revolution being for the purpose of denying independence to others.
But legality? Nonsense. When the southern states seceded, they rejected the legal procedures set up by the Constitution to settle differences. That's an act of Revolution, not one of Legality.
I eagerly await anybody who can prove the Founders ever claimed a Legal right for what they did, except insofar as they justified Revolution by an appeal to unwritten Natural Law.
Only if you focus exclusively on the VA front.
In the West the South was consistently in retreat mode, with immense tracts of the CSA having been conquered and occupied by the time of Gettysburg.
In fact, the USA won in the West just about as consistently as Lee did in the East.
BTW, just finished a darn good book about Gettysburg. I had no idea what a near thing it was. Pickett's Charge gets all the press, but there were half a dozen almost-disasters for the Union on Day 2 that were a much closer call.
exactly, I have seen somewhere that Roman slaves could actually own slaves.
Which seems strange now.
“Without Northern aggression, there would have been no war.”
Without Southern aggression, there would have been no Northern aggression. The South shot first. The North was looking for an excuse, yes, but nonetheless the South shot first.
Thanks for the link. No revelations there, and no relevance to my comment but (marginally) interesting nonetheless.
What’s the title? Do you recommend it?
The first secession war of 1861-1865. When the red states secede again and there is another war, that will be the second secession war.
Slavery is historically a very diverse institution.
Under the Ottoman Empire, most important political and military offices were held by slaves of the Sultan. This was VERY common in the Muslim world. In fact, one of the Delhi Muslim sultanates was called the Slave Dynasty.
In the early Roman Empire, freedmen and slaves formed the staff of the Emperor and essentially ran everything. Freedmen were still clients, not really free in the sense we would use the term.
Under the Persians and other Oriental Empires, all, even the nobles, referred to themselves as slaves of the King, and not just in a figurative sense.
For most of human history, there was a spectrum of human status and legal position. Various categories of slaves, serfs, freedmen, various levels of nobles, all the way up to the King. The difference between gradations on this spectrum were slight and therefore not that important.
Along comes the Declaration of Independence. All men are created equal, except of course for the slaves. Well then they must not really be men, creating probably a harsher separating line between slavery and freedom than had ever existed before.
This can be seen by the situation in Latin America, where nobody ever proclaimed all men were equal. Slavery declined and eventually disappeared, for the most part, more easily. Perhaps largely because there was less difference between a slave and a low-status “free” person in these countries, where class still reigned supreme.
He can claim it but that doesn’t mean it is true.
Korea used to have a large caste of state slaves
“Although the states had seceded the fort was still a sovereign territory of the US.”
The US government didn’t have the right to any territory. That got DC, 10 square miles. The land belongs to the respective States, and since SC left the union, the USA no longer had any claim to it. They had an obligation to leave, not fortify it. Fortifying a fort in a foreign land that has requested that you leave is an act of war.
“Ignores the fact that the north supported slavery and denied freedom to white Southerners.
Factually inaccurate - but you knew that.
Factually correct, but you knew that. You’re off your game with that liberal donmeaker here.
What’s the name of the book? Like to check it out
Hey with guys line Grant, Sheridan and you namesake in the west, I’m not surprised.
“Just a reminder. There were thousands of blacks who were slave owners.”
More importantly, a black man started slavery in the new World by owning another black man. Anthony Johnson sued to enslave John Casor.
Do NOT get me started on the title. It's inaccurate.
Sterling Price led an invasion of Union states well over a year later, penetrating a great deal farther into MO and KS than Lee did into MD and PA. Wasn't turned decisively back till the Battle of Westport in October of 1864.
To be fair, the CSA claimed MO as one of their states, while they didn't claim MD. But both PA and KS were indisputably Union and free states.
Rant off. :)
To address your actual question, good book. Lots of diagrams.
I have read a number of books about this battle and campaign, but had not previously realized how many times Lee almost broke the Union Army. Or how disorganized the fighting was on both sides. Very little effective coordinating was done by either Lee or Meade. The battle played out as it did mostly due to decisions made at corps and even division level.
War of Northern Aggression
That is true. However, you’re not allowed to just state that a claim isn’t true. You have to post counter-evidence if you want to be taken seriously.
That war’s over Toad. Let ‘er go. (I would tend to agree with much Of what you say but one thing bothers me. There was a significant part of the population who had no say as to how the states made decisions)
We have bigger fish to fry as our personal liberties are being destroyed on all fronts now.
>>the colonies had no legal right to present the Declaration of Independence to the legal ruler of those colonies.
>>Of course they had no legal right to declare independence.
I worded that poorly. My point was that the Confederacy had AS MUCH right to rebel as the colonists: legal, moral, or otherwise. We never speak of the American Revolution as a civil war (even though it was from April 1775 to July 1776) and the failed Second Revolution was no civil war either.
And much later. Many brave Americans remained loyal to and fought for their King.
My point was that the Confederacy had AS MUCH right to rebel as the colonists: legal, moral, or otherwise.
I will cheerfully agree with you on the legal and otherwise parts. Moral, not so much.
The DoI is pretty clear that it is the right of the people to alter or abolish their government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which governments are properly set up: protection of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
You simply cannot extract from the DoI a right of revolution whenever you feel like it.
Since I do not believe the South was in any way being deprived in 1860 of their rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," I think they had no right at all to revolt, under the criteria specified in the DoI. Particularly since their revolt was specifically and explicitly to protect an institution which deprived other men of their right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
The DoI is at bottom a moral document, making a moral cause to justify revolution. IMO the seceding states failed to meet that standard.
We call it the “Act of Northern Aggression” or “That Unpleasantness” down here in the south.
In sharp contrast with VA, none of the commanding CSA generals in the West were very effective. Some truly excellent second-level officers, like Taylor, Cleburne and Forrest, but the commanders, no.
Never sure why. Possibly they just were faced with an enormously more difficult task than Lee, who only had to defend (or attack) on a front only about 200 miles wide. That’s very different from one over 1000 miles wide, plus naval attacks on the coasts and Mississippi.
Sure, citizens have a right to rebel against an unjust government. But was the South being treated unfairly enough to justify a rebellion is the question. Most Northerners say no, while most Southerners say yes. Under the constitution, the South had no right to secession. There’s no statement or words in the constitution that explicitly gives the right of secession to any state. Any dissolution of the union would have to be agreed upon by all participants i.e. the states. That obviously didn’t happen. So it was a rebellion....not some sort of legal secession.
“. Under the constitution, the South had no right to secession. “
Nothing in the Constitution says so one way or the other. It is your personal opinion that you state. Common sense and many founding father’s statements, including those of Lincoln, say the people have the right to determine for themselves who will govern them.
“You simply cannot extract from the DoI a right of revolution whenever you feel like it.”
Actually, we do as the DoI says. We have the right to say who will govern us, and if the opposing side doesn’t like it and attempts to use force to prevent it, well, you’ve got yourself a revolution.
“Of course till Lees worse than mediocre showing at Gettysburg, the south was winning. “
Yes, but, the north had all the numbers: The men, machines, money, etc. It was only a matter of time before the South lost. I am a southerner and damned proud they stood in the face of tyranny, but they were out gunned in every way 3:1 and had exhausted the majority of what they had before the war was over.
That said, that isn’t the case today. The south has all the men, machinery, and money.
If you were around at the time, the prospect of the old country falling apart and being replaced by something new, most likely two countries hostile to each other, would be more apparent than anything about who would have the upperhand in a country that might not exist any more.
No one is an unjust villain in his own mind. Even - perhaps even especially - those who are the worst of us. Some of the cruelest tyrants in history were motivated by noble ideals, or made choices that they would call 'hard but necessary steps' for the good of their nation. We're all the hero of our own story.In essence this: expedience is often the sword of the tyrant, exigence and exceptions his armor and shield.
― Jim Butcher, Turn Coat
Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself.
― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
It is cold anarchy to say that all men are to meddle in all men's marriages. It is cold anarchy to say that any doctor may seize and segregate anyone he likes. But it is not anarchy to say that a few great hygienists might enclose or limit the life of all citizens, as nurses do with a family of children. It is not anarchy, it is tyranny; but tyranny is a workable thing.
― G.K. Chesterton
If that were true, that would mean any state today could secede if it felt like it. That means some nuts could take over my state of Wisconsin and set up some phony baloney "independent" nation. What we would have then is utter chaos. Because at some point some nuts in any state could do the same thing. All Americans would be held hostage to the lunatics.
And just imagine trying to live in this new nation. You'd have to have new currency, new passports, new everything. In short, the idea of unilateral secession is lunacy. It was lunacy then, it would be lunacy now.
-— In short, the idea of unilateral secession is lunacy. It was lunacy then, it would be lunacy now. -—
Dunno. Makes perfect sense to me. A majority vote would be sufficient for me.
>>Since I do not believe the South was in any way being deprived in 1860 of their rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,”
The federal government had determined that the only ports of entry for European immigrants was in the north, so northern businesses had easy access to a cheap and easily-exploited labor source. There were also tariffs and laws to make it hard for southern states to ship their goods directly, requiring them to go through northern businesses.
The industrialized and commercialized north had decided that the southern states were to remain poor and agricultural and to be subservient to them for finished and imported goods.
If the south could have gotten Irish and other poor immigrants fresh off the boat to work in their fields, I’m sure that they would have sent the blacks back to Africa. After all, renting labor for slave wages is much cheaper than the cost of ownership. Because, that’s exactly what motivated the northern states to suddenly become anti-slavery after a century of making money off their import.
Yes, that’s what the losers call it.
Confederate generals Patrick Cleburne and the great Robert E. Lee were for plans to give freedom to slaves who fought for the South. They were given a hearing and summarily turned down. Because freedom for slaves was against what most Southerners stood for.
I don't know if the South could have found enough slaves to fight for them with their freedom as a prize, but the fact that Cleburne and Lee were given short shrift proves what the South was fighting for...slavery.
If I’m not mistaken the British were supplying weapons etc, like the 1853 Rifled musket.
Machinery and Money? How so?
As far as men I will give you that. And the few men we have up here? We will be down to help ya’ll
I like, "The War of Kicking the Slave Owning Moron's Ass."
The much larger population and the fact that the North was much further ahead in manufacturing capabilities and materiel doomed the South. (Although the South never lost a battle for lack of ammunition.) In fact, from some sources I've read, if the North had used available repeating Henry rifles at the start of the war, it might have ended after a few battles. Lots of what ifs.
But basically the South's only chance was a kind of delaying action that might make the war weary Northern population give up. Lincoln was afraid of that with all the Copperheads twisting public opinion. But after Grant took Vicksburg and Sherman marched through the deep South, the game was mostly over. The South had great generals and great soldiers...just not enough of them.
Basically, without slavery there would have been no war. Slavery was the single, outstanding cause of the conflict.
The north had the machines the south did not have. The north had 90% of all manufacturing and most of the railroads. The north had three times the population. The north had ten times the money the south did.
See my response #140.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.