Civil War

[exnihilo]

The other side of the coin was maintaining and perpetuating slavery. It’s for you to say that the latter is not worth the former.

That is not really the other side of the coin. It is true the south had slavery and would have continued to have slavery until it peacefully ended as it did everywhere else in the Western world. It is also true that the Union had slave states. So the war wasn’t slave states vs. non-slave states. Moreover Honest Abe made clear in his inaugural address he did not intend to end slavery:

“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

When he issued his Emancipation Proclomation he freed slaves in territories which did not recognize his power and kept slavery everywhere his power was recognized. That is he freed slaves only in Confederate states (the Union had slave states) and in those states where the Union Army was not in control. Thus large areas of Virginia and Louisiana were exempt.

So the matter wasn’t one of the Union killing Confederates to end slavery. They killed Confederates to prevent them from exercising the rights proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence:

“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government”

 

[QuasiCatholic]

Kinda apples and oranges…don’t cha think?

No. They both basically served the same strategic purpose – a calculated display of military might to lower morale among the enemy, cut off their supplies and try to convince them the war was futile and that they should surrender. We saw the same thing again recently with “shock and awe.”

 

[starshiptrooper]

That is not really the other side of the coin. It is true the south had slavery and would have continued to have slavery until it peacefully ended as it did everywhere else in the Western world.

It was ended by force of law everywhere. The South was just a bit more difficult than everyone else.

It is also true that the Union had slave states. So the war wasn’t slave states vs. non-slave states. Moreover Honest Abe made clear in his inaugural address he did not intend to end slavery:

“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

It was well known that Lincoln and the Republicans believed in a strategy of containment. A later Republican pursued the same strategy against another evil empire.

When he issued his Emancipation Proclomation he freed slaves in territories which did not recognize his power and kept slavery everywhere his power was recognized. That is he freed slaves only in Confederate states (the Union had slave states) and in those states where the Union Army was not in control. Thus large areas of Virginia and Louisiana were exempt.

It was the only Constitutional action he could take since it directed Northern military policy.

So the matter wasn’t one of the Union killing Confederates to end slavery. They killed Confederates to prevent them from exercising the rights proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence:

“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government”

Yeah, the Confederates took those rights seriously and immediately freed all their slaves right? Nope, they were just a bunch of hypocrites.

 

[bisco]

sounds like another civil war in our future…

 

[Mickey_Finn]

The Southern states chose to secede because they could never have substantial representation in the House of Representatives due to the much lower numbers of population which allowed northern politicians to ram through Congress anything and everything that was beneficial to them and detrimental to the South. By 1860, over half of the GDP was from the production of cotton, yet Southern states couldn’t get the kind of legislation passed that would allow them modernize. The United States of America was founded after a revolution against the legitimate authority of Great Britain because it wasn’t allowed to pass laws and effect policies that were beneficial to it. If you think that Southern States caused the death of many during the Civil War, then you should also believe that the inhabitants of the original 13 colonies also caused the deaths of those during the Revolution, including perhaps some of your ancestors.

I have ancestors who fought for the state of Louisiana during the Civil War. If you feel the need to pray for them, it isn’t for defending their families, homes and ways of life from invading armies that stole and burned innocent people out of their subsidence.

The wealthy land owners in the south choose to secede to defend their “possessions”. They led the poorer southerns in to battle and brought about the ruin of the south, and the death of so many. Yes, I think their souls could use a little help.

There was nothing in the Constitution that did not allow slavery, nor was there anything that deemed secession to be an illegal act. It was an open question until the Civil War settled it. Funny how we criticize the Roe vs Wade decision for finding the supposed “right” of privacy in the Constitution when it isn’t even mentioned, yet condemn people from the past for practicing something that wasn’t prohibited by the Constitution. Abraham Lincoln asked Stephen Douglas in the famous Lincoln/Douglas debates how the government could outlaw the institution of slavery when it was allowed by the Constitution. Douglas did not have an answer.

If the south had not caused such death. We would most likely think better of them.

Yeah, God bless Sherman for all of the death and misery he created on his march to sea. Glory, Glory Hallelujah.

Rebellions have to be quelled. That is something Andrew Jackson understood, and Abraham Lincoln learned. The wealthy land owners in the south choose to secede. It was they who unleashed that Terrible Swift sword.

 

[Timothysis]

Nope, they were just a bunch of hypocrites.

Yeah, hypocrites. The only reason that the North gave up on slavery was because it didn’t work out economically. With the growth of industry it was cheaper to pay wages to employees than to buy, house and feed slaves. In the agricultural South, it worked the other way. Had slavery been profitable in the North you can rest assured that they would have kept it.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

The Southern states chose to secede because they could never have substantial representation in the House of Representatives due to the much lower numbers of population which allowed northern politicians to ram through Congress anything and everything that was beneficial to them and detrimental to the South. By 1860, over half of the GDP was from the production of cotton, yet Southern states couldn’t get the kind of legislation passed that would allow them modernize. The United States of America was founded after a revolution against the legitimate authority of Great Britain because it wasn’t allowed to pass laws and effect policies that were beneficial to it. If you think that Southern States caused the death of many during the Civil War, then you should also believe that the inhabitants of the original 13 colonies also caused the deaths of those during the Revolution, including perhaps some of your ancestors.

I have ancestors who fought for the state of Louisiana during the Civil War. If you feel the need to pray for them, it isn’t for defending their families, homes and ways of life from invading armies that stole and burned innocent people out of their subsidence.

Um, how exactly does one modernize a slave based agrarian society that doesn’t want industrialization and urbanization because both would threaten its slave based agrarian economy? And, how exactly did those evil Northern politicians who apparently could do anything they wanted, except for small little things like making all new states free states instead of having to cut a deal and have it be a 1-1 situation, block such unwanted modernization?

 

[Brendan]

Arguments that the South were wrong in the Civil War because so and so argues that secession is illegal are misguided. The crux of the matter is that the PEOPLE of the South believed during that generation that secession and nullification was legal, so they did not break any contracts in not accepting the election of Lincoln. So how can it not be argued that they had a right to have their own nation?

They might have, but the had given away right to control of their ports, and yes even Fort Sumpter

All of that would have had the same status as Guantanamo Bay does now. Ports controlled by the United States.

 

[Timothysis]

The wealthy land owners in the south choose to secede to defend their “possessions”. They led the poorer southerns in to battle and brought about the ruin of the south, and the death of so many. Yes, I think their souls could use a little help.

When South Carolina fired the first shots at Fort Sumter, it wasn’t to defend anything but to declare their independence from the Union. If anyone brought ruin to the South, it was the Northern armies that slashed and burned their way (when not being checked by smaller armies that outperformed and outgeneraled the superior Northern hosts) across the land. There is certainly nothing sinful in fighting for the liberty and freedom of yourself, your family and your neighbor and to suggest that there is is the ultimate in arrogance. Do you also think that the souls of Sherman and his soldiers who burned and looted everything in their path need a little help, too?

If the south had not caused such death. We would most likely think better of them.

Honestly, who do you think cares a flip what YOU think about Southerners who fought for the cause of their states, land and families?

Rebellions have to be quelled. That is something Andrew Jackson understood, and Abraham Lincoln learned. The wealthy land owners in the south choose to secede. It was they who unleashed that Terrible Swift sword.

At the time, the question of secession was still an open one. States in New England had been threatening secession since the 1820s. I wonder, though, that do you feel the same about the American Revolution and do you consider that action to be as illicit as those of the Southern secessionist?

 

[Timothysis]

Um, how exactly does one modernize a slave based agrarian society that doesn’t want industrialization and urbanization because both would threaten its slave based agrarian economy? And, how exactly did those evil Northern politicians who apparently could do anything they wanted, except for small little things like making all new states free states instead of having to cut a deal and have it be a 1-1 situation, block such unwanted modernization?

The number of representatives in the House is based on the population of a state. Since the large majority of the population in the country at the time was based in the northern states, the large majority of representatives in the House were northerners who pursued policies that were beneficial to the industrial north and unbeneficial to the agricultural south.

One only needs examine one of the many charts that detail the number of factories, railroad milage, industry etc. of the north vs. the south to see how legislation was tipped to northern interests. Again, it is worth mentioning that the country that the north fought so hard to keep together gained its own independence upon the concept that “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.” So what is Just for one in Unjust for another?

 

[Ridgerunner]

I dispute that the causes of the Civil War were the same everywhere.

My state (Mo) made the mistake of trying to opt out of the war. It was as agrarian as most states and more industrialized than any southern state other than Virginia. There was very little cotton or rice grown, and no sugar cane. It did not have a plantation agrarian economy, but one based on small, food-producing farms.

Because it wanted to remain neutral and said so, it was invaded by Union troops from Illinois. Union gunboats went up the Missouri River to capture the capital, Jefferson City. The legislature and governor fled, passed articles of secession and Mo was admitted to the confederacy. (count the stars in the “stars and bars” if you have any doubts).

Because Union gunboats captured the capital and replaced the legislature and governor with Union men, the Union nevertheless considered Mo a Union state notwithstanding its admission into the Confederacy.

There were few slaves in Missouri, and most Missourians cared nothing about it. But they did care about the Union commissioning the Kansas guerilla Jim Lane to bring his marauders into Missouri as part of the “Union army” to “pacify” the state. That led to a guerilla response, among whom were characters like Quantrill and Jesse James on the Confederate side. The first big battle here was the largest in the war before Shiloh. The last battles of the war were fought in Missouri.

What was the Union’s purpose? Why wasn’t neutrality sufficient? Well, because Mo was then a state with a lot of industry and was also the foremost producer of food. The Union wanted to deny those resources to the South. And the Union wanted to draft Missourians, which it did, leading to (among other things) the oddity of the First Missouri (Union) facing the First Missouri (Confederate) across the trench lines at Vicksburg.

Notwithstanding that the Union never considered Missouri a secessionist state, it nevertheless imposed Reconstruction on the state; one of the worst. But then, irony of ironies, because of that denial, the Union did not require the post war Mo legislature to pass reunification legislation the way it did all other confederate states.

So, I guess Mo is the last Confederate state left.

But regardless of how it was anywhere else, it wasn’t about slavery here.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

The number of representatives in the House is based on the population of a state. Since the large majority of the population in the country at the time was based in the northern states, the large majority of representatives in the House were northerners who pursued policies that were beneficial to the industrial north and unbeneficial to the agricultural south.

One only needs examine one of the many charts that detail the number of factories, railroad milage, industry etc. of the north vs. the south to see how legislation was tipped to northern interests. Again, it is worth mentioning that the country that the north fought so hard to keep together gained its own independence upon the concept that “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.” So what is Just for one in Unjust for another?

Underpinning your entire argument is the assumption that the South which was perfectly happy with its slave based agrarian economy wanted factories, railroads, and industry; especially since most of said factories and industry was based on a non-slave labor force.

 

[on_the_hill]

So for those who believe that the Civil War was a war of northern aggression and that the south is much aggrieved, are you unhappy that the Union was preserved? Can you honestly say that you would rather the U.S. not exist as we know it?

Because I have never come across so many staunch supporters of the south as I have on this forum. It’s a little bit scary, frankly.

 

[Timothysis]

Underpinning your entire argument is the assumption that the South which was perfectly happy with its slave based agrarian economy wanted factories, railroads, and industry; especially since most of said factories and industry was based on a non-slave labor force.

Did I say that? Look, go read a history book if you want the details. Even a cursory knowledge of the events leading up to the Civil War will reveal the disparity between life in northern states vs. southern states.

 

[Timothysis]

Because I have never come across so many staunch supporters of the south as I have on this forum. It’s a little bit scary, frankly.

Robert E. Lee rejected the offer of command of the Union forces because his loyalty was to his home state. People in the 1850s did not think of America as we do now, with an ever increasing all-powerful federal government. Federal presence was probably non-existent in 98% of the country. People in rural southern states owed their loyalty to their state. My ancestors in Louisiana fought against the British in the Revolution and the War of 1812. Do you think they would suddenly fight for a federal government located thousands of miles away that had zero impact on their daily lives? It was the federal government that took New Orleans without a shot by threaten to destroy the city if there was any resistance and they took Baton Rouge after a short but violent fight. What makes you think the people of the state would rally around federal troops, especially after they burned the state capital?

 

[bisco]

So for those who believe that the Civil War was a war of northern aggression and that the south is much aggrieved, are you unhappy that the Union was preserved? Can you honestly say that you would rather the U.S. not exist as we know it?

Because I have never come across so many staunch supporters of the south as I have on this forum. It’s a little bit scary, frankly.

it’s the residual anger that concerns me, 150 years later. the harboring of grudges. seems very anti catholic.

 

[on_the_hill]

Robert E. Lee rejected the offer of command of the Union forces because his loyalty was to his home state. People in the 1850s did not think of America as we do now, with an ever increasing all-powerful federal government. Federal presence was probably non-existent in 98% of the country. People in rural southern states owed their loyalty to their state. My ancestors in Louisiana fought against the British in the Revolution and the War of 1812. Do you think they would suddenly fight for a federal government located thousands of miles away that had zero impact on their daily lives? It was the federal government that took New Orleans without a shot by threaten to destroy the city if there was any resistance and they took Baton Rouge after a short but violent fight. What makes you think the people of the state would rally around federal troops, especially after they burned the state capital?

Yes or no?

 

[thinkandmull]

So for those who believe that the Civil War was a war of northern aggression and that the south is much aggrieved, are you unhappy that the Union was preserved? Can you honestly say that you would rather the U.S. not exist as we know it?

Because I have never come across so many staunch supporters of the south as I have on this forum. It’s a little bit scary, frankly.

How do YOU know what North American would have looked like if the North didn’t invade the South?

The South was WRONG to secede and wrong to shot guns, because the state’s all issued legal documents of secession which maintained that the main reason for leaving was over the slave issue. Some in the South had plans of making Mexico a slave to them sometime in the future.

The Northerners who were firing just to keep the Union were WRONG. You can NEVER kill ANYBODY, even a soldier, to keep a political system together. Nor even to stop a rebellion, unless their is a CLEAR criminal violation of serious rights involved.

NOBODY knows if there is a legal right to secession. In fact, that is a meaningless question. The issue wasn’t addressed by the Founders, and all arguments are just arguments. Do you imagine the right is sitting somewhere in a vault? No. But people are not bound by their ancestors decisions.

 

[Timothysis]

Yes or no?

I presume that this question is in regards to this one?

So for those who believe that the Civil War was a war of northern aggression and that the south is much aggrieved, are you unhappy that the Union was preserved? Can you honestly say that you would rather the U.S. not exist as we know it?

I have no answer because it is a meaningless question, sort of like asking if I am happy that the United States broke from Great Britain.

 

[Timothysis]

How do YOU know what North American would have looked like if the North didn’t invade the South?

The South was WRONG to secede and wrong to shot guns, because the state’s all issued legal documents of secession which maintained that the main reason for leaving was over the slave issue. Some in the South had plans of making Mexico a slave to them sometime in the future.

The Northerners who were firing just to keep the Union were WRONG. You can NEVER kill ANYBODY, even a soldier, to keep a political system together. Nor even to stop a rebellion, unless their is a CLEAR criminal violation of serious rights involved.

NOBODY knows if there is a legal right to secession. In fact, that is a meaningless question. The issue wasn’t addressed by the Founders, and all arguments are just arguments. Do you imagine the right is sitting somewhere in a vault? No. But people are not bound by their ancestors decisions.

While amusing, your post has no basis in Catholic teaching or civil law.