The U.S. Civil War is a fascinating subject. I have read many books on it and what you see in this thread is really just a summary of the main points.

As you can see, for a lot of americans, the war has never really ended....:arrgh!:

That has a nice ring to it.

Not any different in the UK in some areas....but I'll not go there :DL

And that's why I like you so much, James - you remind me of myself.

Finally, someone who believes that the South represented money for the North comes up with a real quote! Thank you for that.

Another good one! De Tocqueville was a valuable observer.

A good observation, but they were still owned by other human beings. Anyone who got a chance to be free ususally took it, preferring destitution to slavery.

I completely agree. I've never said the North were the Good Guys and the South were the Bad Guys, despite some people trying to put words in my mouth. All I've ever said was that the Southern States gave Slavery as their prime motive for seceeding.

I'd call it prudence, since he certainly didn't want more States trying to seceed.

I have to agree there. It was an odd move if pictured in any other light.

The points you mentioned were all valid arguing points, and I have no disagreement with them.

I disagree there. Lincoln insisted that the South be welcomed back as brothers with no recriminations. After his murder he was succeeded by Andrew Johnson, a weak president at best. Johnson was of the same mind as Lincoln, especially since he was a Southern Democrat, which was why Lincoln selected his as running mate in the first place. He let himself be pushed by Northern politicians and moneymen into allowing Reconstruction to proceed as it did, and of course the rest is history. I completely agree that Reconstruction was a great evil, I just disagree that Lincoln had anything to do with it.

Great job, as always! :rock:

:rotfl2:That's GREAT! I love it! :rock:

Well said. Slavery issue aside, let's ask Pres. Lincoln about Nergo rights. Enter the political answer....:D

It's my Civil War re-enacting time of year. So, I hear tons of interesting discussions on the subject. It's funny how many people get so worked up over it/:-?

As flattering as that is, what kind of reason is that to like anyone?:DL
People also commit atrocious crimes because other people aren't like themselves. I'll take it as a complement, given how much older and well-versed in life you are than I am, but I question the logic.

I've got, like, 400 more from Lincoln and his cabinet and a number of Northern newspapers, if you'd like to hear any. I've managed to find my old books since our last discussion on this topic.

What worries me is that this evidence is so difficult to find online. I have plenty of first-hand and post-bellum evidence that suggests that the motives for the war were purely economic, but when I try to find the same evidence online I mostly come up with evidence to the contrary or crap spewed by people even more extreme than myself. Have defenders of the Souther cause been proven wrong and I missed it? Has popular history overtaken the actual facts? To quote you, I don't know.


He was indeed, but he, too, had a bias. IIRC, De Tocqueville was focussed upon social inequities. I also have a bunch of quotes from people who observed the same thing, but I figured that De Tocqueville's name would be more readily recognizable.

I'm not so sure about that one. There are a lot of first-hand accounts by slaves where they describe their unwillingness to seperate from their masters, even after they were freed. There are also a lot of accounts of slaves who couldn't wait to get away from their masters. It is difficult to discern exactly what was going on at that time, but I have noticed one thing: where I look for accounts of abused slaves, I often end up finding the same stories, or things that allude to "Uncle Tom's Cabin". When I look for stories by slaves who thought they were well-treated, I find a considerable variety.

Again, this may well be a case of uneducated slaves who simply didn't know any better, but I've also found a number of cases where slaveowners taught their slaves to read and gave them further education, and the slaves then stuck with them, right up until their funerals, many years later. Though I despise the idea of slavery, or even any kind of uneccesary government control, as you well know, I have to wonder if the slaves were better-off as slaves at that time. The post-war testimony seems to indicate that they thought as much, and the Confederate Constitution, unlike that of the US, had a provision for the banning of international slave trade, though it did promote owenrship of slaves
http://www.filibustercartoons.com/CSA.htm
Overall, the Confederate constitution was one that promoted slavery, whilst simultaneously seeking to end it. I think that most of the SOuth was caught in the same quandry that Jefferson found himself in; slavery was an economic neccessity, but also an abridgement of human rights. At the same time, there was a social perspective that African natives could be "trained" into being "good people", hence the paternalistic attitude towards slaves.

True enough. I have found absolutely no evidence to suggest that modern states' rights theorists are correct about states' rights other than slavery being a primary cause for secession. What the North did was something else again.

Blame it on the Marine in me, but I simply cannot accept such "prudence" as a mark of success. Victory should be the result of exemplary leadership and selfless dedication to a defined principle, not some half-baked idiocy that seeks to undermine the opposing faction. The South already had a desire to end slavery, and I think that a little more time and diplmatic effort would have resolved the problem.


At least odd enough to be worthy of scrutiny, I think. Nonetheless, the Emancipation Proclamation is championed as a landmrk in human sciences.

And also no agreement with them, I presume? That's okay, I just want people to question what they think they know about the causations of the Civil War.


In that case, Lincoln was not so shrewd, after all. he was obviously well aware of the economic pressures that gave rise to the conflict, why did he do nothing about them if he was so great? To me, he's just another wartime politician, no more, but much less, as he sanctioned violence against fellow Americans for economic gain. He may well have been a good man, but I put him in the same category as Wilson during the Versailles Treaty negotiations. At best, he was a failed idealist, at worst, he was a weak party to party politics. "Honest Abe", my butt.

But Lincoln was assassinated only 6 days after Lee surrendered at Appromattox so he can hardly be blamed for the failures of Reconstruction. There is just no comparison with Wilson who actually did have a chance to lead in the post war era.

I simply meant in that you are quick to apologise at the first hint that you may have caused unintentional offense. And you think about things, and don't automatically assume you are right, but look at all the facts carefully.

Maybe next time we talk. Or in a PM in case no one else is interested.


One thing to explore is not so much accounts of abuse, but try to count how many ran away. Also there is some photographic evidence of abuse, but I found something I'm going to have to buy:
http://www.paperlessarchives.com/afr...e_testimo.html

Jefferson's conundrum was that he couldn't see how thousands of poorly educated and untrained workers could survive in the world without some kind of education. That, coupled with the Virginia law that required all freed slaves to leave the state within one year, had him totally flustered. Madison was accused by a friend of his of being a hypocrite, writing about freedom while owning slaves. The friend had a unique solution: He sold his plantation and moved the entire household to Kentucky, where he divided it equally between himself and all his former slaves. They then set up their own society. I can't give his name at the moment because the Madison biography I have it from is a library book.

Okay, it's the Marine in you. :D

Actually that might be partly true, as we are all victims of our backgrounds. Lincoln as president might well have foreseen the possibility of further dissention if he tried to free the slaves in the border states. We do have to consider every possibility, and there is no way for us to know what was actually in his head at the time.

Possibly, but that's true of both sides. Should the South have not seceeded, and looked for a better solution? I think so, but I wasn't there, so my opinion is no better than anyone else's.

Nothing one way or the other. A true argument deserves consideration. That I don't disagree was meant to indicate that I consider them 'worthy' arguments, i.e. ones that deserve more than a quick answer.

Question everything you think you know, I always say. Somebody who is sure he 'knows' something is usually wrong.

What could he have done? The seceeded before he took office. He had been in office less than a month when the shooting began. While I do believe he was incredibly shrewd in maneuvering the South into firing first, I also believe that by that point the economics were a moot point. His goal was to preserve the Union, and that could no longer be done with political manipulation. If there was no war, there would be no reunion (at least not immediately), and he almost certainly believed that the nation would not survive as two separate countries. Sooner or later the Southern coalition would start to fail (as it did when the Confederate Congress instituted a draft and States started talking about secession from the Confederacy), and at that point the British and the French would be more than glad to 'befriend' them.

The whole 'American Experiment' was still pretty much that at the time. For Lincoln, failure could possibly mean the failure of the whole thing. Possibly not true, but I believe that was foremost in his mind.

Me too.

There sure is a-lot of knowledge here.

BAH!! I apologize for nothing yanks!!! :arrgh!:

Quoting Baby Face Nelson as he aimed his tommy gun at some misfortunate FBI drones - "I know you wear vests, so I'm gonna give it to ya coppers both high and low" 'BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM' :rotfl2:

For real, I can't dispute that how the war ended was ultimately the best thing for both sides. Southern pride still runs deep where I'm from though. But that's the price to be paid for losing I suppose. By the end of the war, most Southerners were just glad it was over.

I remember reading a true story somewhere a long time ago about a veteran of the north trying to pick a fight with a veteran of the South in a bar shortly after the war ended. The northerner asked, while shoving his hand into the Southerner's back, "Hey boy! You Southern rebel boys still got some fight left in you?" The Southerner turned slowly around on his bar stool to look up and face the northerner and grimly replied, "Sir, my father is dead and so are my 3 brothers. No sir, this boy has got no more fight left him" and slowly turned back around in his seat to tend to his whiskey in peace. The northerner then relaxed his stance and pulled up a stool right next to the Southerner and ordered two shots of whiskey from the bar. One for himself and the other for his new friend.:()1:

The situation of blacks in america pre-Civil War was never (pardon the pun) black or white.

In 1860, there were 260,000 "free negroes" living in the South, including the wealthiest landowner in a county in Virginia. 1 in 500 blacks themselves owned slaves.

There were many very overt acts of racism in the North that are shocking when seen through the prism of 2010.

The living standards of an ordinary laborer in a Northern factory was not substantially different from that of an ordinary slave in the South.

Yet you still had many slaves who tried to escape and took the long trip along the underground railway up to Canada and freedom.

Catton's "A Stillness at Appomattox" has a whole chapter on black soldiers in the Union Army. There was a lot of resistance at first to the very idea for very racist reasons (they are undependable, lazy, stupid, cowards, etc). Blacks were finally allowed into uniforms for purely practical reasons, the casualty lists were horrendous, white enlistment was down and here was a ready source of manpower.

What the raw statistics don't show however is the immense sense of pride felt by black Union soldiers who for the first time in their lives were being recognized by their own government as the equal of whites. They volonteered in droves even though they knew they were cannon fodder, drew some tough dangerous assignment and suffered heavy casualties. For example:

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

By 1864-65, most Union officers recognized that black regiments fought as well as white ones.

Ture enough, but that still buys him nothing in my eyes. Lincoln was privvy to enough acts of brutality in occupied areas during the war that I have no difficulty believing that he would have done nothing to soften the reconstruction afterwards. The sentiment that the South needed to be punished was very strong at the time, and if he was the shrewd politician everyone says he was, it would have been politically unwise to attempt a gentle reconciliation.


Very good points,as usual Steve. I admit that I hadn't really considered things from that perspective. My economic instinct tells me that something could have been done to peacefully bring the South back into the fold, but I'll have to think about that one and do some more reading before I can decide one way or the other.

I find it ironic that you can slam Lincoln for not doing what he didn't have a chance to do before he was assassinated yet accuse him of not bringing about a gentle reconciliation as if that was a realistic possibility.

Bottom line here is that Lincoln kept the Union together and in doing so ended slavery in our country. That alone makes him one of the greatest US presidents ever in my book.