The American Civil War Timeline- 150th Anniversary (7 Viewers)

[timschochet]

The Wilmot Proviso

As the victory over Mexico began to seem inevitable, it also became clear that the United States would gain territory all the way to California, and this territory would eventually become states. Thus, the question of slavery, which had been politically dormant despite the arguments of abolitionists ever since the Missouri Compromise, suddenly became prominent in the late 1840s. On August 8, 1846, Pennsylvania's first-term Representatitve David Wilmot rose during the debate on an appropriations bill for the Mexican War and moved an amendment: "that, as an express and fundamental condition of the acquisition of any territory from the Republic of Mexico...neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall ever exist in any part of said territory."

Antislavery conviction motivated Wilmot and his allies, (northern Democrats), but they were also angered at President Polk for going to war with Mexico and not with England (over Oregon's borders.) They felt that Polk had given in too much to the South, and this was payback. When Wilmot introduced his proviso, therefore,he released the pent up ire of northern Democrats, many of whom cared less about slavery in new territories than about their power within the party. Nothern Whigs, who had a more consistent antislavery recore, were delighted to support the proviso. This bipartisan northern coalition in the House passed it over the united opposition of southern Democrats and Whigs. This was a dire omen. The normal pattern of division in Congress had occured along party lines on issues such as the tarriff, the Bank, etc. The Wilmot Proviso wrenched this division by parties into a conflict of sections. The political landscape would never be the same again.

Congress was adjourned for 1846, but the next year Wilmot reintroduced the proviso again, and it once again passed the House. The Senate was a different matter: there the South had 15 slave states as opposed to 14 free states, and were therefore able to kill the bill. But both sides realized this was merely a postponement. How long, prominent Southerners began to ask themselves, could they maintain their majority in the Senate? There was only one way: to insist that every new state admitted be a slave state. But this would bring the issue to the forefront of the American public, which both sides had long avoided.

Thus, the stage was set: for the next 13 years, the battle over slavery and its expansion would be THE consuming political issue that would eventually break the nation apart. Here then, is our first important historical question: could the Civil War have been avoided? Or was it inevitable, given the political events that would take place between 1847-1860? This question is hotly debated among historians ever since, and it continues today. As we explore in the narrative the important events of these years, everyone can draw their own conclusions.

 

[timschochet]

Before continuing with the timeline, my next several posts will be about northern and southern political views of the time period. It is important to understand what people were thinking, and why.

 

[jwb]

The Wilmot Proviso

As the victory over Mexico began to seem inevitable, it also became clear that the United States would gain territory all the way to California, and this territory would eventually become states. Thus, the question of slavery, which had been politically dormant despite the arguments of abolitionists ever since the Missouri Compromise, suddenly became prominent in the late 1840s. On August 8, 1846, Pennsylvania's first-term Representatitve David Wilmot rose during the debate on an appropriations bill for the Mexican War and moved an amendment: "that, as an express and fundamental condition of the acquisition of any territory from the Republic of Mexico...neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall ever exist in any part of said territory."

Antislavery conviction motivated Wilmot and his allies, (northern Democrats), but they were also angered at President Polk for going to war with Mexico and not with England (over Oregon's borders.) They felt that Polk had given in too much to the South, and this was payback. When Wilmot introduced his proviso, therefore,he released the pent up ire of northern Democrats, many of whom cared less about slavery in new territories than about their power within the party. Nothern Whigs, who had a more consistent antislavery recore, were delighted to support the proviso. This bipartisan northern coalition in the House passed it over the united opposition of southern Democrats and Whigs. This was a dire omen. The normal pattern of division in Congress had occured along party lines on issues such as the tarriff, the Bank, etc. The Wilmot Proviso wrenched this division by parties into a conflict of sections. The political landscape would never be the same again.

Congress was adjourned for 1846, but the next year Wilmot reintroduced the proviso again, and it once again passed the House. The Senate was a different matter: there the South had 15 slave states as opposed to 14 free states, and were therefore able to kill the bill. But both sides realized this was merely a postponement. How long, prominent Southerners began to ask themselves, could they maintain their majority in the Senate? There was only one way: to insist that every new state admitted be a slave state. But this would bring the issue to the forefront of the American public, which both sides had long avoided.

Thus, the stage was set: for the next 13 years, the battle over slavery and its expansion would be THE consuming political issue that would eventually break the nation apart. Here then, is our first important historical question: could the Civil War have been avoided? Or was it inevitable, given the political events that would take place between 1847-1860? This question is hotly debated among historians ever since, and it continues today. As we explore in the narrative the important events of these years, everyone can draw their own conclusions.

I don't think it was avoidable. The big problem for the South was that slavery proved very profitable, especially after the cotton gin. Basically, their entire economy was tied to slavery - they couldn't imagine life without it.

 

[McJose]

Suck it, Tanner. Applying your logic to the Revolutionary War would yield: Traitors win, English guys lose.

Actually it would be Insurgents win...

 

[ceo3west]

I'm related to this guy.

Any relation to Colin Dowling? I'm also related to a Civil War vet, this guy is my 6th great grandfather. Thank God I don't look like him.

 

[El Floppo]

Are you going to need to call it the War of Northern Aggression for our friends in the South?

I am pretty neutral about this struggle. Slavery was a great evil, but I do not consider the Rebels to be bad Americans or traitors, and I do not consider the Yankees to be "Northern Agressors." Both sides had heroes and villains, honorable men and cowards, great military leaders and idiots. My motto for the war is the statement that Ulysses Grant's secretary, a full-blooded Indian, gave at the surrender at Appotamox. In reply to Lee's comment that he, Lee was glad that one REAL American was present at the surrender, he replied, We are all Americans.

Let the healing begin. FWIW- my HS US History teacher, Mr. Sherman (yes, related) drew overflow crowds to his lectures on the Civil War- amazing stuff that had a profound impact on me as a youth. Too bad there were copious amount of drug/alcohol use later which wiped most of it clean (or dirty, I guess).

 

[El Floppo]

The Wilmot Proviso

As the victory over Mexico began to seem inevitable, it also became clear that the United States would gain territory all the way to California, and this territory would eventually become states. Thus, the question of slavery, which had been politically dormant despite the arguments of abolitionists ever since the Missouri Compromise, suddenly became prominent in the late 1840s. On August 8, 1846, Pennsylvania's first-term Representatitve David Wilmot rose during the debate on an appropriations bill for the Mexican War and moved an amendment: "that, as an express and fundamental condition of the acquisition of any territory from the Republic of Mexico...neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall ever exist in any part of said territory."

Antislavery conviction motivated Wilmot and his allies, (northern Democrats), but they were also angered at President Polk for going to war with Mexico and not with England (over Oregon's borders.) They felt that Polk had given in too much to the South, and this was payback. When Wilmot introduced his proviso, therefore,he released the pent up ire of northern Democrats, many of whom cared less about slavery in new territories than about their power within the party. Nothern Whigs, who had a more consistent antislavery recore, were delighted to support the proviso. This bipartisan northern coalition in the House passed it over the united opposition of southern Democrats and Whigs. This was a dire omen. The normal pattern of division in Congress had occured along party lines on issues such as the tarriff, the Bank, etc. The Wilmot Proviso wrenched this division by parties into a conflict of sections. The political landscape would never be the same again.

Congress was adjourned for 1846, but the next year Wilmot reintroduced the proviso again, and it once again passed the House. The Senate was a different matter: there the South had 15 slave states as opposed to 14 free states, and were therefore able to kill the bill. But both sides realized this was merely a postponement. How long, prominent Southerners began to ask themselves, could they maintain their majority in the Senate? There was only one way: to insist that every new state admitted be a slave state. But this would bring the issue to the forefront of the American public, which both sides had long avoided.

Thus, the stage was set: for the next 13 years, the battle over slavery and its expansion would be THE consuming political issue that would eventually break the nation apart. Here then, is our first important historical question: could the Civil War have been avoided? Or was it inevitable, given the political events that would take place between 1847-1860? This question is hotly debated among historians ever since, and it continues today. As we explore in the narrative the important events of these years, everyone can draw their own conclusions.

I'm not immediately getting the bolded parts- how does the acquisition of land/states affect the country's mindset on slavery?

 

[BobbyLayne]

Timschochet & other Civil War buffs - I have been meaning to dive into this study/subject but always intimidated by where to begin. There are thousands of books and volumes of information. Can someone give me a good list of books as a starting point? Is there a general consensus of a series or set of authors/books that would be a good beginning? Also books that make for a good entertaining read - not so much dry academic studies & analysis. TIA!

I see you have already received several outstanding suggestions, all of which I would heartily endorse as great narrative history. I cut my teeth Bruce Catton's Army of the Potomac trilogy and Shelby Foote's 20-years-in-the-making masterpiece. The former once said "If nothing else, history ought to be a good yarn". Few could ever turn a phrase as well those two, simply great storytelling. Coddington's Gettysburg Campaign has set the standard for the most written about battle for more than four decades. The popularity of Kearns Goodwin and McPherson is easy to understand. Those are all good generalists to form a base knowledge of the ACW. More in depth study is available for every major engagement; will add more suggestions as we get there.

FWIW, my favorite living author who is still churning them out is Noah Andre Trudeau.

 

[Ozymandias]

The Wilmot Proviso

As the victory over Mexico began to seem inevitable, it also became clear that the United States would gain territory all the way to California, and this territory would eventually become states. Thus, the question of slavery, which had been politically dormant despite the arguments of abolitionists ever since the Missouri Compromise, suddenly became prominent in the late 1840s. On August 8, 1846, Pennsylvania's first-term Representatitve David Wilmot rose during the debate on an appropriations bill for the Mexican War and moved an amendment: "that, as an express and fundamental condition of the acquisition of any territory from the Republic of Mexico...neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall ever exist in any part of said territory."

Antislavery conviction motivated Wilmot and his allies, (northern Democrats), but they were also angered at President Polk for going to war with Mexico and not with England (over Oregon's borders.) They felt that Polk had given in too much to the South, and this was payback. When Wilmot introduced his proviso, therefore,he released the pent up ire of northern Democrats, many of whom cared less about slavery in new territories than about their power within the party. Nothern Whigs, who had a more consistent antislavery recore, were delighted to support the proviso. This bipartisan northern coalition in the House passed it over the united opposition of southern Democrats and Whigs. This was a dire omen. The normal pattern of division in Congress had occured along party lines on issues such as the tarriff, the Bank, etc. The Wilmot Proviso wrenched this division by parties into a conflict of sections. The political landscape would never be the same again.

Congress was adjourned for 1846, but the next year Wilmot reintroduced the proviso again, and it once again passed the House. The Senate was a different matter: there the South had 15 slave states as opposed to 14 free states, and were therefore able to kill the bill. But both sides realized this was merely a postponement. How long, prominent Southerners began to ask themselves, could they maintain their majority in the Senate? There was only one way: to insist that every new state admitted be a slave state. But this would bring the issue to the forefront of the American public, which both sides had long avoided.

Thus, the stage was set: for the next 13 years, the battle over slavery and its expansion would be THE consuming political issue that would eventually break the nation apart. Here then, is our first important historical question: could the Civil War have been avoided? Or was it inevitable, given the political events that would take place between 1847-1860? This question is hotly debated among historians ever since, and it continues today. As we explore in the narrative the important events of these years, everyone can draw their own conclusions.

I'm not immediately getting the bolded parts- how does the acquisition of land/states affect the country's mindset on slavery?

It didn't affect the mindset; it affected the political calculation. The expansion westward would bring in many more free states, and they would eventually have enough votes to impose their will, and free the slaves. The handwriting was on the wall.

 

[BobbyLayne]

I'm also related to a Civil War vet, this guy is my 6th great grandfather. Thank God I don't look like him.

Whoa...very, very cool.

One of our admin staff is five generations removed from Thomas Meagher, who organized the Irish Brigade in NYC. The clan has a big reunion every year in Queens.

I've also become acquainted with descendants of Dan Sickles - fittingly, crazy kooky wacko folks. Those idiots still believe his insubordination won the battle of Gettysburg.

 

[El Floppo]

The Wilmot Proviso

As the victory over Mexico began to seem inevitable, it also became clear that the United States would gain territory all the way to California, and this territory would eventually become states. Thus, the question of slavery, which had been politically dormant despite the arguments of abolitionists ever since the Missouri Compromise, suddenly became prominent in the late 1840s. On August 8, 1846, Pennsylvania's first-term Representatitve David Wilmot rose during the debate on an appropriations bill for the Mexican War and moved an amendment: "that, as an express and fundamental condition of the acquisition of any territory from the Republic of Mexico...neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall ever exist in any part of said territory."

Antislavery conviction motivated Wilmot and his allies, (northern Democrats), but they were also angered at President Polk for going to war with Mexico and not with England (over Oregon's borders.) They felt that Polk had given in too much to the South, and this was payback. When Wilmot introduced his proviso, therefore,he released the pent up ire of northern Democrats, many of whom cared less about slavery in new territories than about their power within the party. Nothern Whigs, who had a more consistent antislavery recore, were delighted to support the proviso. This bipartisan northern coalition in the House passed it over the united opposition of southern Democrats and Whigs. This was a dire omen. The normal pattern of division in Congress had occured along party lines on issues such as the tarriff, the Bank, etc. The Wilmot Proviso wrenched this division by parties into a conflict of sections. The political landscape would never be the same again.

Congress was adjourned for 1846, but the next year Wilmot reintroduced the proviso again, and it once again passed the House. The Senate was a different matter: there the South had 15 slave states as opposed to 14 free states, and were therefore able to kill the bill. But both sides realized this was merely a postponement. How long, prominent Southerners began to ask themselves, could they maintain their majority in the Senate? There was only one way: to insist that every new state admitted be a slave state. But this would bring the issue to the forefront of the American public, which both sides had long avoided.

Thus, the stage was set: for the next 13 years, the battle over slavery and its expansion would be THE consuming political issue that would eventually break the nation apart. Here then, is our first important historical question: could the Civil War have been avoided? Or was it inevitable, given the political events that would take place between 1847-1860? This question is hotly debated among historians ever since, and it continues today. As we explore in the narrative the important events of these years, everyone can draw their own conclusions.

I'm not immediately getting the bolded parts- how does the acquisition of land/states affect the country's mindset on slavery?

It didn't affect the mindset; it affected the political calculation. The expansion westward would bring in many more free states, and they would eventually have enough votes to impose their will, and free the slaves. The handwriting was on the wall.

 

[AcerFC]

I was under the impression that slavery, while profitable in the 1840s was becoming unprofitable especially towards the end of the war. I can remember reading somewhere that slavery in the states may have ended by the late 1800s.

I wish I could remember a source but I don't. Have no idea if that is the case but I'm sure someone here can confirm or rebuff it.

 

[Crimson Hawk]

Is this about the last Civil War or the one that's coming?

That said I will be following this thread. The American Civil has always been one of the most interesting periods in our nation's history. Looking forward to the discussion.

 

[BobbyLayne]

timschochet -

Any objection to changing the thread title to read the American Civil War?

 

[timschochet]

The Southern perspective Part One

At the time of the American Revolution, a good many Southerners viewed slavery as a necessary evil. Men like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, but bemoaned the practice, and spoke of an eventual future where slavery would be eradicated. Jefferson, of course, understood the contradiction between his Declaration of Independence and the fact that he was a slave holder: how could "All men be created equal" yet some were consigned to bondage? If some men, because of the color of their skin, were not created equal, what then of the Declaration? And if you were to take the position that Africans were not human, what then defined humanity? Jefferson has been called a hypocrite, but in truth he grappled with these perplexing issues his entire life and died unable to solve them, but warning doom on his native land unless it could.

This sense of necessary evil had faded by 1830, and Southerners now perceived slavery as a positive good. There are three reasons for this: the first was the growing world demand for cotton. This was a trap, not just for the slaves, but for their owners. Because so much money was made producing cotton, the key southern states kept expanding their agriculture while the key northern states took advantage of the Industrial Revolution to build factories. There were very few factories in the South. The result was that the wealthy people in the South were all slaveowners, while the wealthy people in the north were all mercantile capitalists, industrialists, and factory owners. In the north, you could live the American dream, if you were smart and lucky. No matter how low you were born, you had the possibility of advancement, becoming rich. In the South, your position was firmly set from the time of your birth for most people, as was the case in old Europe. A poor white in Alabama was superior to a slave, but not by much: slaves at least were fed and had places to sleep, which a poor white man could not always count on. And there was almost no way for that poor white man to become wealthy in Alabama.

What then would happen if slavery were abolished? The answer, Southerners realized, is that Northerners would continue to grow richer, while the South would become a place of mass poverty subjugated by the North. Cities like Boston, Chicago, and especially New York would beocme dominant centers of world commerce, while Richmond, Atlanta, Charleston, and New Orleans would dwindle into unimportance. This was what was behind the antislavery movement, Southerners told themselves. It was an attempt of the North to turn the entire South into slaves. If you grasp this concept, the southern rhetoric of the time becomes more comprehensible.

The second reason was Nat Turner. There had been slave revolts ever since the beginnings of slavery (a fact which in itself should have caused Southerners to question their precepts) but none had the violence of Turner, a Virginian black preacher who went on a brutal killing spree in the 1830s, killing white men, women, and children, and causing equally brutal retaliation. White slaveowners and whites in general in the South harbored deep, almost primal fears of what would happen if slaves were set free.

The third reason was the abolitionists (whom we will get to shortly later.) Their attacks on slavery had gained worldwide popularity, and this in turn placed Southerners on the defensive and goaded them into angry counterattacks.

Forgotten, therefore, was Jefferson's notion that slavery was an "unfortunately necessary evil, soon to be abolished." Jefferson's successor as the most influential Southerner was John C. Calhoun, and by 1840 he was declaring that slavery was a "great, moral, social, and political blessing- a blessing to the slave, and a blessing to the master."

How was slavery a blessing to the slave? Calhoun argued that it had civilized African savages and provided them with cradle-to-grave security that contrasted favorably with the miserable poverty of "free" labor in Britain and the North. By releasing whites from menial tasks it elevated white labor and protected it from degrading competition with free Negroes. Slavery eliminated the specter of class conflict that would eventually destroy free-labor societies, for it "promotes equality among the free by dispensing with grades and castes among them, and thereby preservers republican institutions."(The condition of poor whites in Southern states, as I referred to earlier, was ignored in this argument.)

Slavery established the foundation for an upper class of gentlemen to cultivate the arts, literature, hospitality, and public service. It created a far superior society to that of the "vulgar, contemptible, counter-jumping" Yankees. Indeed, said Senator Robert M. T. Hunter of Virginia, "there is not a respectable system of civilization known to history whose foundations were not laid in the institution of domestic slavery." "Instead of an evil," said Calhoun in summing up the Southern position, slavery was a "positive good,,,the most safe and stable basis for free institutions in the world."

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

A good (shorter) primer for the Civil War is -

The Compact History of the Civil War by Dupuy & Dupuy

While certainly not as indepth as some of the longer volumes, it is a pretty good fast paced read that I would highly recommend.

 

[AcerFC]

There was nothing else gong on in the South at that time that an end to slavery would have made all Southerners slaves to the North. I find that hard to believe.

 

[timschochet]

There was nothing else gong on in the South at that time that an end to slavery would have made all Southerners slaves to the North. I find that hard to believe.

What's important to understand is that they (the Southerners) believed it to be true. Remember that they were used to being the dominant part of the United States (7 of the first 8 POTUS were from Virginia). Eliminate slavery, and they believed that it would turn the South into a political backwater. The fact that this might have happened anyhow simply based on population figures was something they could never concede.

 

[JaxBill]

There was nothing else gong on in the South at that time that an end to slavery would have made all Southerners slaves to the North. I find that hard to believe.

What's important to understand is that they (the Southerners) believed it to be true. Remember that they were used to being the dominant part of the United States (7 of the first 8 POTUS were from Virginia). Eliminate slavery, and they believed that it would turn the South into a political backwater. The fact that this might have happened anyhow simply based on population figures was something they could never concede.

Speaking of Virginia, there was also the idea that citizens of some Southern states (Virginia & Georgia especially) believed more in the power of States' rights than in the power of the Federal government. Remember the federal government was much smaller then, with no income tax and they relied heavily on using state militias for troops.I've read that some historians believe that even if slavery had been resolved, the issue of states rights and the contrast of the agrarian South with the industrialized and more heavily populated North would have eventually led to some kind of conflict to test the strength of the Union.

 

[Ozymandias]

There was nothing else gong on in the South at that time that an end to slavery would have made all Southerners slaves to the North. I find that hard to believe.

What's important to understand is that they (the Southerners) believed it to be true. Remember that they were used to being the dominant part of the United States (7 of the first 8 POTUS were from Virginia). Eliminate slavery, and they believed that it would turn the South into a political backwater. The fact that this might have happened anyhow simply based on population figures was something they could never concede.

BZZZZZTTT! Hans...

Care to go for Double Jeopardy where the points can really mount up?

John Adams (2) and John Quincy Adams (6) were from Massachussets. Andrew Jackson (7) was from North Carolina, or SC, as his origin was in the general area. Martin Van Buren (8) was from NY.

 

[timschochet]

There was nothing else gong on in the South at that time that an end to slavery would have made all Southerners slaves to the North. I find that hard to believe.

What's important to understand is that they (the Southerners) believed it to be true. Remember that they were used to being the dominant part of the United States (7 of the first 8 POTUS were from Virginia). Eliminate slavery, and they believed that it would turn the South into a political backwater. The fact that this might have happened anyhow simply based on population figures was something they could never concede.

BZZZZZTTT! Hans...

Care to go for Double Jeopardy where the points can really mount up?

John Adams (2) and John Quincy Adams (6) were from Massachussets. Andrew Jackson (7) was from North Carolina, or SC, as his origin was in the general area. Martin Van Buren (8) was from NY.

All right. Man I can't get a single fact wrong here or someone's going to call me on it. I didn't look it up. So 1, 3, 4, 5 were all from Virginia. Granted, it's not 7, but it's still plenty.

 

[QuizGuy66]

Perhaps it's early, but here's a tale of the tape (link - Linky)

Union CSA

Total population 22,000,000 9,000,000

Free population 22,000,000 5,500,000

Slave population Negligible 3,500,000

Soldiers 2,200,000 1,064,000

Railroad miles 21,788 (71%) 8,838 (29%)

Manufactured items 90 percent 10 percent

Firearm production 97 percent 3 percent

Bales of cotton in 1860 Negligible 4.5 million

Bales of cotton in 1864 Negligible 300,000

Pre-war U.S. exports 30 percent 70 percent

-QG

 

[Ozymandias]

There was nothing else gong on in the South at that time that an end to slavery would have made all Southerners slaves to the North. I find that hard to believe.

What's important to understand is that they (the Southerners) believed it to be true. Remember that they were used to being the dominant part of the United States (7 of the first 8 POTUS were from Virginia). Eliminate slavery, and they believed that it would turn the South into a political backwater. The fact that this might have happened anyhow simply based on population figures was something they could never concede.

BZZZZZTTT! Hans...

Care to go for Double Jeopardy where the points can really mount up?

John Adams (2) and John Quincy Adams (6) were from Massachussets. Andrew Jackson (7) was from North Carolina, or SC, as his origin was in the general area. Martin Van Buren (8) was from NY.

All right. Man I can't get a single fact wrong here or someone's going to call me on it. I didn't look it up. So 1, 3, 4, 5 were all from Virginia. Granted, it's not 7, but it's still plenty.

The point you were making is correct. I was just having a little fun with the exaggeration.

 

[McBokonon]

I've also become acquainted with descendants of Dan Sickles - fittingly, crazy kooky wacko folks. Those idiots still believe his insubordination won the battle of Gettysburg.

Never heard of him, and a quick Wiki visit made me want to read more. Thanks for mentioning him.

 

[SofaKings]

I've also become acquainted with descendants of Dan Sickles - fittingly, crazy kooky wacko folks. Those idiots still believe his insubordination won the battle of Gettysburg.

Never heard of him, and a quick Wiki visit made me want to read more. Thanks for mentioning him.

A true CW political character.

 

[Tecumseh]

What the heck- not really doing anything this evening, so I might as well get started...

The Mexican American War

The Whigs would respond to Polk by nominating Scott for President in 1848 and getting him elected.

Scott was never President.

 

[QUEZILLA]

This thread would have been a great source to plagiarize from when I was in high school.

 

[tdoss]

Exactly how many people owned slaves in the South?

Just wondering...I mean, a lot of people fought and died on the Southern side of this and I honestly can't believe they all did it or was even motivated to go to war so that some guy down the road could keep his slaves.

Just seems odd to me to make that connection.

Unless slavery was more rampant than I have read...maybe every house had a slave or two in the South...not sure...but I'd honestly like to have someone throw out some numbers or percentages in regards to slave ownership.

 

[timschochet]

The Southern Perspective, Continued

Without further ado, it's time to tackle the issue which continues to be argued into the present day: states rights.

Most Southerners regarded the United States of America as a voluntary agreement between independent parties. As such, any party to this agreement had the right to pull out of the agreement at any time they chose. It's rather ironic to note that this was not originally a Southern idea. The state of Massachussetts threatened secession over the War of 1812, and came close to doing it. But by 1832, States Rights was predominantly a Southern issuie. That was the year that John C. Calhoun proposed the idea of nullification, which meant that any state had the right to invalidate any law that it considered unConstitutional- it did not need the Supreme Court or Congress to declare it so; it could do so itself. (The issue at the time was a tariff.) Calhoun's idea received widespread approval in his home state of South Carolina, but not among the rest of the South at the time. (As a side note, regarding Calhoun, it might interest people to know that his home plantation of Clemson is now the site of the University.)

Though nullification was not popular, the wider issue of States Rights became more popular as the population of the North increased, and the abolitionist movement rose. These events created a threatening question for Southerners: what if a majority of Americans decided to vote for the abolition of slavery someday? In that event, the Southerners decided, a state had the right to leave the Union and go its own way. Eventually, this theory evolved into the idea that a state could leave the union for any reason.

Obviously, this idea is problematic in many ways. If a state can secede from the United States, can a county secede from the state? Can a town secede from the county? Can a person or persons secede from the town? At what point do we decide that one does not have the right to withdraw?

The pragmatic answer to all of these questions is if you can get away with it, then you have the right to do it. The American Revolution is only considered "legal" because we won. Had the British defeated us, it would have been considered illegal and all of the Founding Fathers would have been declared traitors and hung. There are no "rights" that exist unless one is willing to enforce them at the point of a gun. The South lost the Civil War; therefore, practically speaking, the right of a state to leave the Union doesn't exist.

But this doesn't settle the issue. Legal scholars have argued ever since that there is nothing in the Constitution that does not allow a state to secede. It is true that, a few years after the Civil War, the Supreme Court ruled that secession was unconstitutional, but it was a Northern dominated SC without Southern representation. It may very well be that, legally speaking, southern states do have the right to leave.

I'm not going to express an opinion on this. About a year ago, I gave my view on this subject, which was at the time that states did NOT have the right to secede. But I am not a lawyer nor an expert on the Constitution, and Christo, who is both, handed me my head on this subject. I was way in overboard without the proper facts or knowledge to back my position up, and he murdered me. I'm sure Christo is reading this thread, and if any of you believe that secession is unconstitutional and care to back that up, he may choose to engage you on the subject. For my part, I will only add three points:

1. Though as late as last year I believed that secession is unconstitutional, now I am no longer sure one way or the other.

2. Even if you believe that secession is unconstitutional, that does not make the Confederates traitors. I will make that argument in due course.

3. The Southerners belief in the rights of States as opposed to a strong centralized Federal government would contain two great exceptions, one before secession (the Fugitive Slave Act) and one after secession (Jefferson Davis choosing to centralize all power in the Confederacy) both of which created ironic situations which puts doubt (at least in my mind) to how firm this belief really was in the minds of Southerners. Again, we will get to both of these in due course.

There is much more to be written about the Southern perspectives, mainly regarding the different attitudes among regions in the South, and I will get to that and then to Northern perspectives before resuming the timeline. However, if you have a position to make regarding a state's right to secede, now is the time to explain it.

 

[timschochet]

What the heck- not really doing anything this evening, so I might as well get started...

The Mexican American War

The Whigs would respond to Polk by nominating Scott for President in 1848 and getting him elected.

Scott was never President.

Sorry. This was a typo on my part. Meant to say Taylor.

 

[SofaKings]

Exactly how many people owned slaves in the South?Just wondering...I mean, a lot of people fought and died on the Southern side of this and I honestly can't believe they all did it or was even motivated to go to war so that some guy down the road could keep his slaves.Just seems odd to me to make that connection.Unless slavery was more rampant than I have read...maybe every house had a slave or two in the South...not sure...but I'd honestly like to have someone throw out some numbers or percentages in regards to slave ownership.

I would venture to say that 75% of the slaves were held by the upper class which formed a very small percentage of the southern population.

 

[Tecumseh]

What the heck- not really doing anything this evening, so I might as well get started...

The Mexican American War

The Whigs would respond to Polk by nominating Scott for President in 1848 and getting him elected.

Scott was never President.

Sorry. This was a typo on my part. Meant to say Taylor.

You're doing the good work here.

 

[timschochet]

Exactly how many people owned slaves in the South?Just wondering...I mean, a lot of people fought and died on the Southern side of this and I honestly can't believe they all did it or was even motivated to go to war so that some guy down the road could keep his slaves.Just seems odd to me to make that connection.Unless slavery was more rampant than I have read...maybe every house had a slave or two in the South...not sure...but I'd honestly like to have someone throw out some numbers or percentages in regards to slave ownership.

We will get to all of this. You had to be upper middle class to own 1 or 2 slaves, and you had to be extremely wealthy to own several. Therefore, slave ownership was the province of a minority throughout the South. As to your question, therefore, why did the rest of the South fight, that is a complex and extremely important question that has several answers that we'll try to cover.

 

[jwb]

Exactly how many people owned slaves in the South?

Just wondering...I mean, a lot of people fought and died on the Southern side of this and I honestly can't believe they all did it or was even motivated to go to war so that some guy down the road could keep his slaves.

Just seems odd to me to make that connection.

Unless slavery was more rampant than I have read...maybe every house had a slave or two in the South...not sure...but I'd honestly like to have someone throw out some numbers or percentages in regards to slave ownership.

Fom what I have read, probably around 20% of the population owned slaves. But what's important to remember is that percentage is probably MUCH higher in regards to people in power. I would guess a good majority of the southern lawmakers (or their families/political allies) owned slaves.

So the people in power vote for the state to secede... and the north is going to invade. At that time, people identified strongly with their state. Much more than their country. There's almost no choice but to fight.

 

[Mjolnirs]

I have in my possession a VERY LARGE and old book titled “The Confederate Soldier in The Civil War” that was published in 1897. I’ve never really tried to read the book because its size is daunting. I’ll try to occasionally add to this discussion from this book.The Editor’s Note states:

The publication of “Harper’s Pictorial History of the Civil War,” (which I also have) “The Pictorial Battles of the Civil War” and Frank Leslie’s “Soldier in the Civil War,” the three greatest Federal pictorial war histories ever published in this country, rendered necessary a companion volume, giving the Confederate side of the great conflict. Hence, we present this volume, entitled “THE CONFEDEDRATE SOLDIER IN THE CIVIL WAR,”

Also from the Editor’s Note:

No just or impartial relation of the military achievements of a people can be written close upon the conclusion of such events. With passions cooled by time and reason, we look back through the vista of years, seeing more clearly, and comprehending more fully and charitably, the actions of others. England glories in the luster of deeds equally of Cromwell, of Hampden and of Wellington, without stopping to say, “That one fought against the crown; this on for it.” Their glory was the common glory of England, amalgamated and held aloft by the pride and admiration of the English people. So, in coming years, will coalesce and become one the brilliant achievements of the Confederate and Federal arms. Their luster will be the pride of one people; their glory the glory of the American nation, cemented forever by the precious blood of its children.

 

[Mjolnirs]

Excerpts from an introduction by Major-General Fitzugh Lee:

The people of the original thirteen States believed in State sovereignty, and Pennsylvannia and the New England States are upon record as primarily holding such opinions. The Southern people were educated in the belief that the allegiance of the citizen was first due to his State, and that in any conflict between his Commonwealth and the United States, or other country, his place was ate her side – at her feed eh should kneel and at her foe his gun should be pointed.This is the only explanation of the great and enthusiastic response by the masses of the people to the action of their State Conventions, when they decided their States should no longer be members of the Federal Union, but, resuming their original independence, be free afterward to make such other alliances as they might deem best to protect their rights and promote their growth and glory.The Southern masses were the private soldiers of the armies; they may not have understood all the public questions involved, or the gravity of secession, or the importance of pending issues, as thoroughly as the statesman of the period, but they must have been thoroughly impressed in a conscious manner with the right of secession and with a fidelity and loyalty to the commands of their respective States. …There was no “passion-swept mob rising in mad rebellion against constituted authority,” but armies whose ranks were filled by men whose convictions were honest, and whose loyalty to the Southern cause was without fear and without reproach – men who remained faithful to military duty in the conflict between fidelity to the Confederate banners or adherence to the trust assumed in the marriage vow, who resisted the pressure of letters from home, and whose heart-strings were breaking from the sad tale of starvation and despair in the family homestead. As the hostile invasion swept over more territory the more frequent the appeals came, marked by the pathos and power which agony inspires, until at last the long silence told the soldier his home was within his enemies’ lines, and the fate of his family was concealed from his view.

 

[cstu]

The best Civil War ever.

USA! USA! USA!

 

[cstu]

wtf is the deal with skipping over WWI¿

If you can find it, I highly recommend the 1964 BBC documentary "WWI: The Great War".

 

[Eephus]

I've also become acquainted with descendants of Dan Sickles - fittingly, crazy kooky wacko folks. Those idiots still believe his insubordination won the battle of Gettysburg.

Never heard of him, and a quick Wiki visit made me want to read more. Thanks for mentioning him.

A true CW political character.

Thomas Keneally's American Scoundrel: The Life of the Notorious Civil War General Dan Sickles is a flawed biography but an entertaining read.

 

[tdoss]

Exactly how many people owned slaves in the South?

Just wondering...I mean, a lot of people fought and died on the Southern side of this and I honestly can't believe they all did it or was even motivated to go to war so that some guy down the road could keep his slaves.

Just seems odd to me to make that connection.

Unless slavery was more rampant than I have read...maybe every house had a slave or two in the South...not sure...but I'd honestly like to have someone throw out some numbers or percentages in regards to slave ownership.

Fom what I have read, probably around 20% of the population owned slaves. But what's important to remember is that percentage is probably MUCH higher in regards to people in power. I would guess a good majority of the southern lawmakers (or their families/political allies) owned slaves.

So the people in power vote for the state to secede... and the north is going to invade. At that time, people identified strongly with their state. Much more than their country. There's almost no choice but to fight.

20% seems high...but I'll run with it.So it's safe to say that a great percentage of those who fought and died on the Southern side were not slave owners or even fighting for the right to own slaves seeing as how they'd never actually own one.

But to say most of those fought because of their statehood...I can accept this premise.

There's more than a few that take it a step further and say that a majority fought for their state's rights.

This is where I stand and most everyone I grew up with stand...black or white...it's understood by most Southerners that the war was about the State's rights and how the gov't in the North was infringing upon them. It wasn't too much earlier that we went through the same thing with England...funny how a great number choose to look at the two very similar circumstances differently nowadays.

And we're seeing it all over again with the gov't running wild and free...until we stage another revolt.

It's my hope and belief that the South will indeed rise again...in the hearts of every true American.

 

[Joe Paterno]

Very interested in this. My dad is a huge Civil War buff, and I would like to be able to carry this conversation with him.

 

[Gadabout]

Exactly how many people owned slaves in the South?

Just wondering...I mean, a lot of people fought and died on the Southern side of this and I honestly can't believe they all did it or was even motivated to go to war so that some guy down the road could keep his slaves.

Just seems odd to me to make that connection.

Unless slavery was more rampant than I have read...maybe every house had a slave or two in the South...not sure...but I'd honestly like to have someone throw out some numbers or percentages in regards to slave ownership.

Fom what I have read, probably around 20% of the population owned slaves. But what's important to remember is that percentage is probably MUCH higher in regards to people in power. I would guess a good majority of the southern lawmakers (or their families/political allies) owned slaves.

So the people in power vote for the state to secede... and the north is going to invade. At that time, people identified strongly with their state. Much more than their country. There's almost no choice but to fight.

20% is insane.It was actually more along the lines of 4%.

 

[BobbyLayne]

I've also become acquainted with descendants of Dan Sickles - fittingly, crazy kooky wacko folks. Those idiots still believe his insubordination won the battle of Gettysburg.

Never heard of him, and a quick Wiki visit made me want to read more. Thanks for mentioning him.

A true CW political character.

Thomas Keneally's American Scoundrel: The Life of the Notorious Civil War General Dan Sickles is a flawed biography but an entertaining read.

That book is a piece of trash; its like reading 300 pages of the National Enquirer. Dude should stick to fiction.I had drinks with Keneally a few years ago (Sickles great-great-great grandnephew was there, carrying a tattered 5 inch scrapbook). Good guy, great storyteller, but he's from the Liberty Valence school of journalism ("This is the west, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.").

Sickles is a fascinating study regardless. When we get to Chancellorville and Gettysburg, we'll see that the former greatly influenced his decision making in the latter (coupled with his general disdain for West Pointers).

 

[BobbyLayne]

Exactly how many people owned slaves in the South?

Just wondering...I mean, a lot of people fought and died on the Southern side of this and I honestly can't believe they all did it or was even motivated to go to war so that some guy down the road could keep his slaves.

Just seems odd to me to make that connection.

Unless slavery was more rampant than I have read...maybe every house had a slave or two in the South...not sure...but I'd honestly like to have someone throw out some numbers or percentages in regards to slave ownership.

Fom what I have read, probably around 20% of the population owned slaves. But what's important to remember is that percentage is probably MUCH higher in regards to people in power. I would guess a good majority of the southern lawmakers (or their families/political allies) owned slaves.

So the people in power vote for the state to secede... and the north is going to invade. At that time, people identified strongly with their state. Much more than their country. There's almost no choice but to fight.

20% is insane.It was actually more along the lines of 4%.

Whether you believe the number is one-third, 26%, less than 20%, or 3-4% is largely a function of geography.What percentage of Confederate soldiers owned slaves? Either 50%, or 3%, or some number in between.

I've had this discussion a few dozen times. Good luck, folks.

 

[jwb]

Exactly how many people owned slaves in the South?

Just wondering...I mean, a lot of people fought and died on the Southern side of this and I honestly can't believe they all did it or was even motivated to go to war so that some guy down the road could keep his slaves.

Just seems odd to me to make that connection.

Unless slavery was more rampant than I have read...maybe every house had a slave or two in the South...not sure...but I'd honestly like to have someone throw out some numbers or percentages in regards to slave ownership.

Fom what I have read, probably around 20% of the population owned slaves. But what's important to remember is that percentage is probably MUCH higher in regards to people in power. I would guess a good majority of the southern lawmakers (or their families/political allies) owned slaves.

So the people in power vote for the state to secede... and the north is going to invade. At that time, people identified strongly with their state. Much more than their country. There's almost no choice but to fight.

20% is insane.It was actually more along the lines of 4%.

I've seen even higher than 20%, depending on what you read / where you look. However, I would guess that when you see the higher number, it likely means households (which is how I meant it) And would also balance nicely with 4% of the entire population.

 

[jwb]

Exactly how many people owned slaves in the South?

Just wondering...I mean, a lot of people fought and died on the Southern side of this and I honestly can't believe they all did it or was even motivated to go to war so that some guy down the road could keep his slaves.

Just seems odd to me to make that connection.

Unless slavery was more rampant than I have read...maybe every house had a slave or two in the South...not sure...but I'd honestly like to have someone throw out some numbers or percentages in regards to slave ownership.

Fom what I have read, probably around 20% of the population owned slaves. But what's important to remember is that percentage is probably MUCH higher in regards to people in power. I would guess a good majority of the southern lawmakers (or their families/political allies) owned slaves.

So the people in power vote for the state to secede... and the north is going to invade. At that time, people identified strongly with their state. Much more than their country. There's almost no choice but to fight.

20% seems high...but I'll run with it.So it's safe to say that a great percentage of those who fought and died on the Southern side were not slave owners or even fighting for the right to own slaves seeing as how they'd never actually own one.

But to say most of those fought because of their statehood...I can accept this premise.

There's more than a few that take it a step further and say that a majority fought for their state's rights.

This is where I stand and most everyone I grew up with stand...black or white...it's understood by most Southerners that the war was about the State's rights and how the gov't in the North was infringing upon them. It wasn't too much earlier that we went through the same thing with England...funny how a great number choose to look at the two very similar circumstances differently nowadays.

And we're seeing it all over again with the gov't running wild and free...until we stage another revolt.

It's my hope and belief that the South will indeed rise again...in the hearts of every true American.

But what was the "right" that was the burning issue of, and completely dominated, the time period? There's no way around it - it was slavery.

I do agree that the average southern soldier likely wasn't fighting to personally own slaves - it wasn't economically feasible.

 

[AcerFC]

Timmy, could use 2 links

1. WW II thread. I'm too lazy to search

2. Chrito owning Timmy

 

[AcerFC]

Tdoss brings up a very interesting point.

Is it possible that the average soldier fighting for the confederacy cared less about slavery. I get that the state right issue concerning the elite was slavery but is it possible that Southerners just wanted to leave the union because they wanted to make their own decisions.

Timmy also brings up a good point that is they were so concerned with a centralized government, why did they form the Confederate states of America? Why did each state not form their own nation?

 

[Insomniac]

Exactly how many people owned slaves in the South?

Just wondering...I mean, a lot of people fought and died on the Southern side of this and I honestly can't believe they all did it or was even motivated to go to war so that some guy down the road could keep his slaves.

Just seems odd to me to make that connection.

Unless slavery was more rampant than I have read...maybe every house had a slave or two in the South...not sure...but I'd honestly like to have someone throw out some numbers or percentages in regards to slave ownership.

Fom what I have read, probably around 20% of the population owned slaves. But what's important to remember is that percentage is probably MUCH higher in regards to people in power. I would guess a good majority of the southern lawmakers (or their families/political allies) owned slaves.

So the people in power vote for the state to secede... and the north is going to invade. At that time, people identified strongly with their state. Much more than their country. There's almost no choice but to fight.

20% seems high...but I'll run with it.So it's safe to say that a great percentage of those who fought and died on the Southern side were not slave owners or even fighting for the right to own slaves seeing as how they'd never actually own one.

But to say most of those fought because of their statehood...I can accept this premise.

There's more than a few that take it a step further and say that a majority fought for their state's rights.

This is where I stand and most everyone I grew up with stand...black or white...it's understood by most Southerners that the war was about the State's rights and how the gov't in the North was infringing upon them. It wasn't too much earlier that we went through the same thing with England...funny how a great number choose to look at the two very similar circumstances differently nowadays.

And we're seeing it all over again with the gov't running wild and free...until we stage another revolt.

It's my hope and belief that the South will indeed rise again...in the hearts of every true American.

But what was the "right" that was the burning issue of, and completely dominated, the time period? There's no way around it - it was slavery.

I do agree that the average southern soldier likely wasn't fighting to personally own slaves - it wasn't economically feasible.

The average soldier on both sides probably fought for the same reason most soldiers in history fought. US vs THEM. Any discussion of why the war was fought should concentrate on the motivations of the people in power on both sides.

 

[Mjolnirs]

strongly[/I] with their state. Much more than their country. There's almost no choice but to fight.

But to say most of those fought because of their statehood...I can accept this premise.

I do agree that the average southern soldier likely wasn't fighting to personally own slaves - it wasn't economically feasible.

The average soldier on both sides probably fought for the same reason most soldiers in history fought. US vs THEM.

Any discussion of why the war was fought should concentrate on the motivations of the people in power on both sides.

The average Confederate soldier was fighting for his home and family. The percentage of slave holders was small. Most Confederate soldiers were fighting because they were defending their state from possible invasion.

Timmy also brings up a good point that is they were so concerned with a centralized government, why did they form the Confederate states of America? Why did each state not form their own nation?

Strength in numbers. With Lincoln calling for troops to put down the "insurrection" it was better for the states to unite to defend themselves. Interestingly many of the Southern Governors were restrictive as to where their state militias and their arms could fight.