Matrix Games Forums

I was Browsing the Forums and saw Anthropid’s comment on his AAR:


“

First thing I want to say in case any non-gamers read this AAR: I am most definitely NOT, NOT, _NOT_ in anyway pro-Confederacy, nor any sort of "apologist" for the CSA. Slavery was and is one of the biggest evils ever in human history. The Confederacy was an unjust, exploitative, wrong-headed, indeed EVIL regime, and I am extremely thankful that they were defeated in real history. While the esprit du corps of the CSA was truly remarkable, it does not compensate for the fact that what they were fighting for was an evil cause, and that much of American society at that time (not just in the South) was deeply deluded with ethnocentric racist notions of white supremacy.

Now, having said that: this thread is NOT, NOT, _NOT_ for us to get in to a Flamewar about the merits of the CSA. This is MY AAR of me playing the CSA. I just wanted to get this in there as a disclaimer. Its a game. I'm exploring the whatifs of history, and trying to give my opponent a good challenge. I will try my best to win the game, but that isn't because I wish the CSA had won in real life. It is just a game”

It got me wondering: How wrong was the south? Were they Wrong? Obviously. This thread is open to opinions on that. (Hope you don’t mind that I quoted you, Anthropoid )

Personally, I think we all agree that slavery is wrong but is that the cause of the war? The war was mainly fought because of State’s rights and the Economy: With Northern factories, the south was at a huge disadvantage. Their livelihood was at risk with their farms due to now the northern factories dominating the economy. The south was at a loss, the north was dominating the economy, their rights weren’t being represented and their lives were changing. With steel and other items being in big demand, nations like England and other countries would trade that for their cotton, and the north would go around the south. Thus now the south was losing business, and they knew if they were a separate nation, their economic rights wouldn’t be threatened by the north and they can make their own trades and their rights being upheld. That, is wy, in my opinion, the war was fought.

Also most southerners didn’t own slaves. Generals Lee, Jackson and Cleburne as well as many other supported the slaves to be free. Slavery didn’t begin as the cause of the war but the war took a change. Lincoln couldn’t take over the south through force and not free the slaves while he was there. (Such issues are briefly mentioned in movies such as Gods and Generals). The war changed from one nation fighting for their independence and rights and one nation to stop them to one doing that and also tiring to free the slaves. If the union army was out their to free the slaves, do you think that over two million people would be out there? No. People, unfortunately, are not compassionate, and because that the enslavement of people didn’t really effect them. In fact the General in chief of all union forces, Grant, stated “If this war was fought over slavery, I would surrender my sword and join the other side.” Slavery was a great evil but it simply wasn’t the cause of the war.
Wars change things, and that’s why people have that conception. We began to stop the confederates from seceding and then since we were doing in this we also freed the slaves. I would love more opinions so we can all see what people think. So we can see what this war was fought about.

Don't mind at all you quoting me Jonah, and thanks for starting the debate in a separate thread from my AAR

I lived in Atlanta for nearly 15 years. I grew up in the Ozarks. To me central Tennessee and central Kentucky are heaven on Earth. I actually like most of Southern culture--having lived in New England, and Canada, it really is NOT that much different from the rest of the U.S. of today.

The thing we have to keep in mind is how unusual non-racist viewpoints were in the 1850s. Even in 1860, abolitionists were considered by MOST (not some, MOST) to be radical, even in the north. Go back and read some of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, the rhetoric about race and racism is like listening in to another planet. It was presumed by most people on Earth up until the end of the 19th century that race was real, that some races were inferior, indeed, incapable of being fullfledged autonomous humans, and in this context, slavery was viewed by white southerners as a form of generosity. Indeed, it might be surprising to some to read some of the rhetoric about "doing God's work" and that sort of thing by giving African's a "real life" in which they could at least aspire to be children of God. I believe that in many instances, maybe most, plantation owners had a relationship with their stock that was largely beneficient.

But at the end of all that, Africans are people, and they were no less people back then. There were a few incendiary radicals (mostly in the North) who saw this quite clearly; Lincoln was not actually one of the more radical among them. I think the CSA was a tremendously wrong regime, indeed, one step worst than the Nazi regime.

Nazis only wanted to exterminate Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, etc. Confederates wanted to enslave, for generations of human lives, an entire type of people, not simply ending their existence on Earth, but exploiting it, stealing from it day after day after day its most basic right: freedom.

In its delusions of self-righteous grandeur, and its hypocricy about African human-ness, it is my opinion that the CSA was one of the most wrong social and political movements ever. This is only further compounded by the fact that that provoked a horrific war. But that is just my opinion [:)]

ADDIT: with respect to "what it was fought over," no offense but I have been convinced by the "not slavery, it was states rights" argument. You point out the economy, which I would not dispute. But what was the central issue at the heart of the economic rivalry? Industrialization in the north, and slavery in the south. The point that "not all southerners owned slaves," is also true. Indeed, the vast majority of white southerners did not own slaves, only a small elite segment of southern society (who also happened to be lawyers, doctors, engineers, landowners, Mayors, Governors, Senators, etc.) tended to own large numbers of slaves. The South was a simulacrum of Feudalism, but instead of Lords with serfs, they were Lords with slaves, as well as a largely compliant white working class.

The "State's Rights" which for which several hundred thousand Confederate men and boys made the ultimate sacrifice were ultimate the rights of the wealthy class in the South to own slaves (and granted, the corollary right of any white person to dream to aspire to own enough land to warrant owning slaves).

The struggle to, as Lincoln put it 'contain' and slowly choke-out slavery had been going on in the U.S. for decades. There are numerous political wrangles in the U.S. in the early 19th century that all deal with a common theme: (i) spreading the institution of slavery to prospective states and new territories, vs. containing it, as well as a related theme of (ii) extending the privileges of slave ownership into the non-slave states, vs. restricting the passage of slaves through the non-slave states, and/or providing sanctuary to runaways.

Indeed, it is correct to say that the CSA seceded and provoked the war in order to fight for its "states rights," more specifically, the rights of the southern states to retain the institution of slavery ad infinitum, and maybe even spread it to additional territories such as New Mexico, Kansas, or even if they dreamed big, Mexico, and Cuba. The vision of the leaders of the CSA was that they would establish a neverending tradition of slavery, and a worldwide apartheid network that would keep them and their descendants very rich forever.

Thanks for the reply, I have a few points, some for what your saying and some against and It’s not like I’m insulting you, I just believe discussion and debate are the best way to solve issues so this is great, and I’m not FOR slavery, just as a note, more against the conviction that this is why the war was fought. Since you do not think the Economy and rights were the main cause, I have a few points about slavery:

The thing we have to keep in mind is how unusual non-racist viewpoints were in the 1850s. Even in 1860, abolitionists were considered by MOST (not some, MOST) to be radical, even in the north. Go back and read some of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, the rhetoric about race and racism is like listening in to another planet. It was presumed by most people on Earth up until the end of the 19th century that race was real, that some races were inferior, indeed, incapable of being fullfledged autonomous humans, and in this context, slavery was viewed by white southerners as a form of generosity. Indeed, it might be surprising to some to read some of the rhetoric about "doing God's work" and that sort of thing by giving African's a "real life" in which they could at least aspire to be children of God. I believe that in many instances, maybe most, plantation owners had a relationship with their stock that was largely beneficient.

A little note here, Most Christians were NOT for slavery, north or south. For Example, Lee, Jackson and Lincoln were all Christians and not for slavery where as Forrest, Grant and Sherman were not ardent Christians and generally speaking were for it. Slavery and Christianity directly contrast with the beliefs.

But at the end of all that, Africans are people, and they were no less people back then. There were a few incendiary radicals (mostly in the North) who saw this quite clearly; Lincoln was not actually one of the more radical among them. I think the CSA was a tremendously wrong regime, indeed, one step worst than the Nazi regime.

Nazis only wanted to exterminate Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, etc. Confederates wanted to enslave, for generations of human lives, an entire type of people, not simply ending their existence on Earth, but exploiting it, stealing from it day after day after day its most basic right: freedom.

Okay, with all due respect, comparing the Nazis with the Confederates is a little far fetched. The Nazis killed 21.9 Million people, the Confederacy enslaved around 3 Million (which is bad). But enslaving is not as bad as killing. As a slave your still alive and have a chance of freedom. Freedom was a widespread thought, and emancipation was considered, I know I said this already though.

Something that strikes me is in race. The fact that whenever people always go on that something is ten time’s worse when somebody singles out one race and kills or enslaves them. What I find Intresting, Is when Hitler had the Holocaust and if you compare it to Stalin: 21.9 Million killed to 43.6 Million Killed in Fifteen years with Hitler to eight with Stalin, respectively. What strikes me is that people say “What Stalin did is bad but Hitler is by far worse, he killed a RACE” while Stalin killed people of a Religion, Christians, as did Mao, both are ignored. The same is with slavery, slavery of Blacks is worse then enslavement of a religion. So we value our own Looks, our own race, segregating ourselves, and then put our beliefs and religion second. Our looks first and then our convictions.

In its delusions of self-righteous grandeur, and its hypocricy about African human-ness, it is my opinion that the CSA was one of the most wrong social and political movements ever. This is only further compounded by the fact that that provoked a horrific war. But that is just my opinion

But don’t you remember, It’s the war of Northern aggression he he he, what kinda southerner are you? What the CSA did was wrong, but not as wrong as others. What they did wrong was seceding from the country, Slavery was a choice by the government in Washington, if they didn’t want slavery, they could’ve done something before, so now the south get’s all the blame while everyone else sttod by. But that’s another issue, the fact is as I stated I must disagree that the war was about slavery rights. The south wanted economic rights and the rights of a state, not to be infringed on. Now it’s gone the other way: School systems are so much controlled by rthe federal government, Supreme court overturning state laws, and states not being allowed to use their recourses due to federal programs. The federal government have control that was not intended by the founding fathers, and was not intended for this nation.

ADDIT: with respect to "what it was fought over," no offense but I have been convinced by the "not slavery, it was states rights" argument. You point out the economy, which I would not dispute. But what was the central issue at the heart of the economic rivalry? Industrialization in the north, and slavery in the south. The point that "not all southerners owned slaves," is also true. Indeed, the vast majority of white southerners did not own slaves, only a small elite segment of southern society (who also happened to be lawyers, doctors, engineers, landowners, Mayors, Governors, Senators, etc.) tended to own large numbers of slaves. The South was a simulacrum of Feudalism, but instead of Lords with serfs, they were Lords with slaves, as well as a largely compliant white working class.

The rivalry wasn’t because of slavery, but more because of the cotton and other economics. Since the Slaves were only owned by the small elite, there is no way the entire south would rely on that trade. Slavery didn’t help the south so it couldn’t be the backbone since it cost more to feed and provide slaves than to have regular labour.The south relied on other things, with or without the use of slaves. And the point is that the Federal government was going around the south in deals with other nations.

The "State's Rights" which for which several hundred thousand Confederate men and boys made the ultimate sacrifice were ultimate the rights of the wealthy class in the South to own slaves (and granted, the corollary right of any white person to dream to aspire to own enough land to warrant owning slaves).

I find this point almost has contradictory in itself: I’m sorry, I don’t wish to be rude, but It’s ludicrous that the south would spend 275,000 lives, starvation and the loss of homes just for a small elite. Even if they did, Five million people would not got to war just so a small section of them MAY prosper Economically. Since slavery was a failing system, it was bound to be given up: The question was when.

The struggle to, as Lincoln put it 'contain' and slowly choke-out slavery had been going on in the U.S. for decades. There are numerous political wrangles in the U.S. in the early 19th century that all deal with a common theme: (i) spreading the institution of slavery to prospective states and new territories, vs. containing it, as well as a related theme of (ii) extending the privileges of slave ownership into the non-slave states, vs. restricting the passage of slaves through the non-slave states, and/or providing sanctuary to runaways.

Indeed, it is correct to say that the CSA seceded and provoked the war in order to fight for its "states rights," more specifically, the rights of the southern states to retain the institution of slavery ad infinitum, and maybe even spread it to additional territories such as New Mexico, Kansas, or even if they dreamed big, Mexico, and Cuba. The vision of the leaders of the CSA was that they would establish a neverending tradition of slavery, and a worldwide apartheid network that would keep them and their descendants very rich forever.

I don’t wish to be rude again, but it tis indeed absurd that an entire nation’s one wish in life was slavery. Even if it was, slavery was a tool to get something, not a goal. You used slaves. Do you think in all the agonizing months of the war with famine death, homes being burnt, slaves running away, families destroyed by death, northern occupation ect., that the southern leaders, and even more the people, would still say “We gotta do this, go slavery no matter what the cost!” Would slavery matter then? Would it? A whole people’s lifetime goals would not be slavery, even if they all owned slaves. And why would they all be rich if only a small elite make’s their descendents rich forever? Why would they do it? Slavery was an asset but not the entirety of the war or the south? What individual puts some practice or possession over a higher cause. They wouldn’t sacrifice 275,000 lives for what some of them thought was a possession, they fought for something higher. They fought for freedom, for rights, for their businesses, many for God, some because of their friends, they fought for their lifestyle, but most of all: Home. A few politicians signed the whole south onto secession, but the people had to choose their home. Would you fight your family and friends and community? They wondered which evil was lesser, what would God, our savior, have them do? They chose to fight for their family and friends, and their homes. Sorry, the debater in me, but, I would enjoy any comments.

Intersting topic. I was born in the south. Raised here and have deep family roots in Alabama, Tenn, NC and Va. from 1628 so as I delved into the family history I uncovered various aspects I was not really aware of. There were several issues that were hotbed issues in the south pre CW. One being out of wed lock children. Did you know women had post a thing called a Bastardy Bond and state the name of the father in open court or be jailed. Indentured servitude. think about that. You give your humanity up for passage to a new country for 5 years then add another 5 years for your wife. 10 years of so called volunteer slavery. Slavery exist at the present time and it is abhorrent but a reality.
 
What the war was about was Did the people in a prticular state have the right to govern themselves and say what goes on in their backyard without interference. Before the war our family owned 15,000 acres in Northwest Alabama. After the war the Northen gov't said Woah wait this ain't yours it is ours by imminent domain. Is that right? Is that the truth that the Winner of the War envisioned? After the war the south was kept in repression for years. Did you know that alot of the CSA Veterens fought in the Spanish American War? To them it was a sense of duty and honor. That same sense and honor dictates alot of the armed forces makeup of today. The typical and predominent combat troops are from the south.
 
By far if the south had 1/2 the industrial base the north had the end result would have been different. England and France were already shipping aid through Mexico and the Bahamas. Picture if you will a Lincoln on the ropes prior to Gettysburg, Suspended Habius Corpus in Chicago, Return Runaway Slaves to their owners that vebtured north. This same president A Great Man none the less Free those slave that he himself said were better off in slavery then venturing into the unknown...The south had a cause and that cause was Freedom, Duty, Honor above all a sense of self.
 
Marc

The American Civil War was fought over one thing. States rights.

The right of states to determine their own government over and above the Federal level of government. When the extent of that right was questioned and it looked as though the Southern States might be told how to run thier own business they rebelled. The point of contention at this time was slavery. It could easily have been something else.

It's easy to let slavery take front and center stage, because as you say, it is deplorable.

Lincoln made the ACW about slavery in 1863. Long after hundreds of thousands of casualties. No, while it's popular to want to have the shining social righteousness of slavery be the cause of the ACW. It wasn't.

What it did do was cement the absolute right of the federal government to tell a state how things would be done and make it stick. It also ended the right of Texas to pull out of the United States, or to form into 5 seperate states. That's another issue I hear every so often in Texas. Not after the war they can't. The rights Texans enjoyed as having been a seperate nation and their terms for coming in the US were finished.

One of the reasons the US became independent from Britian in the first place was the exact same issue. So, the southerners were standing on predident when they told the US government to take a hike. The colonies did exactly the same thing to England with excactly the same results. A war.

Only in that case the US became a free and independent nation. IMO, if France, or England, had helped the Confederacy, to the extent that France helped the 13 colonies, that would have happened in the 1860's as well.

Good Hunting.

MR

That old tried and tested document:
Constitution
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
 
Decleration of Independance
 
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. 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, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
 
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
 
Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
 

HiHi

I would love to have the time to join in this debate fully, give you ex-colonials [:D] a view from across the Pond etc, I can’t at the moment so I will just bung in a few minor Bits & bobs.

“... deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. 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, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Cheers for the quote Barker [:)]

Now it’s been many years since I did my reading on the ACW but did not the bulk, if not all the Southern states put the issue to their voters? I may be wrong here but if my memory serves me well Delaware was the only Slave owning state to vote outright to stay in the Union, Maryland was invaded by Beast Butler and thus kept in the Union and Missouri again was held in by force.

An interesting pointer to what the war was about can be seen on an 1860 election poster for Lincoln & Hannibal Hamlin, across the top are blazed the words “THE UNION MUST AND SHALL BE PRESERVED” (my emphasis). Between pictures of the 2 candidates is a background depicting Industry & Commerce i.e. smoking Factory chimneys & Ships masts, underneath centre where it stands out sharply, the words, “PROTECTION TO AMERICAN INDUSTRY” (their emphasis).

Nuff said?

Jonah IMO you have the correct driving force behind the war ie economics; however can I suggest you may be on dodgy ground when you raise the Christianity thing; most ordinary Christians at the time would have been fairly ambivalent about slavery, after all their god was a bit fuzzy on the issue, stating only that you should “be kind to your slaves”; and raising the issue as if religion is a moral guide to good behaviour is I’m afraid a nonsense, the barbarities condoned in the name of god leave even the worst excesses of the most brutal slave owner pale by comparison.

Agggh! Time were does it go? Would love to carry on but got battles in Cyberspace to fight.

Jonah, it’s a real shame this topic couldn’t have been opened on the Blitz ‘Historical Discussion’ MB where it would reach a far wider audience ... Err Anthropoid, don’t suppose you would care to C&P it and transfer it over? ... OK, it’s just a thought.

All the Best
Peter

Peter
 
Excellent points.....IMO the English would have supported the south if Slavery were abloshed after the CSA declared. I think the south would have abolished slavery in due course if they would have won. The Spanish American war would have happened but the CSA would have been the more potent player in that war. Boxer Rebellion Hard to say....WWI definately a United Front with the Union and CSA fighting together, Japan bombs Pearl...the Union Reunites as One Nation....Interesting Twists. I think England is more fascinated with the South then the North because of the culture.
 
Marc

My reading of history is very different from that of some of you gentlemen. I have no need of convincing you, and I must tell you, I am wholly UNCONVINCED by most of your claims that the slavery was not at the heart of why the ACW was fought. I stand by what I said, and I hope you can respect my rights to say my mind.

The CSA was deeply unjust, deeply delusional, and entirely wrong. In contrast, the Union was relatively just in seeking to keep the Union intact and to constrain the growth of the Southern slave economy, and later more fully just and rigtheous by enacting the Emancipation Proclamation; the Union might have been nearly as delusional as the South about many things, including its rights to impose its economic, or social standards on the South, as well as being mostly racist, but these to me are auxillary issues, not central to a discussion of "What the ACW Was 'About.'"  Lastly, whereas the CSA was wrong to secede and provoke a war, the Union was entirely right to insist that secession should not be allowed: United we Stand, Divided we Fall. I hope we can all agree that the entire World would have been a much worse-off place, had the CSA managed to achieve a peace settlement that did not involve its re-introduction into the USA.

I also stand by the analogy I made above about the German National Socialist movement and the holocaust. To keep a person alive simply for the sake of extorting their toil can be argued to be less ultimately evil than genocide because it does not involve the secession of their life. But this relative difference in injustice does not make slavery any "more just," it simply makes it a different injustice. One which I will say again, is in some ways equally if not more repugnant than Nazi genocide. The idea that an entire class of people are a lessser form of humanity, and not deserving of the same rights as any other person is a repugnant idea. Defending institutions that deprive that entire class of people of basic life, liberty and freedom is also repugnant. To end a person's life is to permanently deprive them of all prospects of life, liberty, and happiness, and as such this can be seen to be the "ultimate injustice." To enslave a person is to deprive them of some--though perhaps not all life, liberty, and happiness--but in being a "lesser evil" slavery was also a more insidious evil, that threatened a perpetuity which, left unchecked could readily have stolen liberty from far more than 22 million souls.

There was only a reluctant consideration of emancipation by the CSA leadership during the latter days of the war when the nations reservoirs of manpower were very low. This does not 'prove' that the CSA would have been willing eventually to free its slaves, and indeed, to suggest as such is entirely contrary to an accurate reading of history. The economy of the CSA at the wars start was almost entirely dependent on slavery, and this what they were fighting to preserve.

What would the world be like today, had the CSA not been thwarted in its efforts to break away from the Union which it accurately recognized was growing increasingly abolitionist in opinion? What if those bitter months of 1864 and 1865 had had a few slightly different turns of events: the anti-war movement in the north had prevailed more; Lincoln had lost; a few more defeats of Union forces, with the ultimate consequence that the Union accepted the CSA's bid for peace and separatism?

We would likely still have slavery in the south today, and indeed, the dream which many CSA writers expounded of a entire "Southern Hemisphere International Network of Slave States" may well have come true. Mexico was ripe for the introduction of the Southern slave institution, and Brazil would like have remained/resumed being a slave state too. Republic of South Africa, the Congo, various Caribbean states including Cuba . . . had the CSA not been subjected to utter defeat and unconditional surrender, an open-minded "what-if" read of history suggests that slavery-by degrees-may well have persisted, emerged, or re-emerged in all these and potential more locales all around the world. Indeed, when viewed from this perspective, the ACW was not simply about a war between the Union division of the former U.S. and the Confederate division, it was a war between an impending novel world order that recognized all types of people as humans, and an ancient world order in which class, race, ethnicity, nationality, language, etc., had been for thousands of years used as bases to exploit, abuse, and oppress.

Indeed, one of you quote the figure of "3 million African slaves." I do not doubt that this is about the correct number of slaves in the CSA at the start of the war. But how many more human beings had been born died lives of slavery in the decades before the start of the war? Had the CSA not been defeated, how many MORE would have been born and died lives of slavery in the decades that followed? Cumulatively, over generations, slavery is no less repugnant than an acute historical genocide, and in being a superficially "lesser" evil that some might almost apologize for, it is in fact just as evil in its long-term toll on human dignity as a genocide. Slavery was wrong, and the CSA fought to defend its right to maintain the institution; this simple point makes any argument about the war being "about State's Rights" largely a moot evasion of the history.

22 million murdered in cold blood in the span of 9 or 10 years is a gargantuan, and grotesque credit of human evil. The potential outcome had the CSA not been stopped: Hundreds of millions enslaved in scores of states around the globe over the last 160 years is a different scenario of human evil, but I would not necessarily be so quick to discount it as a "lesser evil," unless any of you are actually willing to take up Mr. Lincoln's challenge:

Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.
Abraham Lincoln.

At the end of the day, slavery was a legal and indeed thriving institution in the South at the onset of the war. It was not in "the North." In the years before the war, there had been much wrangling about whether prospective new states would have slavery or not, most southern politicians pushing for the spread, many northern politicians pushing for containment. Most of the southern economy prior to the war was based on slave plantation economies.

The southern states seceded when the Republican party managed to win the election, and a middle-of-the-road but abolitionist-leaning President (Lincoln) was elected, and he installed some of the most radical abolitionists in teh U.S. at the time in his cabinet (William Seward and Salmon P. Chase). Lincoln was a moderate on the issue of abolition: he stated repeatedly that he felt slavery was an obsolete institution which should not be allowed to expand and spread, but that the economic well-being of the southern states also dictated that a long-term "phasing out" of slavery, potentially even involving reparations to slave owners for forfeiting their property, was the best solution. However, it sent a clear message to the leaders of the South when Lincoln won and installed a mostly radical abolitionist cabinet: their goals of expanding the slave-economy to additional territories would not only continue to be thwarted, it would very likely experience serious reversals in the coming years. They concluded that the writing was on the wall, and if they had any hope of preserving their way of life, they had to act quickly. With respect to the "absurdity" of hundreds of thousands of people dying for what essentially constituted elitist privilege: for thousands of years, Kings, Priests, Emperors, and Generals have managed to inspire the common peasantry with sufficient zeal for countless wars to have been fought, so why is it so absurd that a similar point cannot apply to the CSA? Indeed, one could also argue that it applied to the USA: most of the working-class or destitute Union infantrymen who sacrified all frankly stood to gain very little immediate or direct benefit by dying to help force the South back into the Union, or emancipate the slaves. It is the way of all human societies that the most intelligent, charismatic, and influential have always been able to get the less enfranchised, less advantaged, and less intelligent to do their bidding if they can manage to spin a sufficiently convincing story about the "cause" or the "mutual benefits to all our people" if individuals are willing to pay the ultimate sacrifice. This is nothing but the most basic principle of Nationalism, which is fundamentally nothing more than an elaboration of Tribalism.

None of our "homelands" are entirely just. It was a President of the U.S. who was the architect of the Trail of Tears, later Presidents promoted the Indian Wars. These were also entirely unjust, wrong, and "evil," deeds by "my homeland" the United States.

I deeply LOVE the South, that is, what the South has become these last hundred-and-fifty-odd years. I respect her traditions, her cultures, her people, her history, right back to the point of the CSA, at which point I will state unconditionally, that I do not respect the CSA nor what it fought for. This is not to say that I dis-respect everyone who was involved in or complicit with that polity and its actions. Culture is a powerful thing, and in a context like the 1850s of the American South, it was a fairly rare person (such as one of the enlightened Southerners you fellas have listed as being "anti-slavery") who could actually and explicate the injustice of slavery. Even those who could were largely powerless to do anything. It took a war to bring slavery in the U.S. to a quick and total cessation; that is just how deeply ingrained it was in the culture of the Southern States at the time. Indeed, racism was so deeply ingrained in American society that it took another ~160 years for the Civil Rights movements to make their piecemeal progress of social change through our society. Thank God that the CSA lost . . . I shudder to imagine what sort of world we would be living in today, had any lesser magnitude of defeat NOT been meted out by the Union on the CSA . . .

It behooves us to be as objective and realistic about recognizing the foibles of our ancestors at least as much as we honor their memories and bask in their glory.

Remember History is subjective as to the winners memories. The Losers thought and the families recolections. Its is difficult to say the right or wrong because we did not groe up in that culture or time frame where it was acceptable in Noorth and South to own slaves. You could say the same about hard core roght wing christians and abortion.

Not being from even the same continent I have not learned as much about the ACW in school as I guess you guys have done, so I have to lean on what I've read throughout the years. From my understanding it is a matter about both slavery and state rights. These two issues are mingled, they cannot be seen as two different issues.

Just prior to the war, the numbers of slaves (if memory serves me correct) actually rose from year to year, when Lincoln was elected many Southerners believed that he (pr any pro-Northern president) would atleast stop the expansion of slavery, and decided to break away from the Union. Then the issue became, did the US Constitution allow states to withdraw from the Union or not? The Southern states ment so, the Northern states did not, and a little later BOOOM goes Ft. Sumter.

So, it is easy to point at the fact that the war started with the secession of the South, but would that secession have occured without the question of slavery?

Have read the above with great interest but find attempts to disassociate slavery from the Confederacy to be entirely disingenuous. The institution of slavery was enshrined in the Confederate constitution with a precision lacking in that of the United States and so was a fundamental characteristic of the South. Without slavery there were no State's Rights issues that warranted succession by eleven states.

That later generations in other lands would strive to create greater crimes does nothing to mitigate the institution of slavery.

The aim here seems to be retaining the nobility of the soldiers who fought for the Cause at the expense of forgetting all of the negative implications of that cause. The effect was that the Southern soldier fought to maintain slavery, whether as a slaveholder or not just as the German soldier in WW2 fought to facilitate the Holocaust whether they were anti-Semitic or not. That was the effect whether it was intended or even desired at the time is entirely irrelevant.

It does not require the benefit of hindsight to see that slavery was essentially a binary issue, you accept the rightness of human bondage or not, there is no middle ground. One can choose to evade that acceptance with semantics and political/economic smoke and mirrors but in the end, this is the issue that remains.

If one rejects the rightness of slavery then the conclusion must be that the Confederate fought well (overall) for a bad cause. Without slavery there would have been no Civil War even if the proximate cause were to preserve the Union or States Rights depending on your point of view.

ORIGINAL: Randomizer

Have read the above with great interest but find attempts to disassociate slavery from the Confederacy to be entirely disingenuous. The institution of slavery was enshrined in the Confederate constitution with a precision lacking in that of the United States and so was a fundamental characteristic of the South. Without slavery there were no State's Rights issues that warranted succession by eleven states.

That later generations in other lands would strive to create greater crimes does nothing to mitigate the institution of slavery.

The aim here seems to be retaining the nobility of the soldiers who fought for the Cause at the expense of forgetting all of the negative implications of that cause. The effect was that the Southern soldier fought to maintain slavery, whether as a slaveholder or not just as the German soldier in WW2 fought to facilitate the Holocaust whether they were anti-Semitic or not. That was the effect whether it was intended or even desired at the time is entirely irrelevant.

It does not require the benefit of hindsight to see that slavery was essentially a binary issue, you accept the rightness of human bondage or not, there is no middle ground. One can choose to evade that acceptance with semantics and political/economic smoke and mirrors but in the end, this is the issue that remains.

If one rejects the rightness of slavery then the conclusion must be that the Confederate fought well (overall) for a bad cause. Without slavery there would have been no Civil War even if the proximate cause were to preserve the Union or States Rights depending on your point of view.

The issue of slavery is not so cut and dried. After the war with Mexico that nation was not annexed into the US because they didn't want more slave states in the south. On the other hand there were slaves states in the Union during the war.

That opinions and tensions ran deep is obvious when the war split families.

That the issue that brought it to a head was slavery there is no doubt. That the reason it came to be an issue in the first place was the ability of states to govern themselves and to what degree.

Good Hunting.

MR

Actually I do believe that the issue of slavery is exactly that cut and dried.  One believed that it was right or one believes that it is wrong, everything that follows flows from there.  Lincoln came to the root of the issue in his "House Divided" speech.
 
There is no contradiction in being against slavery but still willing to take up arms to defend his state, however, the ultimate effect of doing so was to support the institution which was after all, enshrined in Confederate law.

I've argued that slavery is at the base of why there was a war. But the irony I think is not widely appreciated; at least an irony from my perspective of history.

My understanding is that abolitionism was still a relative minority among northerners in 1860. Certainly the North was not some caricature of a Saintly Abolitionist Savior of the Black as some might think, a caricature which perhaps a portion of the responses here are being oriented to rebutt.

My sense is that racism was just about as common in the North as it was in the south; if not anti-Black, then anti-immigrant, or anti-Indian. The main distinction was that slavery was not a vibrant institution in most northern states, and slavery was considered to be suspciously old-fashioned if not out-and-out backwards and uncivilized by your average racist white Northerner. Within this majority of essentially racist Northerners who were largely ambivalent about the issue of slavery, there was a small segment (10 or 15%) of radical, and primarilly ideologically impassioned "abolitionists." Many of these folks were deeply religious, which is ironic when you consider that many southern slave owners were also deeply religious, indeed devoutly Christian in their own minds.

Of course in the South, abolitionists were excoriated as all manner of idiot, buffon, self-righteous interloper, etc., etc., But even in the North, the abolutionist movement was for a long time regarded as a fringe, radical element, akin by comparison to a pro-Gay marriage or a Legalize Marijuana movement of today just in terms of its contrast with the modal social sentiments.

But gradually in the 1850s, abolitionism was gaining more and more power and influence. The other two contenders for the Republican nomination in 1860 were both "radical abolitionists" (Chase and Seward whom I mentioned previously).

Lincoln was never "pro-slavery," but in 1859-60 one would be hard-pressed based on a reading of his speeches and writing to call him anything like an "abolitionist" either. Fact is he was roundly criticized for being a middle-of-the-road fence sitter by both pro-slavery southern Democrats, and abolitionist Republicans. This was precisely why he won the nomination: the party calculated that a moderate had the best hope to win against prospective southern Democrat opponents. We have to remember that the Republican party was a brand new, and largely untested party that was attempting to cobble together adherents from a variety of short-lived parties of the day, and largely the remnants of the crumbled Whig party. A middle ground that was the least offensive to the broadest array of perspectives was rightly calculated to have the best hope of successfully winning the 1860 election.

Once the election was done, Lincoln appreciated the extremely difficult situation he found himself in, a moderate in charge of a nation that was frankly rather fraught not with the bi-partisanism with which we have gown so familiar in contemporary American politics, but with factionalism. In a ploy to achieve a workable administration, he offered some of his main cabinet seats to his opponents in the Republican party contest.

Now here comes the irony, sprinkled with a fair degree of speculation.

My read is that: had the South NOT seceded in early 1861, there is a fairly low probability that there would have been during Lincolns first or prospective second term, ANY major reversal of Southern States Rights, including their right to constitutionally define slavery as legal, and just, and to carry on making money hand over fist from the institution.

To be sure, they would have met with continued thwarting of their efforts to expand slavery to be legal in new states whose entry into the union were impending in the coming years. They would also have continued to be frustrated by northern states, congressman, judges, mobs, and municipal leaders who facilitated the Underground Railroad and refused to return their "rightful property to them" when it was recovered by authorities in the North. I suppose just these two constraints were not inconsequential, but my point remains: had the South not seceded, there very likely would not have been anything like the utter reversal of their way of life that did take form in the Emancipation Proclamation for at least another 10 to 20 years. In short, in perceiving that things were not likely to get better, would very likely continue to get somewhat worse, and very well might get a lot worse for them and their way of life, the elements of CSA leadership who proved seminal to the secessionist movement played an all or nothing gamble, which ultimately turned out to be a very, VERY close contest which was narrowly lost by the CSA. It seems reasonable to conclude that the writing really was on the wall, and events in the North clearly indicated that the Age of Slavery was drawing to a close; but it has always seemed odd to me equating what certainly might have been a down-turn in the fortunes of the slave states with the perilous "threat to their way of life" which many leaders in the CSA claimed to have perceived, and through their words and letters provoked agitation about among their constituencies. From my perspective it is difficult to decide if the Southern Secessionist sprit was primarily driven by avarice, hysteria, or pride. Most likely a combination of all.

In short, the CSA's leaders, in the tradition of the Founding Fathers who had stood up against Great Britain, risked all in what they envisioned was an equally patriotic, and noble struggle to achieve their independence from an oppressive external power. Ironically, this merely hastened the crumbling of the system which was at the heart of the economic independence for which they fought: the husbandry and capital exploitation of African slaves.

ORIGINAL: Randomizer

Actually I do believe that the issue of slavery is exactly that cut and dried. One believed that it was right or one believes that it is wrong, everything that follows flows from there. Lincoln came to the root of the issue in his "House Divided" speech.

There is no contradiction in being against slavery but still willing to take up arms to defend his state, however, the ultimate effect of doing so was to support the institution which was after all, enshrined in Confederate law.

I agree. Slavery is a dividing issue. But if all we would be talking about here is slavery that could have been decided in other ways.

The real defining issue was that the US government started to determine what was right for all states. And then started to make it stick. That is a states rights issue. That's what made those states join the Confederacy. Not that there had been a slave issue in the US for a very long time and even determined when, where and how new states were admitted to the Union.

Slavery was being dealt with in it's own convoluted way. What caused the Confederacy to be formed was when the federal government was going to MAKE them do something about it they didn't want to do. As long as there was negotiation and some give and take the slave states were still in the Union. When looming on the horizon was the federal government about to force the issue not in their favor but to make them do something they themselves would not do, that's when the separation took place.

While slavery is without doubt a deplorable institution that needed to be abolished, it by itself was not the cause of the ACW. It was but a symptom of the issue.

At some point, either then or later, there was going to be a severe states rights issue. The very fact that the US was formed in defiance of Englands federal governing insured that there would be an extreme reaction when the US federal government began to exert it's own brand of control over the entire body.

There have been some very extreme reactions since the ACW to federal governing over states. Civil Rights being one of those. Another issue of racial equality a 100 years later. Not to the same extent but US citizens still died for the cause.

Good Hunting.

MR

At the end of the day, none of this really relates to the root causes of the Civil War, be it slavery, economics or phases of the moon. Rather Jonah’s opening remark is telling;

I think we all agree that slavery is wrong but…

Once one qualifies a statement like that then one can move on and rationalize anything. Either slavery was wrong in the context of the anti bellum South or it was not. Just as one cannot be a bit pregnant, one cannot pick and choose which parts of the Confederate cause warrant support. While history is subjective it also tends to be somewhat messy and we have to take the package deal, not select only those bits that make us feel good.

In this regard, comparisons between Southern slavery and the Nazi Holocaust are not as far fetched as one might think at first sight. Both institutions were unashamedly part of the fabric of the state, endorsed by the leadership and accepted or ignored by most not directly involved. Note that I am making no moral equivalency here, the comparison is entirely mechanical as it were. One cannot separate the Nazi’s from the Final Solution anymore than one can separate the Confederacy from the Peculiar Institution.

Slavery had started to go out of fashion in the so-called ‘civilized’ world during the 18th Century’s Age of Enlightenment, the same era that gave birth to America’s Founding Fathers. They were of their era and pragmatic enough to they know that slavery was profitable and well suited to supporting the social order that they held important. Slavery was even compatible with democracy since both Attic Greece and Republican Rome, two much admired democratic ancestors, were ardent slaveholding states. However, Europe by and large had abandoned slavery as such and even in despotic Russia, the Tsar Liberator would soon end serfdom, de facto slavery by another name.

One of the great ironies of the Civil War was that the lives of many English factory workers idled by the cotton drought were probably worse than many plantation slaves in the Confederacy. He probably lived a subsistence lifestyle in squalor, could be jailed for debt and transported by force. Corporal punishment was law and flogging was still a feature of the British Army and Royal Navy. There were still over two hundred capital crimes on the books. One could legally still be hung, drawn and quartered but admittedly that had not happened for some time. Yet, when it came down to it, the idea of personal freedom that in many ways was more theoretical than real in their world caused them to overwhelmingly support the North. Of course the Confederacy found many willing recruits but the overall failure of the textile working class to rise up and force Parliament to recognize the South must have been perplexing to Southerners in the know.

So, to the simple question, “Was the South Right?” I would submit that the answer is YES if you believe that slavery was acceptable and NO if you do not. The issue of slavery is inseparable from the Confederate cause and if the South was right, then slavery was right. One should not cherry pick the nasty bits out of one’s history just because they may be unpalatable in the here and now.

Slavery is wrong. Period end of sentence.

But was it right for the North to use force to make the South end slavery?

And then force those states to return to the Union?

If it was only about slavery, could the North have simply forced the CSA to emancipate and let the remain independent?

I'm puzzled by what some of you guys are saying, for example
 
By Jonah

the federal government was going to MAKE them do something about it they didn't want to do. As long as there was negotiation and some give and take the slave states were still in the Union. When looming on the horizon was the federal government about to force the issue not in their favor but to make them do something they themselves would not do, that's when the separation took place.

 
and by haruntaiwan

was it right for the North to use force to make the South end slavery?

 
Are you guys referring to a particular Bill in Congress, amendment, or other legal statute that was being set in motion following Lincoln's election in Nov 1860? Or maybe something that Lincoln or one of his cabinet, or anyone in power in the North said in a speech or an editorial?
 
My point: at the point in time when the south seceded, something like an Emancipation Proclamation and a total war to force unconditional surrender on the South were not even remotely in the minds of any in the north save a very, VERY small minority of John Brown types of radicals. Such folks were not in positions of authority, and they did not go around making warmongering propositions to conquer the south and curb them to Yankee ways or else . . .
 
As far as I know, there was no tangible, or real and present danger of the North "making the South do something they did not want to do" when the CSA seceded in late 1860 early 1861. The South seceded because Lincoln was elected and there was in their perception, and increased chance that things would get worse. Things DID get worse, after the CSA seceded and formed its own nation. Once that happened, all bets were off as far as the justice or injustice of the Union imposing on the Confederacy. The CSA was part of the U.S. and trying to get out of that arrangement is not optional. Any nation that views membership of its subsidiary entities as elective is certainly doomed to a premature demise.

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

I'm puzzled by what some of you guys are saying, for example

By Jonah

the federal government was going to MAKE them do something about it they didn't want to do. As long as there was negotiation and some give and take the slave states were still in the Union. When looming on the horizon was the federal government about to force the issue not in their favor but to make them do something they themselves would not do, that's when the separation took place.

and by haruntaiwan

was it right for the North to use force to make the South end slavery?

Are you guys referring to a particular Bill in Congress, amendment, or other legal statute that was being set in motion following Lincoln's election in Nov 1860? Or maybe something that Lincoln or one of his cabinet, or anyone in power in the North said in a speech or an editorial?

My point: at the point in time when the south seceded, something like an Emancipation Proclamation and a total war to force unconditional surrender on the South were not even remotely in the minds of any in the north save a very, VERY small minority of John Brown types of radicals. Such folks were not in positions of authority, and they did not go around making warmongering propositions to conquer the south and curb them to Yankee ways or else . . .

As far as I know, there was no tangible, or real and present danger of the North "making the South do something they did not want to do" when the CSA seceded in late 1860 early 1861. The South seceded because Lincoln was elected and there was in their perception, and increased chance that things would get worse. Things DID get worse, after the CSA seceded and formed its own nation. Once that happened, all bets were off as far as the justice or injustice of the Union imposing on the Confederacy. The CSA was part of the U.S. and trying to get out of that arrangement is not optional. Any nation that views membership of its subsidiary entities as elective is certainly doomed to a premature demise.

That first quote was mine not Jonahs. There was more and more pressure in Congress about slavery. The political fights were all about new states coming into the Union free or slave. The south viewed the situation as going against them. Otherwise they wouldn't have left the Union in the first place.

Good Hunting.

MR