The Official Civil War Thread

[Jeff Lebowski]

Your friend is wrong. How's that for superficial?


Whatever rationalization he wants to use, or whatever search for obscure antecedents he wants to conduct, will not alter the fact that the South and its particiaption in the civil war, including its culture and it economy and its social direction and its 'needs' for expansion or otherwise, were inextricably linked to and dependent on slavery.

I will add something else that I am sure will offend him: Apart from narrow academic purposes, I find such efforts to explain or rationalize the civil war outside of slavery to be unfortunate. They have an unspoken (and sometimes spoken) subtext of legitimaizing slavery, of suggesting it was not abhorrent. To that extent, such efforts should be avoided.

I didn't take it that way. To me, the statement "The Civil War was fought over slavery" is true, but it greatly oversimplifies reality. I think one can explore the other issues that were at play without in any way condoning slavery, implicitly or otherwise.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Your friend is wrong. How's that for superficial?


Whatever rationalization he wants to use, or whatever search for obscure antecedents he wants to conduct, will not alter the fact that the South and its particiaption in the civil war, including its culture and it economy and its social direction and its 'needs' for expansion or otherwise, were inextricably linked to and dependent on slavery.

I will add something else that I am sure will offend him: Apart from narrow academic purposes, I find such efforts to explain or rationalize the civil war outside of slavery to be unfortunate. They have an unspoken (and sometimes spoken) subtext of legitimaizing slavery, of suggesting it was not abhorrent. To that extent, such efforts should be avoided.

I am going to toss out another thought.

I know the conventional wisdom is that the states-rights and "war of northern aggression" arguments were fabricated after the war to deflect the shame of the defeat and to divert attention away from the guilt and evil of slavery. I think there is some truth to that. At the same time, doesn't that argument cut both ways? Could it be that painting the war first and foremost as a struggle to free the slaves helps ease the Northern conscience as well? Regardless of the underlying motivation for secession, should a set of states not have the right to separate and form a new country and a constitution if that is what the majority desires? Don't we believe that government gets its authority from the consent of the governed? Absent slavery, would the need to "preserve the union" warrant an armed invasion and the loss of 600,000 lives and untold suffering and treasure?

There is the old line that history is written by the victors. Does that not apply in this case to some degree?

[Clark Addison]

I am going to toss out another thought.

I know the conventional wisdom is that the states-rights and "war of northern aggression" arguments were fabricated after the war to deflect the shame of the defeat and to divert attention away from the guilt and evil of slavery. I think there is some truth to that. At the same time, doesn't that argument cut both ways? Could it be that painting the war first and foremost as a struggle to free the slaves helps ease the Northern conscience as well? Regardless of the underlying motivation for secession, should a set of states not have the right to separate and form a new country and a constitution if that is what the majority desires? Don't we believe that government gets its authority from the consent of the governed? Absent slavery, would the need to "preserve the union" warrant an armed invasion and the loss of 600,000 lives and untold suffering and treasure?

There is the old line that history is written by the victors. Does that not apply in this case to some degree?

I think it applies to a great degree. I disagree with my friend Dr. Wuap on the causes of the war. I think the answer is, generally, slavery. Having said that, I think that the motivation of the Northern Aggressors (trying to placate Wuap here) was varied, and included, in no particular order:

- Elimination of slavery
- Preservation of the Union ("Noble" perspective)
- Preservation of the Union (Economic perspective)
- Keeping those uppity Southernors in their place
- Various other things that don't come to mind at this second

Folks like Seward were driven a lot by #1. Lincoln was driven mostly by #2, along with a healthy dollop of wanting to be one of the great ones of history (and some #1, especially as things went on). There were a lot of Northern bsuinessmen who were perfectly happy with slavery as long as it didn't interfere with their industries.

So when I say that the Civil War was about slavery, I don't mean that it was top of mind of all that fought in it, I mean that without slavery, the war doesn't happen, and, more specifically, it was the primary (by far) cause of Southern seccession. There are other contributing factors to the war, but if you still have those, and slavery is gone, I think there is zero chance of seccession and war.

I haven't had a chance to read Flattop's posts in detail, but I think it and your points that things are more complicated are certainly valid as far as how things got to where they were. I think where Southern Defenders get their dander up is partly when it is reduced to "The Civil War was caused by slavery, which was caused by the South being morally inferior to the North". Flattop's friend and Wuap would probably say that both parts of that sentence are incorrect. I would say that the first part is correct, but the second part is not, and that is where the complexities lie.

[Paperback Writer]

I am going to toss out another thought.

I know the conventional wisdom is that the states-rights and "war of northern aggression" arguments were fabricated after the war to deflect the shame of the defeat and to divert attention away from the guilt and evil of slavery. I think there is some truth to that. At the same time, doesn't that argument cut both ways? Could it be that painting the war first and foremost as a struggle to free the slaves helps ease the Northern conscience as well? Regardless of the underlying motivation for secession, should a set of states not have the right to separate and form a new country and a constitution if that is what the majority desires? Don't we believe that government gets its authority from the consent of the governed? Absent slavery, would the need to "preserve the union" warrant an armed invasion and the loss of 600,000 lives and untold suffering and treasure?

There is the old line that history is written by the victors. Does that not apply in this case to some degree?

Agree, and IMO that explains some of the genius of Lincoln. The "political" turning point of the Civil War was when Lincoln emphasized the conflict as a moral stand against slavery. I don't think think the North persists after 1862, as the population realizes the high cost of war, without turning the conflict from "Southern independence" to "abolishment of slavery". In my view, there were many reasons that caused the Civil War but it continued to be fought from the North's standpoint as a way to end slavery. Of course, the South fought because they were being invaded.

[Flattop]

By any chance, is there an Official World War II Thread around here?

We are, after all, in the midst of the 70th anniversary of the war and fast approaching the 75th.

[Jarid in Cedar]

By any chance, is there an Official World War II Thread around here?

We are, after all, in the midst of the 70th anniversary of the war and fast approaching the 75th.

Nope. Feel free to start one up.

[LA Ute]

By any chance, is there an Official World War II Thread around here?

We are, after all, in the midst of the 70th anniversary of the war and fast approaching the 75th.

We could start with D-Day. 67th (?) anniversary one week from Monday.

[Flattop]

We could start with D-Day. 67th (?) anniversary one week from Monday.

Or two days earlier for the 69th of Midway.

[Clark Addison]

By any chance, is there an Official World War II Thread around here?

We are, after all, in the midst of the 70th anniversary of the war and fast approaching the 75th.

I was actually just thinking of starting one up this morning, as I had a WWII related question to ask.

[LA Ute]

I was actually just thinking of starting one up this morning, as I had a WWII related question to ask.

Do it! That would be a fun thread.

[wuapinmon]

This is a great thread, one that brings out the best in CUF. myboynoah said he loved me. I´m that much closer to the transcendent freedom of a Carpocratian salvation.

[LA Ute]

This is a great thread, one that brings out the best in CUF. myboynoah said he loved me. I´m that much closer to the transcendent freedom of a Carpocratian salvation.

I've always loved you. You know that.

[wuapinmon]

I've always loved you. You know that.

This isn´t news. You´re freer with your affections than a drunk Robin.

[Clark Addison]

I know we have already gone back and forth and back on this, so I hesitate to bring it up, but I was re-watching the beginning of the Ken Burns' documentary today, where there was a quote from this speech:

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=76

The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. . .

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

So if you feel that slavery was not the cause of the war, take it up with Alexander Stephens, the Vice President of the Confederacy. He seems to disagree.

[LA Ute]

I know we have already gone back and forth and back on this, so I hesitate to bring it up, but I was re-watching the beginning of the Ken Burns' documentary today, where there was a quote from this speech:

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=76

So if you feel that slavery was not the cause of the war, take it up with Alexander Stephens, the Vice President of the Confederacy. He seems to disagree.

And Stephens' statue stands in Statuary Hall in the U.S. Capitol building. Go figure.