The Civil War

I would love to join this conversation but I've often found that my qualifications (such as they are) for this type of discussion really haven't done me any good here. I do have a few questions for you guys, with a couple of caveats.
1.) Shelby Foote said something along the lines of, "The Southern states would never have entered into the Union had they not believed they could leave it if they saw fit at some point". I totally agree though I have always felt that secession was a really dumb move on their part.
2.) If the North was the shining beacon of freedom, hope, and all things Christ-like, as they claimed to be (then and now) why did New York state seriously consider seceding from the Union at the beginning of the conflict?
3.) If the North was such a beacon of freedom, yada yada yada, why did Lincoln have to go on an all out "full court pressure" tour of Congress to try and change the mind of enough members of Congress to get the 13th amendment passed.
4.) If the North was such a beacon of freedom, yada yada yada, why did Lincoln go to bed the night before the vote on the 13th amendment VERY unsure and nervous of how the vote was gonna go the next day?
5.) If the North was such a beacon of freedom, yada yada yada, why didn't the Radical Republicans (that's what they were called at the time, don't blame me) not follow through with pretty much anything regarding the treatment of former slaves in the post-war South?
6.) If the North was such a beacon of freedom, yada yada yada, why did Congress go back on General Sherman's promise of "40 acres and a mule" to the former slaves after the war?
7.) If the North was such a beacon of freedom, yada yada yada, why did the millions of dollars passed by Congress to try and rebuild the South never make it anywhere past the coffers of the wealthiest Northerners?

And just as a change of pace:

1.) Legally speaking about how many slaves were freed by the Emancipation Proclamation?
2.) It has already been pointed out that while Lincoln hated slavery and wanted the slaves freed, he absolutely DID NOT believe in anything approaching social equality between the races. Would the great emancipator really feel this way?
3.) Why were the Northern prison camps every bit as bad as Andersonville, which by the way got that Commandant hanged for war crimes (or whatever they called it back then)?
4.) If you don't like the hanging of Major Andre (and you probably shouldn't) I have two words (and a letter) for you. David O. Dodd.
5.) During the Muckraking Era, (roughly the first decade of the 20th century) a man named Ray Baker wrote a book called Following the Color Line, in which his research noted that as of 1908 about 90% of black people still lived in the South. If the North was such a beacon of freedom, yada yada yada, wouldn't 43 years be long enough to get that percentage a lot closer to 50-50?
6.) Why do Northerners want to hang all the rebels as traitors and condemn all slaveholders to death but give a 100% pass to the Founding Fathers who did the same thing?

OK, this ought to keep everybody busy blasting me, at least for a while. I'll check back later once I dig my helmet and Kevlar out of my closet. I might even ask to share someone's bunker if you guys know anybody who has one?
 
I would love to join this conversation but I've often found that my qualifications (such as they are) for this type of discussion really haven't done me any good here. I do have a few questions for you guys, with a couple of caveats.
1.) Shelby Foote said something along the lines of, "The Southern states would never have entered into the Union had they not believed they could leave it if they saw fit at some point". I totally agree though I have always felt that secession was a really dumb move on their part.
2.) If the North was the shining beacon of freedom, hope, and all things Christ-like, as they claimed to be (then and now) why did New York state seriously consider seceding from the Union at the beginning of the conflict?
3.) If the North was such a beacon of freedom, yada yada yada, why did Lincoln have to go on an all out "full court pressure" tour of Congress to try and change the mind of enough members of Congress to get the 13th amendment passed.
4.) If the North was such a beacon of freedom, yada yada yada, why did Lincoln go to bed the night before the vote on the 13th amendment VERY unsure and nervous of how the vote was gonna go the next day?
5.) If the North was such a beacon of freedom, yada yada yada, why didn't the Radical Republicans (that's what they were called at the time, don't blame me) not follow through with pretty much anything regarding the treatment of former slaves in the post-war South?
6.) If the North was such a beacon of freedom, yada yada yada, why did Congress go back on General Sherman's promise of "40 acres and a mule" to the former slaves after the war?
7.) If the North was such a beacon of freedom, yada yada yada, why did the millions of dollars passed by Congress to try and rebuild the South never make it anywhere past the coffers of the wealthiest Northerners?

And just as a change of pace:

1.) Legally speaking about how many slaves were freed by the Emancipation Proclamation?
2.) It has already been pointed out that while Lincoln hated slavery and wanted the slaves freed, he absolutely DID NOT believe in anything approaching social equality between the races. Would the great emancipator really feel this way?
3.) Why were the Northern prison camps every bit as bad as Andersonville, which by the way got that Commandant hanged for war crimes (or whatever they called it back then)?
4.) If you don't like the hanging of Major Andre (and you probably shouldn't) I have two words (and a letter) for you. David O. Dodd.
5.) During the Muckraking Era, (roughly the first decade of the 20th century) a man named Ray Baker wrote a book called Following the Color Line, in which his research noted that as of 1908 about 90% of black people still lived in the South. If the North was such a beacon of freedom, yada yada yada, wouldn't 43 years be long enough to get that percentage a lot closer to 50-50?
6.) Why do Northerners want to hang all the rebels as traitors and condemn all slaveholders to death but give a 100% pass to the Founding Fathers who did the same thing?

OK, this ought to keep everybody busy blasting me, at least for a while. I'll check back later once I dig my helmet and Kevlar out of my closet. I might even ask to share someone's bunker if you guys know anybody who has one?

Let's not kid ourselves about the North yada yada. Virtually all white abolitionists were racist. They did not believe black people were equal to whites. To their credit though they understood they were humans and that slavery was not consistent with that.
 
Last edited:
5.) During the Muckraking Era, (roughly the first decade of the 20th century) a man named Ray Baker wrote a book called Following the Color Line, in which his research noted that as of 1908 about 90% of black people still lived in the South. If the North was such a beacon of freedom, yada yada yada, wouldn't 43 years be long enough to get that percentage a lot closer to 50-50?

It just took a little while. See The Great Migration (1915 to 1960). Some of it was economic. The same phenomena that drew white boys from the farms, immigrants from Eastern Europe, and people of Mexican ancestry to places like Gary, Indiana also brought blacks north. It has not all been peaceful. But if you go to East Chicago and Lake County, Indiana and many other places you will see families who represent a mixture of these strands of migrants. That's the beauty of America.
 
Last edited:
It just took a little while. See The Great Migration (1915 to 1960). Some of it was economic. The same phenomena that drew white boys from the farms, immigrants from Eastern Europe, and people of Mexican ancestry to places like Gary, Indiana also brought blacks north.

Well it took the world wars of the 20th century to increase the demand for labor. Just to be clear I'm not defending racism in the South, North, or anywhere else. I'm just pointing out that the North was covered in poop and screaming "You stink" at the South for being in the same condition. And if the North was as great as it claimed to be it sure wouldn't have taken upwards of 100 years to accomplish this "migration" would it?
 
Let's not kid ourselves about the North yada yada. Virtually all white abolitionists were racist. They did not believe black people were equal to whites. To their credit though they understood they were humans and that slavery was not consistent with that.

I agree with you about the stuff in bold font. IMO you're reaching on that second part. At best they wanted the slaves free, they just didn't want them "up there". It was more about the economics of hurting the South (depriving them of their cheap labor) and improving their own status in the market place.
 
Well it took the world wars of the 20th century to increase the demand for labor. Just to be clear I'm not defending racism in the South, North, or anywhere else. I'm just pointing out that the North was covered in poop and screaming "You stink" at the South for being in the same condition. And if the North was as great as it claimed to be it sure wouldn't have taken upwards of 100 years to accomplish this "migration" would it?

Migration is a complicated thing. People will stay in familiar conditions of misery for a long time because of family ties and other reasons.
 
Andrew Johnson

kind of like having very poorly chosen one for president during a time of great crisis

Truman had a little bit better idea after the war...sometimes laidership matters

Johnson was pretty inept. He was in a bad situation and was not the right man for the job. Truman was much better suited for his crisis.
 
Is this a good time to point out that slavery is not abolished? Its just illegal for you to own a slave. Unless you own a prison. There are more black people in our prison system now than there were slaves at the time of the civil war. Its almost like we replaced one system with another..... kind of by design..... hmmmm
 
Migration is a complicated thing. People will stay in familiar conditions of misery for a long time because of family ties and other reasons.

Just think of how hard it would have been for a former slave or the child of a former slave to move during that time period. You have to go to a city you've never been to and where you probably know no one. You have to try to find a job there during a time where racism disqualified you from most jobs. You have to find housing during a time where housing would be segregated. There were limited social safety nets preventing you from starving to death. And to top it all off, you'd probably need a bit of money saved up just to pay for transport to where you're trying to go and to get you on your feet once there. This being a time where you're probably working as a share cropper and have no extra money.

So the system was hardly set up for black people to move.
 
Just think of how hard it would have been for a former slave or the child of a former slave to move during that time period. You have to go to a city you've never been to and where you probably know no one. You have to try to find a job there during a time where racism disqualified you from most jobs. You have to find housing during a time where housing would be segregated. There were limited social safety nets preventing you from starving to death. And to top it all off, you'd probably need a bit of money saved up just to pay for transport to where you're trying to go and to get you on your feet once there. This being a time where you're probably working as a share cropper and have no extra money.

So the system was hardly set up for black people to move.

And a disproportionate number of blacks who moved north were those able to pass themselves off as white. A not uncommon thing for those who could.

It also helped if you had an uncle or two who had already moved north and established themselves. It takes a while for the network to develop. Once it does everything speeds up.
 
Last edited:
Only the slaves in areas of Confederate states held by Union forces.

I said "legally speaking". As you know probably better than any of us, the EP was an executive order which could not supercede the Constitution, which included slavery as being legal/constitutional, isn't that correct?
 
I said "legally speaking". As you know probably better than any of us, the EP was an executive order which could not supercede the Constitution, which included slavery as being legal/constitutional, isn't that correct?

It was definitely not without its detractors. Lincoln's legal justification was that he was using his commander in chief powers and that this was a necessary step to stop a rebellion. Seizing property of an enemy vital to the enemy's war effort had long been around. Where it got a little less clear was seizing the property with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of said property. So it was likely an expansion on what had been done before.

Interestingly, the Emancipation Proclamation couldn't be issued for norther slave states as the commander in chief powers wouldn't extend to that.
 
It was definitely not without its detractors. Lincoln's legal justification was that he was using his commander in chief powers and that this was a necessary step to stop a rebellion. Seizing property of an enemy vital to the enemy's war effort had long been around. Where it got a little less clear was seizing the property with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of said property. So it was likely an expansion on what had been done before.

Interestingly, the Emancipation Proclamation couldn't be issued for norther slave states as the commander in chief powers wouldn't extend to that.

I wonder what the slaves in Maryland, Kentucky, and other border states thought about that? I've said and will repeat the abolition of slavery was the ONLY good thing to come from that terrible conflict, it's just that even in this age of tons of information everywhere it seems like fewer and fewer people really care about the truth or at least the whole truth, rather than just the snippets that agree with their already held beliefs. Just my opinion though.
 
I put this in another thread...but I'll put it here too

As racial justice demonstrations stretched into their third week, President Trump said Wednesday that he would “not even consider” growing calls to rename U.S. military bases that honor Confederate generals. “Our history as the Greatest Nation in the World will not be tampered with,” Trump tweeted.

Civil rights activists and former military officials, including retired U.S. Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, have stepped up pressure to rename installations such as Fort Bragg and Fort Benning, saying they wrongfully glorify leaders who committed treason to defend slavery in the United States.
 
I put this in another thread...but I'll put it here too

As racial justice demonstrations stretched into their third week, President Trump said Wednesday that he would “not even consider” growing calls to rename U.S. military bases that honor Confederate generals. “Our history as the Greatest Nation in the World will not be tampered with,” Trump tweeted.

Civil rights activists and former military officials, including retired U.S. Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, have stepped up pressure to rename installations such as Fort Bragg and Fort Benning, saying they wrongfully glorify leaders who committed treason to defend slavery in the United States.


Well I totally agree with him on renaming stuff after Confederate generals with the possible exception of Stonewall Jackson and I'm fine with none of them being used as namesakes. I would prefer some historical places, battle sites, from the 20th century, though nothing later than say 1980 or so. I guess we should ask ourselves how long until there's a USS Trump floating around out there.

By the way while I agreed with Petraeus on this matter, he can shove the "traitors" remark up his ass as far as I'm concerned. I mean, it's not like he would know anything about that sort of thing, right?
 
Well I totally agree with him on renaming stuff after Confederate generals with the possible exception of Stonewall Jackson and I'm fine with none of them being used as namesakes. I would prefer some historical places, battle sites, from the 20th century, though nothing later than say 1980 or so. I guess we should ask ourselves how long until there's a USS Trump floating around out there.

By the way while I agreed with Petraeus on this matter, he can shove the "traitors" remark up his ass as far as I'm concerned. I mean, it's not like he would know anything about that sort of thing, right?

Petraeus is a Yankee. He gets to say stuff like that since they won. To the victors go the spoils. But a gracious and wise victor avails himself of them judiciously.
 
Petraeus is a Yankee. He gets to say stuff like that since they won. To the victors go the spoils. But a gracious and wise victor avails himself of them judiciously.

Well I guess that rules him out huh? Now let me see, who was it who said, "Nobody ever asks the winners to explain themselves" or something along those lines? Who was that...................Hmmmmmmmmm
 
Well I guess that rules him out huh? Now let me see, who was it who said, "Nobody ever asks the winners to explain themselves" or something along those lines? Who was that...................Hmmmmmmmmm

The one I like is "victory has a thousand fathers, defeat is an orphan." Usually ascribed to JFK.
 
Back
Top