Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

The Confederacy 'We will keep slavery and states rights!....

4 (15.4%)

The Union '....over John Browns dead body'

19 (73.1%)

The State of Texas 'Texan's always move 'em'

3 (11.5%)

Total Members Voted: 26

[Deadmeat1471]

A) To Vector, I don't care if people agree with me, I'm just trying to express the need for objectivity when discussing historical issues, because otherwise this is a very boring and pointless kneejerk popular knowledge thread which is utterly pointless.

Also due to the large opposition against the confederacy, I'm playing a bit of devils advocate here as a history lover/student.

B)

Without too much of a history lesson, Lincoln only got elected because he stated he wouldn't strike at slavery where it existed. There are hundreds of northerners, prominant one's I could pilfer quotes from stating they agreed with slavery and didn't want a war against it, or think it was against it. Especially in 1861.
This is one of the reasons why the emancipation proclaimation was so unpopular, because he promised not to do it. The northerners who voted for him, all but the abolishonists(who were a very tiny minority) felt they had been betrayed. Few people north or south thought the black was equal to the white man.

'Racism remained pervasive on both sides of the conflict and many in the North supported the war only as an effort to force the south back into the Union. The promises of many Republican politicians that the war was to restore the Union and not about black rights or ending slavery, were now declared lies by their opponents citing the Proclamation. Copperhead David Allen spoke to a rally in Columbiana, Ohio, stating "I have told you that this war is carried on for the Negro. There is the proclamation of the President of the United States. Now fellow Democrats I ask you if you are going to be forced into a war against your Brethren of the Southern States for the Negro. I answer No!'

If you disagree that it was unpopular with the majority of northerners.... I'm afraid youre just plain wrong. All credible historical accounts not only show this, but I know of no source which disagrees. Outrage was due to Lincolns broken election promises and the racism of the day (by northerners).
Yes it did free slaves eventually, but the key is Lincoln used it to convert the war from suppressing a rebellion into 'freeing the slaves'. For his own minority ideological and for smart political reasons.
No foreign enemy would ever join the south now the war was being promoted as an anti slave war.

Honestly I'm not going to say more about this, if you think the Proclaimation was popular, read about the early civil war and the political aftermath and reactions by the north to it. Then make your own mind up.

[nenjin]

Err... The Jews weren't only one racial minority persecuted, and you'll have a hell of a time proving that it was the main motivation of anybody. Especially when talking about the axis powers other than Germany.

As for what the American Civil War was "about," there's a very good case for slavery. There's also a very good case for the Confederates flipping the bird to the northern states and saying "we can govern ourselves, thank you very much." It's "about" states rights, and slavery was the cornerstone issue as to what rights the states had.

I'm not arguing any of that. What mystifies me is why some people still try to.

Btw, the Copperheads were a pretty small minority in the Republican North, iirc. Most Northerners rejected the idea of slavery while simultaneously not really liking black people all that much.

Also due to the large opposition against the confederacy, I'm playing a bit of devils advocate here as a history lover/student.

We've done this dance in the last Civil War thread we did, so I'd just advise to remember you're only playing Devil's Advocate, because most on the other side of the issue will ignore that fact.

I'm afraid youre just plain wrong. All credible historical accounts not only show this, but I know of no source which disagrees.

For a student of history, you sure do exaggerate in the worst way possible. Unless you're going to list all historical, credible sources, that's not a statement worth making. And I've got an 800 page tome next to me, right now, that disagrees with you that the EP was "universally" hated in the North.

Yes it did free slaves eventually, but the key is Lincoln used it to convert the war from suppressing a rebellion into 'freeing the slaves'.

You don't know your Southerners very well. It became a total war by virtue of Southern resistance. There could have been no slaves in American, period, and I guarantee you Sherman would have still marched to the sea and Grant would have burned half the South to the ground. It was a war of culture as much as anything else, and the Union ultimately had to shatter the South to ever have a prayer of defeating it.

The only parlay the South would have is an admission that all their rights are sacrosanct, and that simply wasn't going to happen. Again, regardless of the slavery issue.

And seriously. Can you quit acting like you're the only one capable of reading a book? This is my primary source, on top of my entire high school and college education: http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Cry-Freedom-Oxford-History/dp/019516895X

[Max White]

I would have been a sheep farmer and most likely never even knew you guys had a war. Seriously, when we wanted to settle the native title act, we let the courts decide.

[Deadmeat1471]

As for what the American Civil War was "about," there's a very good case for slavery. There's also a very good case for the Confederates flipping the bird to the northern states and saying "we can govern ourselves, thank you very much." It's "about" states rights, and slavery was the cornerstone issue as to what rights the states had.

In all honesty, I think this approach of what the civil war 'was about' in retrospect is abit counterproductive. It matters nothing.

All that matters is what they thought in 1861, and very few were thinking, I'll fight to defend slaves. Yes there is a hell of alot of racism, but i was not unique to the South and it was not the prime or most prevelant reasons for southerners to fight.
The most prevelant based on what I've studied and the educated opinions of other writers has always been, states rights(they had a vote on secession) and simple defence of the home state and their homes from 'foreign' invaders.



Look at it this way. Youre a poor Southern farmer with no slaves and no stake in slaveholding. Your state has a vote for secession from the union in which your betters(learned) people insist is legal in the constition. Presdent Lincoln in the north then raises and army and states he will suppress the southern rebellion.

*Few southerners had slaves, most of the slaves were held by a few ultra rich plantation owners.

Is there anyone here who thinks this man thinks slavery was his motive for fighting? and this man made up the vast vast minority of the south, an agricultural labourer. Yeah he was probably racist as shit, but so were nearly all americans for the next 100 years.

[Frumple]

Hey, yo', check it out. Discussion relevant to the causes, etc., of the American Civil War probably goes there. Also previous discussion! Save some fingerjuice.

Also, thanks to Nadaka for mentioning that and saving me the effort. Slavery is not dead.

[Lysabild]

It's like saying WWII was about anything except the Jews. While there was a lot to WWII, it had a lot to do with the Jews too.

Err... The Jews weren't only one racial minority persecuted, and you'll have a hell of a time proving that it was the main motivation of anybody. Especially when talking about the axis powers other than Germany.

Not to mention that the Jew issue weren't a part of the reason for the war itself at all.

Just posting to say that, no interest in the civil war, though the Americans might be more understanding of the rest of the world if each state had been independent instead. Poor people of some of your crazier states though, so, good thing they aren't.

[Deadmeat1471]

Hey, yo', check it out. Discussion relevant to the causes, etc., of the American Civil War probably goes there. Also previous discussion! Save some fingerjuice.

Also, thanks to Nadaka for mentioning that and saving me the effort. Slavery is not dead.

Agree with NAdaka on those points, and how did I miss this thread? 

[mainiac]

You don't know your Southerners very well. It became a total war by virtue of Southern resistance. There could have been no slaves in American, period, and I guarantee you Sherman would have still marched to the sea and Grant would have burned half the South to the ground. It was a war of culture as much as anything else, and the Union ultimately had to shatter the South to ever have a prayer of defeating it.

The only parlay the South would have is an admission that all their rights are sacrosanct, and that simply wasn't going to happen. Again, regardless of the slavery issue.

And seriously. Can you quit acting like you're the only one capable of reading a book? This is my primary source, on top of my entire high school and college education: http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Cry-Freedom-Oxford-History/dp/019516895X

What exactly would have caused the war in this scenario?  There would need to be an actual point of contention.  What would that point be?

If you disagree that it was unpopular with the majority of northerners.... I'm afraid youre just plain wrong. All credible historical accounts not only show this, but I know of no source which disagrees. Outrage was due to Lincolns broken election promises and the racism of the day (by northerners).

I have absolutely no clue where you could have gotten this notion from.  Racism doesn't equate support for slavery.  England was both virulently racist and die-hard abolitionist at this point and had been for decades.

There were draft riots in New York during the civil war and hints of draft riots in many other cities.  There were never any abolition riots.

[nenjin]

Is there anyone here who thinks this man thinks slavery was his motive for fighting? and this man made up the vast vast minority of the south, an agricultural labourer. Yeah he was probably racist as shit, but so were nearly all americans for the next 100 years.

Except that owning slaves was the position he aspired too.

This is the thing about Southern aristocracy. They saw themselves as a people apart, with a unique culture not found anywhere else. Everything about their lives was part of that culture. Even a dirt farmer who owned no slaves saw slavery as part of the South, and slave owning southerns were its princes and kings.

Southerners were also highly self-reliant, working their own lands instead of living in mass urban centers like the North. It was their land, and they'd be damned if they were going to let some fop in a blue hat burn their crops, loot their house and say the Federal Government was in charge of their property, be that slaves or hay bales.

The fact that the South won at least half the battles they fought, trounced a better trained and equipped army several times their size, speaks to their level of morale and commitment. The commitment of these non-slave owning Southerners.

Btw, do you know who the first Southern settlers were? The English.

And so to my mind, if you're fighting that hard while not owning any slaves, it must be because slavery is just a non-issue to you (in the period sense, they don't care that another person has no rights....even when fighting for their own), the salvation of the South is more important than slavery.....or you really do support slavery.

What exactly would have caused the war in this scenario?  There would need to be an actual point of contention.

We're gonna end up having the same conversation we had in the last thread, aren't we?

Without slavery, the South would have had far less political power than the growing North. That could have ended up as a powder keg all its own (rather than just being the underpinning of the slavery issue.)

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Can we just not do this again?

[Deadmeat1471]

I'm not arguing any of that. What mystifies me is why some people still try to.

Btw, the Copperheads were a pretty small minority in the Republican North, iirc. Most Northerners rejected the idea of slavery while simultaneously not really liking black people all that much.

Also due to the large opposition against the confederacy, I'm playing a bit of devils advocate here as a history lover/student.

We've done this dance in the last Civil War thread we did, so I'd just advise to remember you're only playing Devil's Advocate, because most on the other side of the issue will ignore that fact.

I'm afraid youre just plain wrong. All credible historical accounts not only show this, but I know of no source which disagrees.

For a student of history, you sure do exaggerate in the worst way possible. Unless you're going to list all historical, credible sources, that's not a statement worth making. And I've got an 800 page tome next to me, right now, that disagrees with you that the EP was "universally" hated in the North.

Yes it did free slaves eventually, but the key is Lincoln used it to convert the war from suppressing a rebellion into 'freeing the slaves'.

You don't know your Southerners very well. It became a total war by virtue of Southern resistance. There could have been no slaves in American, period, and I guarantee you Sherman would have still marched to the sea and Grant would have burned half the South to the ground. It was a war of culture as much as anything else, and the Union ultimately had to shatter the South to ever have a prayer of defeating it.

The only parlay the South would have is an admission that all their rights are sacrosanct, and that simply wasn't going to happen. Again, regardless of the slavery issue.

And seriously. Can you quit acting like you're the only one capable of reading a book? This is my primary source, on top of my entire high school and college education: http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Cry-Freedom-Oxford-History/dp/019516895X

I didn't say it was universally hated, I said it was hated by the majority, which is a fair and true position supported by not only the quote I gave but every other source I've read.

I don't understand the last part of youre argument, you basicly have just agreed with me in a 'not agreeing' tone. I agree, the war wasn't about slavery for the people mostly, they would and did fight the war without slavery being on the agenda for abolishion, until well into the war in 1863. In the north and south.

I'm not saying you can't read, i'm saying I'm not going to sit here and write essays explaining to you it was unpopular. It was unpopular, it was known to be unpopular, it is common knowledge it was unpopular. Racism was rife both north and south, abolishionists were considered 'extremists'. I think that statement alone shows what the country was like back then.
This doesn't denigrate lincoln, it infact elevates him for standing up for his beliefs against all the opposition, and being a shrewd player and defeating the possibility of foreign intervention so well.



*Nenjin, lets not argue. Most of what you say I actually agree with and defends my points, but you say it as if you are disproving something i've said? its really boggling. I know all about southern tenacity, that is the main thing I propose and most other historians propose as the main cause of the South taking up arms to defend themselves.

Really nenjin, we agree. The only disagreement we have is you seem to not understand how unpopular the Emancipation Proclaimation was... which I don't understand because this isn't a radical view im taking here... its the view of every historian i've seen read about this (alot) and its pretty much common knowledge...

[nenjin]

I don't understand the last part of youre argument, you basicly have just agreed with me in a 'not agreeing' tone. I agree, the war wasn't about slavery for the people mostly, they would and did fight the war without slavery being on the agenda for abolishion, until well into the war in 1863.

Which ignores the ~10 year run up to the war where abolitionists were agitating for emancipation, slave riots, new territories....and the Southern media which basically incited people to rebellion. And THEN Lincoln got elected.

I'm not saying you can't read, i'm saying I'm not going to sit here and write essays explaining to you it was unpopular.

See, generally when you're arguing your point in history, you've got to back it up. I'm explaining my viewpoint. You're just going "common knowledge." I'm not going to my books yet, neither have you, but can you at least make an iota of effort to explain yourself, instead of, again, tacitly implying that I don't know what's "common knowledge." That's backhanded and it's genuinely starting to piss me off. If you're here to discuss something, you're committed to at least some "essay writing." I guarantee you at this point I'll read it.

[Deadmeat1471]

I don't understand the last part of youre argument, you basicly have just agreed with me in a 'not agreeing' tone. I agree, the war wasn't about slavery for the people mostly, they would and did fight the war without slavery being on the agenda for abolishion, until well into the war in 1863.

Which ignores the ~10 year run up to the war where abolitionists were agitating for emancipation, slave riots, new territories....and the Southern media which basically incited people to rebellion. And THEN Lincoln got elected.

I'm not saying you can't read, i'm saying I'm not going to sit here and write essays explaining to you it was unpopular.

See, generally when you're arguing your point in history, you've got to back it up. I'm explaining my viewpoint. You're just going "common knowledge." I'm not going to my books yet, neither have you, but can you at least make an iota of effort to explain yourself, instead of, again, tacitly implying that I don't know what's "common knowledge." That's backhanded and it's genuinely starting to piss me off. If you're here to discuss something, you're committed to at least some "essay writing." I guarantee you at this point I'll read it.

A) He only got elected because he promised not to touch slavery where it existed. Yes abolishionists were a minority and extremist and highly outspoken group.

B) This is the point where either we go grab sources and have a proper debate, or you can go and check your info on this. Because wikipaedia, all historians i've read all agree on this point. It's only nenjin who seems to think the emancipation proclaimation was popular in the North. To be completely honest on this, no I am not going to bother going and finding more sources than the wikipaedia one I gave you, because this is not a contentious issue, it is a un contraversial issue that every historian worth his salt agrees upon.
I really don't know why you think otherwise.

*Note i've read mcphearsons books, he says the same. I could probably go get one, turn to 1863, get a quote out about this and you probably still wouldn't believe me.

I will refer you once again to this, and to the wikipedia artical on the emancipation proclaimaton. Failing that you could read literally any book on the subject, pro north or pro south, all say the same, say what the wiki says (which btw is an excerpt from a historians book).

'Racism remained pervasive on both sides of the conflict and many in the North supported the war only as an effort to force the south back into the Union. The promises of many Republican politicians that the war was to restore the Union and not about black rights or ending slavery, were now declared lies by their opponents citing the Proclamation. Copperhead David Allen spoke to a rally in Columbiana, Ohio, stating "I have told you that this war is carried on for the Negro. There is the proclamation of the President of the United States. Now fellow Democrats I ask you if you are going to be forced into a war against your Brethren of the Southern States for the Negro. I answer No!'

[nenjin]

I'm not arguing it was popular.

The thing about emancipation is that while Northerners supported it in principle, very few of them, even abolitionists, thought much beyond the fact. So while I very much disagree that the emancipation proclamation was his most unpopular act....the opposite isn't true either.

Most Northerners rejected the idea of slavery while simultaneously not really liking black people all that much.

His most hated act is probably more likely suspending the writ of habeas corpus. Considering when the EP fell, "violating a campaign promise" was probably not on the minds of Northerners knee deep in a war they couldn't seem to really win. On that, I'm making an education guess, btw.

[Deadmeat1471]

I'm not arguing it was popular.

The thing about emancipation is that while Northerners supported it in principle, very few of them, even abolitionists, thought much beyond the fact. So while I very much disagree that the emancipation proclamation was his most unpopular act....the opposite isn't true either.

Most Northerners rejected the idea of slavery while simultaneously not really liking black people all that much.

That =/= "most hated and unpopular act of the Lincoln administration"

That's probably closer to suspending the writ of habeas corpus.

I would say that is fair, he only got elected because he promised not to. He had to openly state he would not touch slavery to even have a chance of winning. I think that pretty much shows how unpopular it would be, and was to the north and south.

I have read several authors state it was the most unpopular act, I don't feel it is an exageration but I do feel it would be extremely hard to prove in a scientific manner. They judge it as that based on the uproar it created by Northerners at the time, and I agree with them.

I think the draft had more opposition than HC, and the EP had probably equal or maybe even less opposition than the draft. Based on my personal interpretation of what I've learnt. I say this because the draft led to the draft riots, but surprise surprise, alot of racism and black lynchings happened in the draft riots in the North.