The "Why" Of The Civil War Discussion
Why was there a Civil War? Was it because of Slavery? Was it States Rights? Was it just to hold the Union together? This and more is discussed in the spontanous discussion you are about to read. The discussion is really an off shoot of one that was held on the evening July 27, 1998 on the relative merits of the new Visitor's Center planned for Gettysburg. Early on the morning of July 28, 1998, after reading the posts from the night before, AoT posted his thoughts on the subject. . I thought the points he made were outstanding and pulled all his earlier posts together and reposted them at around 1400 hrs. After that the discussion started rather slowly but later turned into a real Donny Brook. You gonna love this one and perhaps just learn something in the process. Bear in mind that in the interest of space I had to cut some of the earlier posts, but from about 1700 hrs on they are all there. Enjoy!
shotgun at [Jul 28 14:09:47]: I can't stay but just a sec but there is something I want to post. Earlier today AoT put up some thoughts on the new Visitors Center at Gettysburg that I found to be extremely thought provoking. Although he is addressing the visitors center, his comments weave well into fabric of the "WHY" of the war. While they are still well within range, I reposted them because I was just afraid someone would miss them and they need to be read. Besides, it's easier to read them when all the posts are together.
My brief thoughts on the subject; like it or not GETTYSBURG remains the straw that stirs the drink of Civil War interest for the average American. It more than anything probably remains the battle that first started most of us Civil War enthusiast down the road of full time Civil War nuts. I personally am in favor of making the place the national showcase for American Civil War tourist information. Because of its proximity to huge population centers and government. power it remains the best "ace in the hole' top keep Average Americans at least sort of interested in the conflict. This is just my opinion.
Additionally whether private or public...well my view on this is compare Jefferson's Monticello (private) with Washington's Mount Vernon (govt.). Monticello is so far superior it is not even close. Private ownership and running by a dedicated and knowledge foundation is far superior to govt. running of just about anything except NATIONAL DEFENSE. However what is apparently being proposed for Gettysburg is in fact the WORST of both worlds... Big corporation MADISON AVE types with federal government. oversight...this has all the makings of a "politically correct" forever revising view of the Great Conflict. The War was essential to what this country is today... both the good and the bad...and I think that under the guidance of Disney and the Federal park service great misinformation is quite possible. I fear this particular combination very much.
Southern's tend to want to downplay the role of slavery in both creating the atmosphere that made the war and in my view northern's tend to elevate abolition as the noble purpose behind the conflict. Both views I believe are off the mark. When you get right down to it in my view the REAL fundamental ISSUE the key item was when one section lost an election they could not just leave. Ultimately it was decided that in AMERICAN democracy once the election occurs the losers have to learn to live with the results. Why, because the north established that MIGHT makes Right and they had the bayonets to make the election of Lincoln stick! Slavery was a galvanizing issue for "some" but not the vast majority, IMHO. Either North or South.
One reason why this whole slavery thing gets so darn murky is because somehow once Northerners convinced the general public that the war was aimed at ending African slavery and oppression then the next 100 years of American Social History does not make any darn sense at all. I think the plight of the American black from 1865 till 1965 is the greatest proof possible that the Northern War effort was clearly not aimed at ending Black oppression...abolition was simply a powerful political tool to aid the ultimate Northern goal of keeping the Southern Minority from leaving the Union. Only the most radical wing of the abolitionist Republican party had any real commitment to freeing the slaves and perhaps making them social equals. A goal that the vast number of Americans did not share ONCE the WAR ended and the Union was preserved.
This bottom line truth in my estimation is the greatest likely casualty of a marriage of Government political correctness and Madison Ave. marketing..which the present Gettysburg visitor center is likely to create. The end result being that the military achievements of the Southern war effort will likely be denigrated and the social issue of slavery abolition will likely be elevated to a position that is just plain wrong and flat out historically inaccurate.
Korky at [Jul 28 14:25:54]: A question, you saw the eloquence of Scott Hartwig, the Supervisory Park Historian at Gettysburg at the Panel Discussion, and you watched Park Superintendent Dr. Latcher speak at the Longstreet Dedication as they discussed Gettysburg. Do you think either would sell Gettysburg's Soul to the Devil? I believe both are passionate about preserving Gettysburg. I have, and will email you excerpts on the park's stance for the new Visitor's Center. It might make for some interesting reading. I for one, trust the dedication of Hartwig and Latcher in caring for the well being of Gettysburg. Thus I caution those who feel the private-private partnership is simply a Madison Ave deal.
ColStoughton at [Jul 28 14:37:35]: All I can say in response to AoT's statement, is that with all my seemingly pro-Union sentiment, I am really a pro-truth person. All I know is that if, for example, I'm telling the story of the 20th Maine, then I am very sure to tell the story of Law's Alabamians, because it's just as extraordinary. Any works I write, and any essays I compose will tell both sides of the story, that is about as much as I can do. And if the mainstream doesn't want to tell both sides, then so be it. But as long as there are historians dedicated to both sides of the story, the truth will live on.
AoT at [Jul 28 14:52:09]: Korky my concerns are not with the individuals that you refer to but rather with the institutions ... corporate America has a way of losing individual responsibility. I really worry about some marketing guys deciding what would be good Themes and what would be not such good themes... and more importantly where this all ends up in say 100 years???
TJ at [Jul 28 14:55:00]: Checking in.
TJ at [Jul 28 15:06:26]: Well, looks like I killed the on and off discussion, as I've been known to do. For the record, I think your lengthy post re: root causes and subsequent interpretations of the CW miss a link or two in the logic department, though they are sound at their core. We can discuss this later if you'd like.
ColStoughton at [Jul 28 15:23:38]: Well, I personally have a ANV battle flag up in my room. It's no political statement, I use it to remember what mortal men can achieve if driven by a cause. But these rectangular flags I believe embody another thing completely, especially when I see KKK members parade down streets with one in each hand.
AoT at [Jul 28 15:25:36]: The KKK LOL what a bunch of nimrods! If they where not so pathetic they would actually be funny to me.
ColStoughton at [Jul 28 15:27:07]: That is SO true AoT. You really should read this book. They were recruiting fellows on the street in this small town, and telling them how they can rise in the ranks very fast. They were telling them all these names and titles that they can be, and it was simply hilarious! :-) It sounded little a little kid's club! "Grand high exalted dragon" and the like! :-)
AoT at [Jul 28 15:27:57]: I was asked to comment on their last big rally in Downtown Memphis this past spring... I told the newspaper writer ..IGNORE the idiots... they stand for nothing and represent no one! Interesting Col, of the 14!!! KKKers that showed up, 10 where from Michigan and Indiana!
AoT at [Jul 28 15:30:28]: I tell you I just want to puke ever time I see one of those fools carrying even the CS naval flag which they all seem to love! That and of course the Nazi flag..God that burns my butt to see those idiots carrying those two side by side.
ColStoughton at [Jul 28 15:32:16]: Yes, the rectangular Confederate flag is just so awful to me that I can't stand it. But then again, I believe that we would all be more offended if they were carrying the ANV flag!
Korky at [Jul 28 15:37:10]: Hi AoT. Saw your posts earlier. I understand your concern over the visitor's center. The impotence felt by the Superintendent Latcher is tough to fathom. I received Park Service Propaganda from Gettysburg concerning their views of the Visitor's Center. I'll send to Shotgun, perhaps he could post. The Gettysburg Park Service people so badly want to protect the artifacts they have on hand at the park--15% is on display. The rest is in a non-humidity controlled basement. They are desperate to save the artifacts. The Federal Government will not help. Thus the only fault I can see with Hartwig and Latcher's efforts, is that they did what they did in desperation to save artifacts that are daily in jeopardy of being lost to the elements of poor museum preservation. Thus their predicament. The private-public effort is a way to get to preserving the valuable relics of the past. That is the target to which those individuals are dedicated.
ColStoughton at [Jul 28 15:41:25]: Korky, I do agree with you, but find that debating one doctrine over another gets nobody anywhere. I believe that we are all Americans first, (unlike at the time of the war,) but the people I discuss this with wont listen. So I fight them with their own guns. That's all that's meant there.
AoT at [Jul 28 15:43:20]: KORKY I agree re the artifacts..saw on C-Span last week the same lost occurring at Edison Museum... losing items daily... I sure would like to see some corporate wealth put to use but darn I worry about Daffy Duck posters! LOL
AoT at [Jul 28 15:46:13]: Well guys I sort of have a different take..I am a SOUTHERN AMERICAN... I am different than a fellow from Vermont..not better... but I am different and I am kind of proud of that fact... just my opinion.
ColStoughton at [Jul 28 15:47:21]: Well, I'm sorry to say that I feel no love for my home state, as we are run by idiots, and filled with them too. My native state of New York looks more and more appealing every day. :-)
shotgun at [Jul 28 16:05:19]: By the way AoT, I agree with your post(s) this morning. Might have forgotten to say that. Hope you didn't mind me pulling them together for better presentation.
AoT at [Jul 28 16:14:07]: Well First Sgt. I do not mind at all I just do not trust big government or big business much to look after the history of this country.
AoT at [Jul 28 16:16:57]: I do not know what the answer is and I really do not have a bone to pick with anyone about the proposed new Visitor center...BUT I do know that if you do not keep a very very close eye on these folks ALL the time things tend to get hosed up! Two big examples being...the great TOWER...and then what was it about 4 years ago the great midnight land swap with the college... Both major screw ups.
AoT at [Jul 28 16:19:07]: I always go back to the Monticello example... most people do not realize that it is PRIVATELY owned and operated. It is so well run and such a great national treasure ...then you have Williamsburg another great private enterprise.
AoT at [Jul 28 16:20:05]: Govt. in my opinion does one thing better than private enterprise.. that is the National Defense... not always economical but darn good job.
shotgun at [Jul 28 16:21:48]: I agree with you about Big Government AoT. It is the Bane of the working class (dang, just love words like that). As I said to someone when the health care bill was going hot and heavy, "You show me five things the GOVERNMENT does well and I will support the dang thing!" Not a taker. Got to run. Business. Keep them thoughts coming my friend.
AoT at [Jul 28 16:24:18]: I guess they do a pretty good job with the roads too.
Korky at [Jul 28 17:05:30]: AoT. Its funny, being a Northern American I am a product of the School System. I grew up accepting the Winner's version of the Civil War. My grandparents on my dad's side came over to America in the 1910's, my Mom's folks came form Ireland. I have no direct tie to any family from the Civil War Era. I find it funny that Southerners look at most Northerners as automatically being incapable of seeing the Southern point of view. I hold no Northern Point of View only that which was taught in the Schools and that which I have gained via my own private learning. Thus to assume a Northerner accepts the teachings of the USA History without question is not fair!
TJ at [Jul 28 17:18:29]: You know, this northern point of view (also known as the damn victor-Yankees are still purposely distorting the truth about the CW) drives me nuts. I don't deny that various historians over the years have written books that don't reflect the complete truth, or at least purposely hide aspects of the truth to further a thesis. But I'd like to hear one of the folks who frequently post such gripes to get specific, i.e., give examples of specific books or historians that the claims that are objectionable. And I might remind these same folks that some of the more prominent 're-writing' of CW history came at the hands of the vanquished. The Lost Cause theory ring a bell?
AoT at [Jul 28 17:23:31]: Korky please accept my apologies I did not mean to imply that Northern View of the war was somehow radically different than southern view... I think that only in the sense that the south's ability to have started a government. and maintained it for four years is sometimes minimized. The inherent advantages of industry and manpower are sometimes minimized.
AoT at [Jul 28 17:27:15]: OK TJ the often maintained NORTHERN VIEW that the war was to free slaves JUST is not true. As I have said below slavery was the moral issue that set the stage for war..but The North did not begin the war nor maintain the war to end slavery it was a political issue used to isolate the South diplomatically... then a punitive issue used after the completion of the war to punish the South. The north as a region or as a people were no more committed to justice and equality for the blacks than the average southern.
AoT at [Jul 28 17:31:47]: So I suppose that my primary complaint is the thesis often times taken moral high ground that Northern-types take. The war was at its root about ..You can not lose an election and then leave the Union. There was no special legal basis or moral basis for this stand by the North..the ultimate judge that made it so was pure MIGHT and not necessarily right IMHO. Now what exactly is so high and mighty moral about that? It is really just power politics at it's rawest level.
Korky at [Jul 28 17:33:05]: AoT, no need for an apology. I was just stating a position. I do take offense sometimes ;-) when its assumed that since I live in the North I agree with the Northern Position during the War. The Jury is still out for me. I do not deny that I lean Northern. But I want to understand (if I can) the feelings of those that did fight. To do that, I must look at both sets of viewpoints. If I can do that, I am interested to see if I will be able to choose who took the most rational position in the 1860's. That is what intrigues me and causes me to try to understand!
AoT at [Jul 28 17:34:30]: The fact that the North had no special moral interest in the welfare of the newly emancipated blacks is I believe shown by the North's lack of interest in Blacks migrating to the North. By the North's maintaining of segregated army and other political institutions... for another 100 years.
TJ at [Jul 28 17:35:47]: AoT, you've said several things there, not all of which are congruent. The cause of the CW was the secession of the Southern states. The immediate cause of (initial) secession was the election of Abe Lincoln, the so-called 'Black Republican.' I agree, therefore, that slavery was at the core of the tear in the soci-political fabric of the nation, i.e., the core cause of the sectional discord. This does not mean, as so many are quick to point out, that all or even most Northerners went to war to free the slaves. Emancipation was both a political (as you point out) and, more importantly, military measure that previously moderate Republicans and Union troops came to accept as necessary, and even morally right in some cases, by 1862-63. To imply that the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments were created and passed largely as punitive measures against the South really sells their supporters short.
Korky at [Jul 28 17:35:59]: With respect to, losing an election and then seceding. I think that was clearly what happened. It's not a point of view, it was a fact. Had the election been won by Douglas, I don't think we would be discussing the War Between the States in the years 1861-65.
AoT at [Jul 28 17:36:30]: Korky another extremely complicating thing to the whole thing is that what IOWA's position was different than what Massachusetts' position was, just like deep south different from upper Tennessee.
AoT at [Jul 28 17:37:54]: TJ then why where the amendments not pushed through Congress until the military war was over?
Korky at [Jul 28 17:37:56]: The election of Lincoln set events in motion that led to the secession movement on the part of the southern states. Is that not a fact?
AoT at [Jul 28 17:40:15]: No question that is what the thing was about ...the South felt they as a region had lost the election...so let us leave... the north through Abe said no you can not leave this Union... why the south wanted to leave was not the issue ... it was the act of leaving that the North challenged wasn't it?
Korky at [Jul 28 17:40:48]: I read Kenneth Stammp's "Causes of the Civil War", and found it interesting that the New England States threatened secession in the early 1800's when they felt that their shipping interests were being jeopardized by others in the Union. Stammp points out that secession was a threat that was often used by irate states. Not until Lincoln's election had anyone actually invoked the act.
AoT at [Jul 28 17:42:04]: Korky no question..The Deep Southern states felt they had LOST the election and they felt that if they wanted to they had the political right to take their ball and go home.... NO WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DID IT SAY they were wrong.
AoT at [Jul 28 17:43:25]: What established for history that they were wrong was Military defeat pure and simple. Not the law, not the constitution.
TJ at [Jul 28 17:44:40]: Wait. So your theory is that the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments were punitive measures because they were passed after the war? There were, no doubt, some extreme Republicans who savored the idea of shoving formal black emancipation and civil rights down the erstwhile Rebels' throats. But the feelings/opinions that created these amendments weren't suddenly thought of after the cessation of hostilities. They had their origins during the war; Lincoln, along with other moderate Republicans, were among their supporters.
AoT at [Jul 28 17:46:57]: Further if I am selling the supporters of the amendments short then why did so many Northern states at almost the same time of the amendments pass laws prohibiting freed blacks from residing in their states.. BTW in direct contravention of the 14th amendment.
Cpl Bob at [Jul 28 17:47:01]: Just my 2 cents worth...Lincoln said that the 250,000 Black Troops in the Union Army were the margin of victory...could it be that the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments were a "pay back" for their service?
Korky at [Jul 28 17:49:16]: Yes, AoT, the US led by Lincoln maintained that the southern insurrection had to be stopped. I find it interesting how Lincoln constantly walked a fine line as he verbalized the war years. Were the southerners still part of the Union or were they a separate country. If they were part of the Union then how was it that no southern representative during the war years voted in the US Congress?
AoT at [Jul 28 17:49:29]: Lincoln NEVER supported the amendments ...TJ ... the amendments became law when???
TJ at [Jul 28 17:49:50]: Because, AoT, the passing of an amendment, no matter how just, does not suddenly change the deep-rooted beliefs of the people, no matter how contradictory.
TJ at [Jul 28 17:50:47]: AoT, I was saying that Lincoln supported the ideas behind the amendments. Come on.
AoT at [Jul 28 17:51:09]: Korky the BIGGEST political mistake the Pro slavery faction ever made was walking out of congress...without them leaving the radical fringe republicans would have stayed just that the radical fringe.
Korky at [Jul 28 17:52:05]: I agree AoT, no where in the Constitution does it say that secession is against the law. James McPherson often cites that the Civil War was the 2nd American Revolution. After that war, secession was against the law or at least an offense that would bring on the might of the Federal Government. The Civil War taught that.
AoT at [Jul 28 17:52:35]: Lincoln after all he said to the Kentucky people and Maryland people assuring them slavery would not be touched in their states supported the 13th amendment!? Now TJ you come on!
Korky at [Jul 28 17:53:38]: What was the stated Republican position during the election of 1860 on Slavery?
TJ at [Jul 28 17:56:03]: AoT, I surprised. Surely you're not one of those who think that a person's opinions can't evolve over time. Lincoln went into the war believing one thing; during the war--for numerous and complex reasons--his opinions on slavery changed (some might even say evolved). Ever study the so-called 'Lincoln-Reconstruction' during the war. Of course his later war beliefs don't match those he held at the outset. But this was the case with many Americans. Why is this so hard for some to accept?
AoT at [Jul 28 17:56:13]: Quick check of my copy of constitution says 13th Amendment submitted to states by congress Feb 1865..so I was wrong I stand corrected by myself.
Korky at [Jul 28 17:56:42]: Answer: The Republicans were against the extension of Slavery to the territories. They claimed that they had no intention of touching slavery where it existed. If the Southern states had believed the rhetoric of the Republican's, I wonder what would have happened to our country?
AoT at [Jul 28 17:59:41]: TJ sorry I am not buying that evolution argument... Abe did not in my opinion give two shakes about slavery in South Alabama... ABE believed in one thing... parts of the country can not leave the country when they lose an election. Abe did every political trick and devise to maintain the one certain truth in his mind... the UNION is the UNION and a minority can not leave when they chose no matter what the cause.
Korky at [Jul 28 18:00:49]: Also, I wonder if the Southern states had believed the platform of the Republicans would the Republican led Federal Government have stuck to their stated position?
Had I been a southerner during the pre-war years, I would have plotted better how to secede. Had they planned for war and eventual independence, it might have worked. Instead they left the Union as a result of an emotional reaction to the loss of the election. Imagine if in response to the election, if the South (the eventual seceded states)had secretly met and planned out how to best obtain independence while still attending congress sessions, I bet they might have succeeded!
TJ at [Jul 28 18:01:38]: You weren't really wrong, AoT. The 13th wasn't ratified until December of '65, if I recall.
AoT at [Jul 28 18:02:11]: Now 14th Amendment submitted to states for ratification JUNE 1866!
Korky at [Jul 28 18:02:26]: AoT, what would Abe had done if the South had not seceded? Would he have stuck with the Republican position on not allowing Slavery to extend into the territories. Would he have protected the rights of the Southern slaveholding states?
TJ at [Jul 28 18:03:43]: Then you've got blinders on, AoT. I don't say this maliciously, just mean that I think you're really missing a key complexity of the war, and of Lincoln himself. It wasn't only Lincoln whose view on black slavery evolved. The same thing happened to many Union soldiers, for instance.
AoT at [Jul 28 18:04:13]: 15th amendment submitted to states for ratification Feb 1869.
Korky at [Jul 28 18:04:55]: At the time, I don't think Lincoln would have taken the radical approach to abolish Slavery. No, war forced that issue on. Had not the war had happened, I don't think Slavery would have been abolished in the 4 years after the election.
TJ at [Jul 28 18:05:25]: Korky, but the 'emotional reaction' to the loss of the 1860 election was really a symptom of a deeper problem or belief.
AoT at [Jul 28 18:06:20]: Korky my belief is yes. Why in heavens name would he have done differently... the Radical republicans just did not have that many votes in a full congress to push anything like that through.
Korky at [Jul 28 18:07:01]: Yes, TJ, that was true. But do you think Lincoln, had the Southern States not seceded, would have followed the radical element of his party and abolished Slavery?
AoT at [Jul 28 18:07:46]: Lincoln was no great emancipator in my humble opinion Abe was the shrewdest and toughest war time leader this country ever had.
AoT at [Jul 28 18:09:49]: Lincoln listened to the radicals because they were the ones he could always count one to fight the south ... the others were lukewarm and would come and go with the latest war news..but the radicals were Lincoln's HAWKS!
Korky at [Jul 28 18:10:42]: I disagree AoT, I don't think the radical element of the party would have caused the abolishment of slavery. The secession of the south was a catalyst that helped the radical republicans get their way. Do you recall Lincoln's open letter to Horace Greeley on his position on Union. He would have had it either all slavery, no slavery, or half and half. Whatever it took for union. I don't think our country today or then would have allowed the legislation agenda of a left wing portion of a party dictate the laws of the majority. No, I don't think Lincoln would have opted for the abolishment of slavery had the south not seceded.
TJ at [Jul 28 18:11:58]: No, Korky, and that helps illustrate my point (at least I hope it does). There's no denying that, at the outset of the war, Lincoln opposed emancipation. There's also no denying that, by mid-war, he advocated limited emancipation. Now what happened? Surely the war affected Lincoln's attitude toward slavery, forced, if you will, an evolution in his thinking. I, for one, don't see the 13th Amendment that big of a stretch from the Emancipation Proc, at least no bigger than the stretch between Lincoln's 1860/61 views on slavery and his 1862/63 views.
AoT at [Jul 28 18:12:30]: Now one thing that many people overlook is that Lincoln's position was more important to the ultimate history of this country than the slavery issue.
Korky at [Jul 28 18:13:53]: When Lincoln gave his first Inaugural Address, was his position not stated succinctly? Lincoln may have been swayed by the war hawks but I don't think they would have had near as much power had the South not seceded. War time caused much fever on both sides. The South resorted to having a draft before the North. The South's federal government was forced to do so in order to preserve itself. Was the right of the individual that issue?
AoT at [Jul 28 18:14:09]: Korky sorry I meant to agree with you that no secession no Lincoln attack on slavery.
TJ at [Jul 28 18:15:58]: Please. Lincoln wasn't manhandled by the Radicals in his party. From the very get-go, Lincoln, a relatively inexperienced politician, was able to control radicals like Chase and Seward--not the accomplishment of a timid man. Listen, I know that the Radical Repubs played a significant part in turning Lincoln toward emancipation. But I stress the word 'part.' There were other factors, some of which I've already (I think) alluded to.
AoT at [Jul 28 18:16:06]: In my opinion the individual's rights had little to do with the civil war...the draft being just one example.
TJ at [Jul 28 18:17:00]: AoT, please clarify yours of 18:12:30.
AoT at [Jul 28 18:17:08]: TJ, I never said THAT THE RADICALS MAN HANDLED Lincoln.
AoT at [Jul 28 18:18:35]: TJ..I just think that it is so fundamental now people overlook it's importance. In America you lose the election but you, the losing minority, do not then just leave.
TJ at [Jul 28 18:18:54]: Easy, AoT. That was more an offshoot of Korky's statements. Don't stroke out on us.
Korky at [Jul 28 18:19:05]: I agree AoT, Lincoln was not the great emancipator that many would have us think. His emancipation proclamation may have been a war time measure telling the southern states that he saw no reason why the Fugitive Slave Act should be continued to be followed. Why worry about the property of a insurrectionist when trying to subjacate him. No, at that point in the war, Lincoln was calling the slaves property. Had the North expended men and resources to care for that property it would not have been helpful to the war effort. The EP could be construed as a way to alleviate the North's obligation to care for the insurrectionists' property?
AoT at [Jul 28 18:19:29]: That was the somewhat radical but still not established concept that Lincoln saw was essential to a democracy.
TJ at [Jul 28 18:19:53]: You mean Lincoln's position on slavery or secession?
AoT at [Jul 28 18:21:19]: TJ no sweat my typing is not great! LOL Lincoln played the radicals. They were is solid support for the war he had to keep them happy within limits.
AoT at [Jul 28 18:22:00]: Sorry I mean Lincoln's position on secession.
TJ at [Jul 28 18:22:09]: And also, re: broader emancipation issues, don't you think there was a time when, after limited emancipation began, there was no turning back? Broader emancipation became almost necessary, or at least logical, as the war progressed and limited measures were passed--for whatever reasons.
Korky at [Jul 28 18:22:46]: To me that makes sense why Lincoln did not "free" the slaves in those states not in rebellion. Thus from a pure military reason it made lots of sense. Once he gave in to the direction that the Radicals wanted to take him in, regardless of his reasons, Lincoln started the path that led us to abolishment of slavery.
AoT at [Jul 28 18:23:48]: When the issue came up again arguably...early 1960's civil rights movement the old South Voted for Goldwater... they lost the election yet no one thought about secession I mean no one with any brains.
Korky at [Jul 28 18:27:58]: Yep, AoT, its comforting to know that we can learn from our past.
TJ at [Jul 28 18:28:03]: AoT, your reference to the 1960s is interesting, and reminds me of my reason, or explanation, of how it was likely (or even natural) for non-slaveholding Southerners to support the institution of slavery. But that might be best held for another discussion.
AoT at [Jul 28 18:28:04]: Sorry I do not buy it...After all the death suffering draft ect... the war had caused, the north wanted retribution. The way the previously moderate Northerners got their retribution was to end slavery everywhere. To me the best example was Black Jack Logan so lukewarm when war started talk of him and southern Illinois going south at end of the war he made the RADICALS look tame...TJ do you think ole Jack got religion of maybe he just blamed the south for bringing on all the suffering and death.
TJ at [Jul 28 18:31:10]: Neither, to be honest, AoT. I have a hard time assigning clear and easy reasons for people's motivations. They're more often than not very complex. I stick to my interpretation, as you evidently will yours.
Korky at [Jul 28 18:31:42]: Guys. I've got to run. My work took a hit this afternoon with my room discussions. I enjoyed it greatly. Its been a long time since I've had the opportunity to discuss the war to this extent. Thanks. See ya later.
TJ at [Jul 28 18:32:31]: I should as well. National news is on and I'm told the Clinton saga took an interesting turn today. Let's continue this later.
AoT at [Jul 28 18:33:10]: I have been struck by the anti-abortionist claim that abortion is the present day slavery issue in this country...they maintain that it is a moral wrong yet many in America refuse to see the immorality of it... just like many in 1860's refused to address the morality of slavery and in fact many felt strong moral support for slavery... the big difference is the abortion debate today is not as regionalized as slavery was in the 1860s.
AoT at [Jul 28 18:34:45]: ok guys...one of these days we got to solve these issues over about 6 cases of beer!
This Page last updated 10/06/01
RETURN TO THE CIVIL WAR DISCUSSIONS PAGE