What do you guys think about the civil war?

[jesusnewspaper]

should it have ever happened?
which side are you loyal to(if any)?(north or south)
Why are southerners still viewed as stupid?

(fyi: i am southern so i just wanted to know)

[kh294God]

should it have ever happened?
which side are you loyal to(if any)?(north or south)
Why are southerners still viewed as stupid?

(fyi: i am southern so i just wanted to know)
i am southern too i don't think any human should be any other human's slave no matter what the decade is

[Ehud Elijah]

You must mean the War of Northern Aggression.

I agree with kh294God.

[middletree]

It was about slavery, not states' rights, no matter what you hear. And I am from one of the confederate states.



As far as why people think southerners are stupid, thank Hollywood.

[coldcupofjoe]

I believe that the American Civil war was a good thing, that it should have happened. The Civil War started out about States rights. In regard to that issue I'm for the Southern States. When Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, very very smart and underhanded trick by Lincoln, (I'm not saying it was a bad thing yes I'm glad it happened. Brilliant politcal move by Lincoln and it was a good thing to do, even if it was underhanded) it changed the whole purpose of the war. The civil war was no longer about the power the states had and about freedom from slavery. If it had STAYED about states rights then I think the south should have won. As it is I'm glad the north won. Becuase as has been stated the freedom from slavery is a very very good thing.

I'm loyal to God. Then Texas, then America. Yes thats right. If texas split from the US and was started I would fight for Texas if need be. Unless Texas split for some REALLY stupid reason.

We're viewed as stupid cuz we talk funny. At least to them yankees. Truth is though... they're the ones that talk funny.

[VolGomer]

It was about slavery, not states' rights, no matter what you hear. And I am from one of the confederate states.

This is one of the few times that I will have to quasi-disagree with you.

I don't think you can really seperate the two. If I were pushed, I'd say that the Civil War was about the states' rights whether or not to allow slavery.

Kind of a cop out, I know, but I think if the federal government were to have attempted to force the states into abolishing some other way of life that the southern states so jealously guarded, (not sure there were any others) then I believe you would have had the same outcome.

And as to why we are viewed as stupid, I blame tornados. They are biased against those southerners with the lowest intellect. At least those are always the ones on the news.

[coldcupofjoe]

I don't think you can really seperate the two. If I were pushed, I'd say that the Civil War was about the states' rights whether or not to allow slavery.

Kind of a cop out, I know, but I think if the federal government were to have attempted to force the states into abolishing some other way of life that the southern states so jealously guarded, (not sure there were any others) then I believe you would have had the same outcome.

Slavery was one of the issues that started the war but not the one and only until the Emancipation Proclamation

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

There had been a continuing contest between the states and the national government over the power of the latter, and over the loyalty of the citizenry, almost since the founding of the republic. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798, for example, had defied the Alien and Sedition Acts, and at the Hartford Convention, New England voiced its opposition to President Madison and the War of 1812.

In 1828 and 1832 the Congress passed protective tariffs to benefit trade in the northern states. It was deemed a "Tariff of Abominations" and its provisions would have imposed a significant economic penalty on South Carolina and other southern states if left in force. South Carolina dealt with the tariffs by adopting the Ordinance of Nullification, which declared both the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 null and void within state borders. The legislature also passed laws to enforce the ordinance, including authorization for raising a military force and appropriations for arms. In response to South Carolina's threat, Congress passed a "Force Bill" and President Andrew Jackson sent seven small naval vessels and a man-of-war to Charleston in November 1832. On December 10, he issued a resounding proclamation against the nullifiers.

On the eve of the Civil War, the United States was a nation composed of four quite distinct regions: the Northeast, with a growing industrial and commercial economy and an increasing density of population; the Northwest, now known as the Midwest, a rapidly expanding region of free farmers where slavery had been forever prohibited under the Northwest Ordinance; the Upper South, with a settled plantation system and (in some areas) declining economic fortunes; and the Southwest, a booming frontier-like region with an expanding cotton economy. With two fundamentally different labor systems at their base, the economic and social changes across the nation's geographical regions – based on wage labor in the North and on slavery in the South – underlay distinct visions of society that had emerged by the mid-nineteenth century in the North and in the South.

Before the Civil War, the Constitution provided a basis for peaceful debate over the future of government, and had been able to regulate conflicts of interest and conflicting visions for the new, rapidly expanding nation. For many years, compromises had been made to balance the number of "free states" and "slave states" so that there would be a balance in the Senate. The last slave state admitted was Texas in 1845, with five free states admitted between 1846 and 1859. The admission of Kansas as a slave state had recently been blocked, and it was due to enter as a free state instead in 1861. The rise of mass democracy in the industrializing North, the breakdown of the old two-party system, and increasingly virulent and hostile sectional ideologies in the mid-nineteenth century made it highly unlikely, if not impossible, to bring about the gentlemanly compromises of the past (such as the Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850) necessary to avoid crisis. Also the existence of slave labor in the South made the Northern States the preferred destination for new immigrants from Europe resulting in an increasing dominance of the North in Congress and in Presidential elections, due to population size.

Sectional tensions changed in their nature and intensity rapidly during the 1850s. The United States Republican Party was established in 1854. The new party opposed the expansion of slavery in the Western territories. Although only a small share of Northerners favored measures to abolish slavery in the South, the Republicans were able to mobilize popular support among Northerners and Westerners who did not want to compete against slave labor if the system were expanded beyond the South. The Republicans won the support of many ex-Whigs and Northern ex-Democrats concerned about the South's disproportionate influence in the Senate, the Buchanan administration, and the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, the profitability of cotton, or "King Cotton," as it was touted, solidified the South's dependence on the plantation system and its foundation: slave labor. A small class of slave barons, especially cotton planters, dominated the politics and society of the South.

Southern secession was triggered by the election of Republican Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln was a moderate in his opposition to slavery. He pledged to do all he could to oppose the expansion of slavery into the territories (thus also preventing the admission of any additional slave states to the Union); but he also said the federal government did not have the power to abolish slavery in the states in which it already existed, and that he would enforce Fugitive Slave Laws. The southern states expected increasing hostility to their "peculiar institution"; not trusting Lincoln, and mindful that many other Republicans were intent on complete abolition of slavery. Lincoln had even encouraged abolitionists with his 1858 "House divided" speech[1], though that speech was also consistent with an eventual end of slavery achieved gradually and voluntarily with compensation to slave-owners and resettlement of former slaves.

In addition to Lincoln's presidential victory, the slave states had lost the balance of power in the Senate and were facing a future as a perpetual minority after decades of nearly continuous control of the presidency and the Congress. Southerners also felt they could no longer prevent protectionist tariffs such as the Morrill Tariff.

The Southern justification for a unilateral right to secede cited the doctrine of states' rights, which had been debated before with the 1798 Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, and the 1832 Nullification Crisis with regard to tariffs.

Before Lincoln took office, seven states seceded from the union, and attempted to establish an independent southern government, the Confederate States of America on February 9, 1861. They took control of federal forts and property within their boundaries, with little resistance from President Buchanan. Ironically, by seceding, the rebel states weakened any claim to the territories that were in dispute, canceled any obligation for the North to return fugitive slaves, and assured easy passage of many bills and amendments they had long opposed. The Civil War began when Confederate General P.G.T. Beauregard opened fire upon Fort Sumter in Charleston, South Carolina on April 12, 1861. There were no casualties from enemy fire in this battle.

[RevZeek]

Slavery was one of the issues that started the war but not the one and only until the Emancipation Proclamation

Agreed.

The Emancipation Proclaimation in fact was only directed to those states that were rebelling at the time. States like Maryland & Missouri (both of which however would abolish slavery during the war) and Kentucky & Deleware had slaves and yet remained in the Union.
"Legally, slaves within the United States remained enslaved until the final ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution on December 6, 1865" (8 months after Appomattox). The importation of slaves into the United States had been banned as of January 1, 1808.

Abraham Lincoln was mainly concerned with "preserving the Union" for the simple fact that those states which were bringing in a large portion of the national economy were going to leave the country and form one of their own. Britain and France and the other major economic powers of the day would trade almost exclusivley with the Confederacy since they wanted the cotton, tobacco, indigo, rice and other products exported primarily from the south. However, since the south had little industrial infrastructure, the economy would've collapsed on itself within a few decades anyway unless they were able to begin competing on an industrial scale instead of simply through agriculture.

Another thing to remember is that Virginia, Arkansas,
North Carolina, & Tennessee only seceeded after the war began right here in Charleston, SC...I sit only 5 miles from Ft. Sumter.

[kh294God]

You must mean the War of Northern Aggression.

I agree with kh294God.
thank you....finally.....somebo dy in this great big vast universe agrees with me...my wife will NEVER believe that :rolleyes: :p

[coldcupofjoe]

When it comes to this topic I think you will find to hard to come across a person who doesn't agree with on these message boards. When it comes to this topic the debate isn't about slavery but about what were the reasons for the Civil War.

[Gandalf]

The Emancipation Proclaimation in fact was only directed to those states that were rebelling at the time. States like Maryland & Missouri (both of which however would abolish slavery during the war) and Kentucky & Deleware had slaves and yet remained in the Union.
"Legally, slaves within the United States remained enslaved until the final ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution on December 6, 1865" (8 months after Appomattox). The importation of slaves into the United States had been banned as of January 1, 1808.
Missouri also never left the Union. There was a rogue confederate "government" of Missouri that was down in Louisiana or some such place, but they did not control the state, which did not secede. The moment part of the government tried to secede, it was declared illegitimate, and run out of the state, and new people replaced them in office.

You're right though that the Emancipation Proclamation only dealt with the states rebelling against the Union. Missouri, however, was not considered to be one of them. While there was a Confederate Missouri government, it was not present in the state of Missouri, and was not recognized as legitimate by either Missouri or the United States.

Personally, I am from Missouri, and spent part of my childhood in North Carolina. Most of my relatives who are not in the St. Louis area are in the South (Mississippi, the Carolinas, etc). Regarding the question at the time, it was a valid legal question whether a state had the right to secede. Once the rebel forces fired the first shots to take over a United States fort, however, it turned to war rather than legal battles. Since the United States won the war, the question was decided in its favor. I think that the current situation is imbalanced, and that states' rights were weakened more than they should've been because of the war. But, the Supreme Court under Rehnquist started moving back in the direction of a more Constitutionally correct interpretation of states' rights, and may continue to do so.

The slavery issue, while many Southerners tend to whitewash it, was truly a root cause of the war. If it were not for that issue, no states would've seceded to begin with. It was the slave owning culture that wanted to spread itself, much as the abortion rights culture does now, that motivated the Southern states to reject the election of an abolitionist President, fearing that slavery would be abolished. The states' rights issue came into play after the states had seceded; it was not the motivation for secession. By taking up this issue in which they may've been correct in order to have a more palatable banner than that of slavery, the Confederate government effectively weakened States' rights by raising it as a banner, then losing the war.

Many, or even most, of the Southern people really were fighting for their states. They're correct that their motivation was not just to defend slavery. But, the motivation of the governments of those states in making the decision to secede to begin with was, I believe, very closely tied to the slavery issue.

I have more ties to the South than the Northeast, but I'm Midwestern myself. I believe the Union was in the right, and respect Lincoln perhaps more than any other President. I also believe that the States have rights that have been usurped by the Federal government, and that this was a negative result of the Civil War.

[shelleybeansMAN]

I believe that the American Civil war was a good thing, that it should have happened. The Civil War started out about States rights. In regard to that issue I'm for the Southern States. When Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, very very smart and underhanded trick by Lincoln, (I'm not saying it was a bad thing yes I'm glad it happened. Brilliant politcal move by Lincoln and it was a good thing to do, even if it was underhanded) it changed the whole purpose of the war. The civil war was no longer about the power the states had and about freedom from slavery. If it had STAYED about states rights then I think the south should have won. As it is I'm glad the north won. Becuase as has been stated the freedom from slavery is a very very good thing.

I'm loyal to God. Then Texas, then America. Yes thats right. If texas split from the US and was started I would fight for Texas if need be. Unless Texas split for some REALLY stupid reason.

We're viewed as stupid cuz we talk funny. At least to them yankees. Truth is though... they're the ones that talk funny.
Amen....thats right...I agree...( with everything except that crazy Texas stuff! ) :D :D

[cheewiee]

Many, or even most, of the Southern people really were fighting for their states. They're correct that their motivation was not just to defend slavery. But, the motivation of the governments of those states in making the decision to secede to begin with was, I believe, very closely tied to the slavery issue.

That's just it though isn't it?

Also in that time, people were not yet galvanized as Americans... They were Virginians, they were Georgians and the Such..

General Robert E. Lee was imself an abolitionist who found himself fighting for his state Virginia. How many people today are loyal to their state?

It was because of men, Honerable men like Robert E. Lee who really made it a fight about states rights. And while I am glad the north won, the victory came at a high cost... The expense of states rights.

[Gandalf]

It was because of men, Honerable men like Robert E. Lee who really made it a fight about states rights. And while I am glad the north won, the victory came at a high cost... The expense of states rights.
I think the current Supreme Court nominations (and other Federal judiciary nominations) are very important for this reason as well as others. A textualist such as Scalia will, of course, read the 9th and 10th Ammendments as they're written, rather than trying to come up with a way to support his preference and enforce it. Rehnquist made large strides in recovering States' rights, at least at the conceptual level, and it is quite plausible the Roberts court could continue down that path and the issue could be righted at a practical level as well.

[cheewiee]

I think the current Supreme Court nominations (and other Federal judiciary nominations) are very important for this reason as well as others. A textualist such as Scalia will, of course, read the 9th and 10th Ammendments as they're written, rather than trying to come up with a way to support his preference and enforce it. Rehnquist made large strides in recovering States' rights, at least at the conceptual level, and it is quite plausible the Roberts court could continue down that path and the issue could be righted at a practical level as well.

And that is why, although I personally disagree with the President on his serious lack of fiscal restraint, why I will view his presidency a success... A Supreme Court that will be weighted more towards strict constructionlisim vs. legislativeism...

[MadCatholicGomer]

That's just it though isn't it?

How many people today are loyal to their state?

It was because of men, Honerable men like Robert E. Lee who really made it a fight about states rights. And while I am glad the north won, the victory came at a high cost... The expense of states rights.

My state can beat up your state any old day. We'll just throw the Sears Tower at you! :)

Go Illinois!

[cheewiee]

My state can beat up your state any old day. We'll just throw the Sears Tower at you! :)

Go Illinois!

Don't tread with me... I got myself a spaceshuttle, a rabid mouse and a killer whale all ready to take you and your tower down :p

[Gandalf]

Missouri has Boeing's military division headquarters, and all of the B2 bombers in the US arsenal, as well as being the home state of the only President to ever use nuclear weapons in combat. You lose before you see us coming ;)

[coldcupofjoe]

No... You guys got it all wrong! Us Texans will win out of sheer cussedness!

[Gandalf]

Except for two things:

1. Texans don't really want the rest of the country - they're so full of Texas they don't realize there's anything to be gained outside of the state
2. The other states don't really want to have to deal with the Texans, so will just leave Texas alone

;)

[coldcupofjoe]

Except for two things:

1. Texans don't really want the rest of the country - they're so full of Texas they don't realize there's anything to be gained outside of the state
2. The other states don't really want to have to deal with the Texans, so will just leave Texas alone

;)

1. Texans don't care about any of the other states your'e right. Not becuase we're arrogant but becuase no state is as good as Texas. If we Texans took over the whole world would be made over in Texas' image.
2. Yeah thats true...

[lilmikey]

You know this may sound crazy and all but my Dad said(I agree) that He would not be one bit suprised if it happened again

The Republicans against the democrats

[Gandalf]

There's not the hard geographical division now that there was then... would make it difficult.

[ReinaMissy]

Mad, do you go to school here in Chicago? You're not at Loyola, are you? I've had 3 courses there; I love that school! :D

[cheewiee]

There's not the hard geographical division now that there was then... would make it difficult.
Did you see the map that had the, "Blue United States of Canada" and the red "Jesus Land"? It was on Comedy Centrals The Daily Show, shortly after the 04 election.

[Ehud Elijah]

State's rights and slavery were both reasons for the Civil War. However, ultimately the heart of the issue was economics.

The slavery issue doesn't explain why the war started in 1861 (rather than earlier). Neither does it explain why slavery was abolished without the dramatic cost in life in other places.
Republicans who won power in the Federal government in 1860 were going to institute high tariffs paid largely by the slave-run, export-oriented economy of the South. The southern government was dominated by slave owners.

I think everyone here can do the math and finish the problem.

[MadCatholicGomer]

1. Texans don't care about any of the other states your'e right. Not becuase we're arrogant but becuase no state is as good as Texas. If we Texans took over the whole world would be made over in Texas' image.


And so begins the theology of statehood. Not too dangerous, except in Texas where people might mistake "Texas exaltation" for the gospel.

[MadCatholicGomer]

Mad, do you go to school here in Chicago? You're not at Loyola, are you? I've had 3 courses there; I love that school! :D

Unfortunately, I am a trasnplanted Illinoisan. My family moved to Texas when I was 4, and I lived there until I was 22, and for the last two and a half years, I have been going to grad school in the farthest east point in the Midwest: Steubenville, OH on the OH/WV border.

[Buttabean]

Missouri has Boeing's military division headquarters, and all of the B2 bombers in the US arsenal, as well as being the home state of the only President to ever use nuclear weapons in combat. You lose before you see us coming ;)


I keep trying to convince people of this, but everyone thinks Missouri is wimpy. They'll see....my house is in the path for the B2 bombers flying to the east coast, and they'll fly low, so we'll see them out all the time. Its really quite slick. :cool:

[middletree]

And so begins the theology of statehood. Not too dangerous, except in Texas where people might mistake "Texas exaltation" for the gospel.
It would be if the statement to which you were replying were true. In reality, however, we texans don't think we're better than others. Just another myth perpetuated by people who don't live here.

[jesusnewspaper]

Unfortunatly northerners keep on movin here tell us its newyook instead of new york and aint is stupidity and such. cept im a southerner born an bread and ni aint changin my life style to siute them any time soon! my languge and religion are mine nand aint no body gonna take em!
(told ya i was southern)

[ICarlson99]

Did you see the map that had the, "Blue United States of Canada" and the red "Jesus Land"? It was on Comedy Centrals The Daily Show, shortly after the 04 election.

:D
They also had one where Stewart was talking about global warming and rising tides overtaking coastal cities - then they put a red/blue map up and showed the removal of the "parentheses" (the blue states on the coast which would wash away), with dramatic music and everything revealing the "conspiracy". It was hilarious.

[ICarlson99]

Back on track:

Here's a good website on Civil War Myths

http://www.vw.cc.va.us/vwhansd/HIS269/myths.html

I'm trying to find the quotes from Lincoln and Grant, but abolition of slavery was a secondary (at best) reason for the war. The economic survival of the Union was #1 and #1a. Lincoln's quote was pretty harmless, but Grant's was, to the effect of, "if this war is to free blacks, I'll fall on my own sword right now". Freeing slaves became more of a justifying cause as the War dragged on and Lincoln needed re-election (not that that wasn't a good enough reason on it's own - bringing freedom to the truly oppressed is a good and noble cause).

Second, there's clear basis for slavery in the Bible, just not abusive and inhumane slavery which is what slavery became.

And while my "from" says GA, I spent 97% of my life in Minnesota and California, so I'm hardly a true Southerner :)

[ICarlson99]

I'm just reading some Civil War accounts, and found this one quite interesting (perhaps timely?)

"Clement Vallandigham was a Congressman from Ohio and a nationally prominent Democrat. In May 1863 he made a speech attacking the Lincoln administration's conduct in the war. He was arrested, convicted by a military tribunal, although a civilian, and deported into the Confederacy."

Hmmmmm :p

[MadCatholicGomer]

It would be if the statement to which you were replying were true. In reality, however, we texans don't think we're better than others. Just another myth perpetuated by people who don't live here.

Not a myth... I lived there for 18 years, including my formative years in which I could see others in THEIR formative years... the children are taught that Texas is superior by their parents... :D

[middletree]

Not a myth... I lived there for 18 years, including my formative years in which I could see others in THEIR formative years... the children are taught that Texas is superior by their parents... :D
So one set of parents overrides my 40 years of experience living here? Sorry, not buying it. People here have a certain amount of pride in being a Texan, just like most places. But the post to which I was referring said that Texans think they are the center of the universe, or some such thing. Not true at all.

[MadCatholicGomer]

So one set of parents overrides my 40 years of experience living here? Sorry, not buying it. People here have a certain amount of pride in being a Texan, just like most places. But the post to which I was referring said that Texans think they are the center of the universe, or some such thing. Not true at all.

Well, I am sort of being facetious... but sort of not.

[coldcupofjoe]

And so begins the theology of statehood. Not too dangerous, except in Texas where people might mistake "Texas exaltation" for the gospel.


You mean "And Texas shall be the greatest state ever to exsist." ISN'T the 11th commandment?

Yeah most Texans aren't crazy about loving their state but those of us that are more than make up for those of you who aren't.

[Nilknarf]

Hey, if we are starting a new civil war you guys are all in trouble. I'd love to see GA lob Jimmy Carter and Ted Turner somewhere north. Wouldn't that be the equivilant of biological warfare...

-Frank

[Gandalf]

Haha. As much trouble as Jimmy causes sticking his nose into foreign policy, he'd probably lose the war for you guys before a shot was fired! :)

I love the stuff he does with Habitat for Humanity, etc. - he needs to stick with that; his foreign policy was a disaster when he was President, and still is.

[Pouye]

Haha. As much trouble as Jimmy causes sticking his nose into foreign policy, he'd probably lose the war for you guys before a shot was fired! :)

I love the stuff he does with Habitat for Humanity, etc. - he needs to stick with that; his foreign policy was a disaster when he was President, and still is.

But the dictators all loved Carter, Gandalf! They were on OUR side when he was president... now all of those brutish dictators hate us. Why?

Rock