The Civil War (no offense meant)

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

David, there are published cases in Texas law dating back not only to the Confederate era, but also to the period during which Texas was an independent nation. Mostly too old to matter...

That's interesting. Of course, Texas is a unique entity in the U.S. Out of curiosity, is today's Texas State Constitution based on the original one from when it was its own nation?

...you cannot dismiss the states' rights notion completely.

I don't think they can be outright dismissed, because there were indeed references made to them at the time. I do, however, think (and this is of course only my opinion) that the concept played a minimal role. I just don't see how there's much getting around the question of: if states' rights were the prime issue, why was the CSA Constitution nearly identical to the US Constitution?

Of course, if slavery was the justification for the war, one wonders what constituted the justification of the systematic destruction of the south's infrastructure...

Does this really need to be asked? The southern states alone started the war, and the keys to victory lay in logistical issues.

 

[wanttaja]

A friend took a picture of me at the site where the Union troops (on a hill, looking down over an open expanse of fields) watched Pickett's charge. My expression clearly says "They did WHAT?!?!?!?".

It's a great, powerful, experience.

I had the same experience at Fredricksburg. I hadn't known anything about the battle when a local friend (US Army) took me to visit. I got out of the car, looked up to the re-created Confederated defensive line, and said, "*Please* tell me the Union didn't try a frontal assault...."

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Danos]

Dave, I read them a ways back. Foote had a remarkable amount of information on the Civil War. Quite an amazing read.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

<SNIP>I do wonder, just what the first and I mean the very first spark was that set us on the road to near destruction.

My history's very rusty, but I seem to remember the roots going back to before the war of 1812. The New England states were threatening seccession on that one IIRC.

 

[Anthony]

So the South was afraid they would be ORDERED to end slavery, which would cripple their economic system, and that's why they seceded? It still sounds like the issue driving the whole controversy was slavery. I'm sure the economic impact would have been dire, but it was the prospect of a sudden end to slavery that was threatening to bring this about, was it not?

I realize that economics and politics played major roles, but to pretend that the slavery issue was not a major driving factor seems kind of strange to me.

I didn't say slavery wasn't a major factor. However, you said it was THE reason for the Civil War. It wasn't the only reason. The concept of the Federal government mandating what a state could do was the reason. Slavery may have been a large issue, and for PR reasons pronounced as the main issue, but its not THE ONLY reason for the war.

 

[ScottM]

Best of Shelby Foote from The Civil War

I could listen to him for hours! What a great story teller. When I read his works I hear his voice.

My favorite anecdote begins at 9:10

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Dave, I read them a ways back. Foote had a remarkable amount of information on the Civil War. Quite an amazing read.

There are books that need be read more than once. I can see myself re-reading these with topographic maps out taking notes and referring to them later <g>.

I've reread Gordon Prange's Miracle at Midway many times since I first purchased the book in the late 80s; enjoyed it last time as much as the first.

Many of the issues we face today are not new; the politicians were directing the generals: many were actually serving. Of course, one just has to squirm when frontal attacks were made against weaponry that had evolved past the tactics then in use.

Best,

Dave

 

[Palmpilot]

I didn't say slavery wasn't a major factor. However, you said it was THE reason for the Civil War. It wasn't the only reason. The concept of the Federal government mandating what a state could do was the reason. Slavery may have been a large issue, and for PR reasons pronounced as the main issue, but its not THE ONLY reason for the war.

I acknowledged that states' rights and economic concerns played a role, but let me ask you this: Do you believe the South would have seceded if it hadn't been for the slavery issue?

 

[Keith Lane]

There are books that need be read more than once. I can see myself re-reading these with topographic maps out taking notes and referring to them later <g>.

I've reread Gordon Prange's Miracle at Midway many times since I first purchased the book in the late 80s; enjoyed it last time as much as the first.

Many of the issues we face today are not new; the politicians were directing the generals: many were actually serving. Of course, one just has to squirm when frontal attacks were made against weaponry that had evolved past the tactics then in use.

Best,

Dave

Dave, I just re-read Miracle at Midway and At Dawn We Slept, Prange's book on Pearl Harbor. The skill of naval aviators of the day at navigation and situational awareness over the vast Pacific astounds me. Both are awesome reads. I actually found a boarding pass I had used as a book mark in Miracle at Midway that was dated 1986.
Another author on the Civil War I have read and re-read id Bruce Catton.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Catton

I especially liked A Stillness at Appomattox, and This Hallowed Ground.

 

[Palmpilot]

Of course, if slavery was the justification for the war,...

Did slavery justify the war, or did it merely cause it to happen?

...one wonders what constituted the justification of the systematic destruction of the south's infrastructure...

I don't know whether it was justified or not, but I'm pretty sure the motive for it was to win the war.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Dave, I just re-read Miracle at Midway and At Dawn We Slept, Prange's book on Pearl Harbor. The skill of naval aviators of the day at navigation and situational awareness over the vast Pacific astounds me. Both are awesome reads. I actually found a boarding pass I had used as a book mark in Miracle at Midway that was dated 1986.
Another author on the Civil War I have read and re-read id Bruce Catton.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Catton

I especially liked A Stillness at Appomattox, and This Hallowed Ground.

IIRC Gordon Prange never got around to writing those two illustrious works. He did wonderful research and conducted endless interviews but expired before the books were put to paper. His assistants wrote them from his notes, papers and interview. I'll have to look back, or maybe you know.

Anyway, very factual, on-point with excellent descriptions of what was happening on one side; then, the other. All footnoted in detail.
I've real At Dawn We Slept more than once, but not recently.

Best,

Dave

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Battle of Chancellorsville just took place. The book left Grant around Vicksburg and moved over here.
"Unquestionably, this latest addition to the lengthening roster of Confederate victories was a great one. Indeed, considering the odds that had been faced and overcome, it was perhaps in terms of glory the greatest of them all;....
This is where Lee loses Jackson who is fired upon and hit by his own troops while reconnoitering to move troops while Northern lines were collapsing.

Lee says "Could I have directed events, I would have chosen for the good of the country to be disabled in your stead."
He also said Jackson had lost his left arm (which was amputated) and he had lost his right.

To give a feel for medical matters at the time: when his arm was amputated, he was administered chloroform while his left arm was removed. Later, he contracted pneumonia. He was cupped (whatever that means), then given mercury, with antimony and opium, and morphine to ease his pain.

Best,

Dave

 

[SCCutler]

I don't know whether it was justified or not, but I'm pretty sure the motive for it was to win the war.

No, I don't mean military destruction, I mean burning farms, destroying crops. Scorched-earth. Literally.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

No, I don't mean military destruction, I mean burning farms, destroying crops. Scorched-earth. Literally.

The food supply is a major portion of war. If you don't have enough food to feed your troops and people, the troops' morale is low and the people don't give you the political support for the war.

I can't explain it any better than that, but a friend of mine with a history degree once had me proofread a paper he wrote about the role of the food supplies in the outcome of WWI. As I recall, their food shortages were one of the main reasons the Germans did not prevail. It was fascinating.

 

[Palmpilot]

No, I don't mean military destruction, I mean burning farms, destroying crops. Scorched-earth. Literally.

Yes, I'm familiar with Sherman's march.

The purpose of all that was to win the war by denying the South the means to provide support to its troops. Same for the strategic bombing during WW II.

As I said, I'm not taking a position on whether or not it is justified, but the sad fact of the matter is that attacking of civilian infrastructure has been considered to have a military purpose. Sherman was an early practitioner of that strategy.

 

[dmccormack]

As I said, I'm not taking a position on whether or not it is justified, but the sad fact of the matter is that attacking of civilian infrastructure has been considered to have a military purpose. Sherman was an early practitioner of that strategy.

Actually, Sherman was one in a long line that preceded him: Napoleon, Frederick the Great, Wolfe at Quebec, Duke of Cumberland, the Vikings, the Romans, the Persians....

 

[TMetzinger]

Also, I'll state that Atlanta is better from an Infrastructure standpoint than Boston, partly because it was destroyed in the Civil war.

This is an engineer's view, of course. There's some real benefit to be had when you throw out the old stuff rather than trying to keep it running and integrate it with newer stuff.

 

[Anthony]

I acknowledged that states' rights and economic concerns played a role, but let me ask you this: Do you believe the South would have seceded if it hadn't been for the slavery issue?

Good question. I think that another issue would have prevailed if slavery had not been at the foreront of the northern PR Federalist movement to control the south and the states.

Purely speculation on my part, and something we will never know for sure.

 

[steingar]

The whole states rights thing always sounded like PC to me, even when I was a kid and there was no PC, at least in name. I had the same arguments with my teachers. I always figured "the fight against Northern aggression" sounded better than "the fight to keep our colored slaves".

I'm reading an alternative history series where the South won. Good read, though it does go on and on.

 

[RMCN172RG]

The states were countries United in the Federal Government for a common interaction with a limited scope of control.

Similar, though on a wider scale, to the European Union today which of course is based on monetary concerns and a common monetary system. Now imagine in 70 years if France decides to leave the EU because it beleives it has been belittled, that it makes economic sense or for any other reason. Should they be invaded and have the government forcibly replaced with one that will preserve their EU membership?

The southern states held that they retained all other rights as soverign nations except for those specifically ceded to the Federal Government in the Constitution and in the SC declaration that the state was reclaiming it's position as a full and separate nation.

 

[steingar]

The states were countries United in the Federal Government for a common interaction with a limited scope of control.

Similar, though on a wider scale, to the European Union today which of course is based on monetary concerns and a common monetary system. Now imagine in 70 years if France decides to leave the EU because it beleives it has been belittled, that it makes economic sense or for any other reason. Should they be invaded and have the government forcibly replaced with one that will preserve their EU membership?

The southern states held that they retained all other rights as soverign nations except for those specifically ceded to the Federal Government in the Constitution and in the SC declaration that the state was reclaiming it's position as a full and separate nation.

David blew a pretty good sized hole in that argument a few posts back.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

I noticed David's post earlier and don't know if Foote's book in in consonance with that. States Rights are raised early and often in years. Davis raised them several years before actual secession took place; David says they were only raised later.

I don't have time to go back and find the actual cites in foot's works, but noticed the folks David cited didn't document that either--sounds like an opinion. Perhaps we should dig into this a bit more.

Best,

Dave

 

[ScottM]

I noticed David's post earlier and don't know if Foote's book in in consonance with that. States Rights are raised early and often in years. Davis raised them several years before actual secession took place; David says they were only raised later.

I don't have time to go back and find the actual cites in foot's works, but noticed the folks David cited didn't document that either--sounds like an opinion. Perhaps we should dig into this a bit more.

Best,

Dave

State's rights were important. John C. Calhoun was used as a magnet for those that wanted to define the war around the issue. But dig a little deeper and the whole state's issue was about the south being afraid of northern abolitionist views. The south had always been wary of the north's economic power and the growing anti-slavery movement would put the south's economy under even more strain.

David is right that had the real issue really been state's rights then why did they create a Confederate Constitution that was as strong and is some ways stronger than the US version when it came to giving the central government powers?

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

One comment from Mr. Foote that I recall - approximatly.

Before the war the phrase was "the United States are" after the war it was "the United States is"...

 

[Dave Siciliano]

I would like to point to the following article which points out more about differences between the North and South before the Civil War. Notice Davis attended a States Rights convention well before the war. Discussion of the Tariff issue which South Carolina outlawed before the war as not applying within it's boundaries (the tariffs seemed to benefit the North and hurt the South). A good discussion about how some states looked at the Federal Government only having the specific powers given it and it being a confederacy of states v. a union.

South Carolina's Nullification Ordinance declared both the tariff of 1828 and the 1832 null and void within the state borders of South Carolina. This action initiated the Nullification Crisis. Passed by a state convention on November 24, 1832, it led, on December 10, to President Andrew Jackson's proclamation against South Carolina, which sent a naval flotilla and a threat of sending federal troops to enforce the tariffs.

The Preamble to the Confederate States Constitution begins: "We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States%27_rights

Doesn't appear to be an argument raised only after the war to me.

Best,

Dave

 

[RMCN172RG]

Doesn't appear to be an argument raised only after the war to me.

Unless you're a Northern historian.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

The whole states rights thing always sounded like PC to me, even when I was a kid and there was no PC, at least in name. I had the same arguments with my teachers. I always figured "the fight against Northern aggression" sounded better than "the fight to keep our colored slaves".

....

That's because 95% of the states' rights justification was created postbellum. It was particularly popular in the memoirs of certain generals and other bigwigs (I could go on about the things some of these gentlemen wrote and said about other events and people, but an internet post shouldn't be a treatise ), written during and after Reconstruction, and gained traction from there.

That's not to say that there weren't arguments about the appropriate role of the Federal government in the mix of things before the war happened. Indisputably, there were.

But, those arguments were in the exclusive context of slavery. It would be similar to a section of the country splitting off today because it didn't like [insert political hot topic here], and then after getting their butts handed to them following a bloody war in which all casualties could be directly attributed to the decision to secede and in which they'd fired the first shot, saying that it was really all because they were just standing up for states' rights.

Stated differently, and I think I wrote this above, even if you don't want to believe in "they made this up post facto," the "states' right" involved was slavery. That's just...inescapable, and I'm not sure it's "noble" to try to nobilize that by saying "it was really about states' rights."

Here's the rule I apply in history: when the debate becomes over historiography, rather than over history, you know there's a stinky rat (the rodent kind, not the southern pronunciation of "right") somewhere. History: the facts themselves. Historiography: what people say about the facts.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

I'd like to complement everyone for discussing this factual and keeping it out of the spin zone. I'm learning a lot; once folks just start emotionally arguing, I don't continue to participate.

Best,

Dave

 

[AdamZ]

.... An advantage the South did have was it's internal RR system which could shuttle troops a supplies quickly from one point to another. As their defensive area got smaller, their RR system could respond faster (up to this point in the war).

Interestingly that was also one of the problems the South had. Their rail roads did not have a common gauge track. They varied from line to line and state to state so it took a lot of loading and off loading of provisions to get from one RR line to another. ( Amazing what I recall from HS American History)

If you go to Gettysburg, make it worthwhile and hire a Licensed Battlefield Guide. Tell them your military background and you will get the real tour.

.

I cannot agree with this recommendation enough. Dan's suggestion is an ABSOLUTE must!!!!

Of course, if slavery was the justification for the war, one wonders what constituted the justification of the systematic destruction of the south's infrastructure...

Cripple the enemy, Chaos, Distraction etc.

I had the same experience at Fredricksburg. I hadn't known anything about the battle when a local friend (US Army) took me to visit. I got out of the car, looked up to the re-created Confederated defensive line, and said, "*Please* tell me the Union didn't try a frontal assault...."

Ron Wanttaja

Sunken Road. Somber place indeed.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

...

The Preamble to the Confederate States Constitution begins: "We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character..."

They wrote that, and then: 1) gave their Federal government more power than the U.S. Federal gov't had; and 2) engaged in a war requiring a national effort which, by definition, required a strong Federal gov't.

If that doesn't shoot the whole states' right theory down in flames, I don't know what does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States'_rights

Doesn't appear to be an argument raised only after the war to me.

Best,

Dave

Take a look at the time lines for when the idea that the Civil War was over states' rights became popular.

I'm not saying that it wasn't an issue in, say, the 1850's, but I am saying that: 1) not many people cared about it enough to start a scrap over it; and 2) not many people were standing around Ft. Sumter chanting "Federal gov't never, States' Rights forever."

And, even if you don't buy any of the foregoing, the only states' right involved was slavery. Substituting "states' right" for "slavery" is a euphemism of the highest order.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

I'd like to complement everyone for discussing this factual and keeping it out of the spin zone. I'm learning a lot; once folks just start emotionally arguing, I don't continue to participate.

Best,

Dave

Agreed, and...I'm trying!

 

[ScottM]

Doesn't appear to be an argument raised only after the war to me.

Best,

Dave

I don't think anyone is saying that it is an argument that was made only after the war. Indeed as I mentioned earlier, John Calhoun, who spoke against the tarrifs that were being put into place mostly by the north and were hurting the south, had an interesting viewpoint about a state's ability to nullify federal laws. That is why he became a lightening rod for the state's right issues. But that issue did not really gain steam and widespread popular support until slavery was being threatened. When one looks at what had happened in Kansas and the balance of slave v non-slave state power in the US Congress, it was only a matter of time that the issue would have to be resolved.

To pretend that the central issue of the war was anything other than slavery is to deny the amount of people who had already been killed prior to 1861 in defending/ending slavery. John Brown and his 'radiers' scared the heck out of the south when he did his little deed in Harper's Ferry. The southerners were really scared of a negro uprising. They really did fear that their way of life was being threatened by outsiders. It was not that the common southerner owned slaves, but they felt fear and competition in the labor market would be the result.

It was really later that the leaders of the Confederacy revised the whole idea was about state's rights instead of economic power. At best I think one could say that state's rights was an issue. But that it was not a central issue. State's rights themselves became more of a problem for how the Confedercy itself was run than a reason to secede.

BTW the right of secession was not granted in the Confederate Constitution. That is very telling about how strong the state really was IMHO.

 

[steingar]

Was it still the "war of Northern aggression" when Lee was marching in Pennsylvania?

 

[Dave Siciliano]

David: And you're doing a wonderful job! Excellent comments.
Unfortunately, as with so many complex issues, there are reasonable grounds to disagree.

Slavery certainly was a central, divisive issue (and maybe THE issue as you so well state). Southerners grew up with it and needed it to continue their way of life and to expand. The north had more urban areas and manufacturing which wasn't dependent on slavery. It was a change in the power structure of the nation and a way of life. The South saw their entire future changing and didn't want it to. The North was expanding at a hurried pace and was getting more power and control. Lincoln not even being on the ballot in Southern states made them feel they weren't even being represented.

Slavery was wrong; we all know that. I is just a shame there couldn't be some reasonable transition. There were several compromises that eventually didn't work out.

Here's another fact I didn't know.
In 1869 Davis became president of the Carolina Life Insurance Company in Memphis, Tennessee. He turned down the opportunity to become the first president of the Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas (now Texas A&M University).

I think we all benefit from discussions like this; you've made excellent points and I agree with most. Some seem to overly simplify: with that I take issue.

Best,

Dave

 

[woodstock]

Interesting thread!

My Dad would be all over this. His obsession (no other word for it) is the Civil War. He has 6 floor-to-ceiling bookshelves full of books and those are overflowing. Every year there is a 5 year anniversary of something! So he is on the road a lot. I keep thinking that his next trip to Gettysburg I really have to take a day off work and go with him when he does his battlefield tromp.

ps. one of his bucket lists is to visit all the Presidents' homes (maybe birthplace?). Mom and Dad have visited 14 so far. I guess they better get cracking.

 

[RMCN172RG]

If you look back into the 1820's with the passage of Tariffs of 1824 and 1828 which aided Northern Economies at the expense of Southern Economies, in the view of the South.

Followed by the State's rights arguments made by Calhoun in response to the 1828 Tariff and the Nullification declarations into the early 1830s, basically stating that State law trumps Federal law. You have a large disagreement on the Federal Governments role, right to impose tariffs and State's rights and not the abolition of Slavery.

 

[ScottM]

If you look back into the 1820's with the passage of Tariffs of 1824 and 1828 which aided Northern Economies at the expense of Southern Economies, in the view of the South.

Followed by the State's rights arguments made by Calhoun in response to the 1828 Tariff and the Nullification declarations into the early 1830s, basically stating that State law trumps Federal law. You have a large disagreement on the Federal Governments role, right to impose tariffs and State's rights and not the abolition of Slavery.

Also keep in mind that Calhoun was for tarrifs before he was against them.

He is an interesting character in early American history and one that is all too often forgotten.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Excellent points Scott! Many points of which I wasn't aware.

So much to learn and so little time!

Best,

Dave

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Ray: I've read that and posted some reference to it; thanks for clarifying matters. Did you notice the President threatened to send gun boats to SC to enforce the tariffs? Certainly evidence of a rift to me <g>
I believe I've read SC had either more slaves, or more per capita than any other Southern State (I'd have to find a reference if you wanted it.)

In this tragic conflict, we killed over 2% of the free citizenry. Certainly a transformational time for our nation and the national character.

Best,

Dave

 

[JeffDG]

John Calhoun... had an interesting viewpoint about a state's ability to nullify federal laws.

The idea of state nullification goes back into the 18th Century at least, and to no lesser an individual as Thomas Jefferson, with his authorship of the Kentucky Resolutions with respect to the Alien and Sedition Act.