Civil War message opened, decoded: No help coming

[buffnut453]

Renrich,

Great post with which I largely agree. Since we moved to VA, it's been fascinating taking our boys to several CW battlefields and trying to explain the complexities of the conflict in a way that they never get taught in school. However, the statement "The American South are the only Americans who have ever lost a war" isn't quite true, unless you aren't counting Vietnam?

Cheers,
Mark

 

[RabidAlien]

Agreed, Renrich. I too remember those middle- and high-school history lessons (I went to school in deep-South Georgia, too), and can still recall my disgust with the educational system when I actually read about the start of the war. It was, IIRC, started over the individual State's right to govern itself...more power to the state gov'ts, less to the nat'l gov't. Lincoln's slavery move was pure politics. Personally, I can respect the South's taking a stand for what they believed in, and wish that events had played out differently ("cooler heads" and all...but, human nature being what it is, with neither side willing to budge...), and at the same time abhor the entire concept of slavery.

As for the original post, I can't really agree with what the citizens of Vicksburg did. Southerners can be a very stubborn breed, so my guess is that the survivors handed down their pent-up rage to their kids, who passed it along to their kids, etc...its hard to just put the past behind and move on, but someone's gotta do it.

 

[renrich]

I don't count VN as a loss because our Armed Forces were not defeated and if given the mission by the politicians could have been victorious.

Here are some interesting facts which, to me, shed light on the origins of the war.
In 1860, the census showed the population of the US as 31,443,321.
The states that comprised the Confederacy had around 9,000,000 people.
3.5M of those 9M were slaves which left about 5.5M others.
The South had about 1.1M men of draft age
The North had about 4M of draft age.
So around one third of the people in the South were slaves.

There had been some outbreaks of slave rebellions with murders of whites prior to the war. Although the majority of the people in the South owned no slaves there was concern by many people about the danger which the slaves represented if freed. Although this danger was probably overrated based on the behavior of the slaves during the war, the South was largely a rural population with families often living in somewhat isolated circumstances vulnerable if a rebellion took place. A lot of the reluctance of people who were not slave owners to freeing the slaves was based on this.

In order to understand the point of view of the South about secession one must put himself in the context of the US in 1860.
The Revolutionary War had taken place only a little over one generation before and the US was very young. Some states had only been part of the US for a few years. Texas had been annexed in 1845, so had only been part of the US for 15 years. A great many people in the Northeast had opposed the entry of Texas into the US. A great many people in the Northeast had opposed the Mexican War in 1846-48 which the South had largely supported. Lincoln had vehemently opposed the Mexican War, supposedly on moral grounds. ( Why was he opposed to war with a foreign country that had given much provocation to American citizens but was not hesitant about attacking the South?) There had been threats before of secession, not only by Southern states but by states in the North during the War of 1812 and the Mexican War. In 1860 many citizens considered themselves first a Texan, Virginian, Vermonter or Maine man and secondly a citizen of the US. When I was growing up in Texas, in the 1930s-40s, many of us still felt that way.
I don't know about the rest of the Southern states but in Texas there was a referendum held and a strong majority favored leaving the Union.
I believe that the views of the majority of the people in the South in 1860 were that the Federal government was too powerful and was not receptive to the desires and needs of the citizens in their part of the country. Views not too dissimilar of the Tea Party today, interestingly.

 

[pbfoot]

Ren the war of 1812 was not a victory , the goal of invading Canada was an abject failure.

 

[davparlr]

As for the original post, I can't really agree with what the citizens of Vicksburg did. Southerners can be a very stubborn breed, so my guess is that the survivors handed down their pent-up rage to their kids, who passed it along to their kids, etc...its hard to just put the past behind and move on, but someone's gotta do it.

I can understand disagreeing with their position. I do not understand ridicule and laughter. It is not unusual for people to hold grudges over generations when submitted to trauma. Modern examples are the Balkans and the Armenians. While we may disagree with their hatred after so long, it is hard to justify making fun of their situations.

A few comments in my opinion.

1. Slavery is certainly an abomination and I am embarrassed by the fact that my culture and my religion embraced and defended the institution and the apartheid concepts that emerged after the war, which I was a witness to. My religion has since apologized for its role in condoning slavery and segregation.
2. Slavery was more than just a fuse that led to the war. It had been an issue many years before the war and many compromises were made in government to ensure its continuation. Many of the movers and shakers in the South were convinced that they were highly dependent on slavery for economic livelihood. These were big instigators for succession.
3. Most of the Southern population was engaged in the war because of their perception of the threat to their rights by an invading force, not to defend slavery.
4. I am eternally grateful that the Union won the war. Had the South won, it would have become a apartheid government like South Africa and the U.S.s ability to address the issues it had to address internally and externally would have been weakened. As for Texas being a separate nation, I don't know. They had oil but would never be as influential as it is becoming now. It is quickly becoming the new California (in a good sense).
5. Had the Federalist states treated the Southern states in as enlightened way as the U.S. treated Germany and Japan after WWII, the Civil War would have been over by 1880 instead of lasting into the 1960s, with the revival of Southern economic power and civil rights movement.

 

[renrich]

Pb, if you are claiming that the US lost the war of 1812, you are one of few. They certainly were frustrated in a goal to conquer Canada but to say they lost the war is, IMO, not accurate. They certainly did not lose the last battle of the war, against some fine British regulars.
Dav, IMO, slavery was a dying institution, regardless of the outcome of the CW. No modern country would have perpetuated that institution and if the South had maintained it's independence I believe that slavery would have been terminated naturally. Actually the plight of former slaves, North and South, was little improved after the war for many decades.

 

[pbfoot]

Pb, if you are claiming that the US lost the war of 1812, you are one of few. They certainly were frustrated in a goal to conquer Canada but to say they lost the war is, IMO, not accurate. They certainly did not lose the last battle of the war, against some fine British regulars.
.

The goal stated was the conquering of Canada . They did not ...;hence the goals were not achieved . Up here our revionist history is the opposite of your revisionest history .

 

[syscom3]

PB, the war of 1812 was a tie in every sense of the word. Cessation of hostilities and a return back to the borders prior to the war.

As for the civil war, there was no chance for this issue to be settled peacefully, The economy of the south demanded slaves and there was no substitute. One of the more under discussed aspects of the years preceding the war was the continual creation of states out of the territories. The south wanted slavery to exist in them and the north rightfully said "NO".

There is no conceivable way you can justify the south's position on that. The north had absolute moral clarity that slavery was an evil institution and any new states were going to come in as free states. Even before Fort Sumpter, violence was already under way in "bloody Kansas" and it was going to keep spreading eastwards just like a prairie fire.

Even if we suppose that violence was averted east of the Mississippi, the economic and population divergence between the north and south was accelerating and it inevitably was going to reach such a chasm that the north would have simply ended slavery as it wanted and it would have been a "fait accompli" that the south could not have stopped. Federalism was always going to be the winner.

As for the souths justification about states rights; that's just an excuse. The war was always about slavery. If slavery did not exist, then there would have been no reason for a federal entity to violate traditional states rights. The ones in the south who clamored for secession were the plantation interests. They knew where their wealth and power came from and had every reason to oppose the elimination of slavery.

 

[pbfoot]

I`m not as Knowledgeable about the US Civil War to make an intelligent guess as to which side was justified (excluding the Slavery issue ) . There was more the war then that, but I read and learn.
I was replying to the statement that the US had won every war . I know a bit about the war of 1812 particularly about the unsucessful Invasion of the Niagara Frontier.

 

[davparlr]

PB, the war of 1812 was a tie in every sense of the word. Cessation of hostilities and a return back to the borders prior to the war.

I would agree with this. The War of 1812 was an important war for the U.S. While not making significant military gains and being embarrassed by the burning of Washington, it was successful in embarrassing England's in its superiority of the frigates, naval victories in the inland waterways, victory at Ft. McHenry and finally at New Orleans. England at this time was in its prime, having just defeated Napoleon. Some of those very crack Napoleonic war troops were mowed down at New Orleans. As a results, the U.S. took nationalistic pride in standing down the most powerful nation in the world. It also contributed to U.S. military tradition.

As for the civil war, there was no chance for this issue to be settled peacefully, The economy of the south demanded slaves and there was no substitute. One of the more under discussed aspects of the years preceding the war was the continual creation of states out of the territories. The south wanted slavery to exist in them and the north rightfully said "NO".

I agree with most of this except that the answer from the North was "let's compromise".

There is no conceivable way you can justify the south's position on that. The north had absolute moral clarity that slavery was an evil institution and any new states were going to come in as free states. Even before Fort Sumpter, violence was already under way in "bloody Kansas" and it was going to keep spreading eastwards just like a prairie fire.

Again, I agree with most of this, only I don't think the North was of one accord in its opposition to slavery. There was little passion to fight for the freedom of the slaves.

If slavery did not exist, then there would have been no reason for a federal entity to violate traditional states rights.

I do not think there was any constitutional authority given to the majority to use force to keep the minority from succeeding from the union, then or now.

Ren the war of 1812 was not a victory , the goal of invading Canada was an abject failure.

I was replying to the statement that the US had won every war . I know a bit about the war of 1812 particularly about the unsucessful Invasion of the Niagara Frontier.

Canada was a goal. It was not the reason for the war, there were many. The U.S. did not succeed in this goal, but England did not succeed in several of its goals. Therefore, the war was technically a draw, but motivationally a victory for the U.S., not so much for England.

 

[pbfoot]

Canada was a goal. It was not the reason for the war, there were many. The U.S. did not succeed in this goal, but England did not succeed in several of its goals. Therefore, the war was technically a draw, but motivationally a victory for the U.S., not so much for England.

Not really the US ruined whatever chance there was to draw Canada into the Union and that was a serious possibilty.

 

[davparlr]

Dav, IMO, slavery was a dying institution, regardless of the outcome of the CW. No modern country would have perpetuated that institution and if the South had maintained it's independence I believe that slavery would have been terminated naturally. Actually the plight of former slaves, North and South, was little improved after the war for many decades.

I agree, but I do believe the South would have become an apartheid nation with all of its destructive nature.

 

[buffnut453]

England at this time was in its prime, having just defeated Napoleon. Some of those very crack Napoleonic war troops were mowed down at New Orleans. As a results, the U.S. took nationalistic pride in standing down the most powerful nation in the world.

Err...in my history books, the Napoleonic wars ended in 1815 after Napoleon was defeated at Waterloo - that was 3 years after the war of 1812. No "crack English troops" were deployed from the European theatre to America, indeed the Canadian garrison was milked of the best soldiers because they were needed in Europe.

The US...was successful in embarrassing England's in its superiority of the frigates, naval victories in the inland waterways.

Again the RN was rather preoccuppied with the French fleet. It never sent its best to the Americas - why would you if you had one of the world's largest armies (ie the French) on your doorstep rampaging through Europe?

Canada was a goal. It was not the reason for the war, there were many.

Again, have to disagree. The whole purpose behind the war of 1812 was an attempt to get Canada to rise up against the "English oppressor". Britain had no interest in fighting America in 1812 - it had its hands full on Continental Europe. Note that the peace treaty between America and Britain was signed before the American victory at New Orleans. America didn't force Britain to the negotiating table, rather Britain didn't want to fight America whilst also taking on Napoleon.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

One point - Canada did not exist as a nation in 1812. It technically became a sovereign state on July 1, 1867. Saying "Canada" defeated the US during the war of 1812 is like saying the US defeated France during the French-Indian War in 1763.

 

[buffnut453]

Flyboy,

Dunno if that was directed to me but if it was, I don't get it. I never stated Canada beat the US. I talked about the "Canadian garrison", ie the British troops garrisoned in Canada. Am I misunderstanding??

Cheers,
Mark

 

[pbfoot]

One point - Canada did not exist as a nation in 1812. It technically became a sovereign state on July 1, 1867. Saying "Canada" defeated the US during the war of 1812 is like saying the US defeated France during the French-Indian War in 1763.

never stated otherwise , but a good number of the troops were local militia and even more so was the affect of the natives who were worried about American intentions .

 

[A4K]

Interesting find...thanks!

I can't believe no-one tried to open that bottle MUCH earlier! (Didn't they ask at the time of the donation what it was???)

 

[comiso90]

One point - Canada did not exist as a nation in 1812. It technically became a sovereign state on July 1, 1867. Saying "Canada" defeated the US during the war of 1812 is like saying the US defeated France during the French-Indian War in 1763.

Its funny how many people conveniently omit facts when citing history. I often have to remind my Canadian friends of this.

""Canada" defeated the US? Really, so no Brits were involved??"

I was being sarcastic...

 

[renrich]

PB, if you read my post carefully you will see that I said that the South was the only Americans that lost a war. I did not say they were the only Americans that did not win a war. Big difference.

To claim that the CW was always and only about slavery is to ignore history and also is to try to avoid the moral implications of attacking your own people and laying waste to their country. Slavery of any kind was and is an evil and indefensible institution. But attacking and depriving kindred folk of life and property that you recently stood side by side IN REBELLION in order to gain independence from Britain is, IMO, evil and indefensible under any circumstances. To do it under the guise of freeing the slaves is not a good excuse, especially since the Northern states participated in the slave trade and benefited greatly from it in the beginning.

Lincoln said something about that if he could keep slavery and preserve the Union, he would do so. Perhaps he was lying and was using the preservation of the Union as an excuse for freeing the slaves but the record shows that the preservation of the Union was a much stronger incentive for the Union soldiers to go to war.

To say that the North "had absolute moral clarity that slavery was evil and new states would come in as free states" is nonsense. There were politicians in the North who were abolitionists who wanted to preserve a balance of slave and free states and many of those same Pols wanted no slave states admitted. To say that all the people in the North or even all of their Pols were for abolition is an overstatement.

To say that the Southern soldiers went to war to preserve slavery begs the point that very few of the common soldiers in the CSA even owned slaves. The fact is that many in the South hated Northerners because of the political and economic dominance the North enjoyed by virtue of it's larger population and it's industrialation. Many in the South regarded "Yankees" as money grubbing and standoffish. By the same token, many in the North regarded Southerners as semi literate, indolent barbarians with few redeeming social and cultural graces. To quote from "Albion's Seed" by David Hackett Fischer, "Almost from the beginning there was little love lost among the colonists." " In 1651, one Puritan observed of Virginians; "I think they are the farthest from conscience and moral honesty of any such number together in the world." To quote Winston Churchill in his "History of the English Speaking Peoples" in describing Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson; " There burned in him a hatred of Northern domination not to be found in Lee." The causes of the American Civil War go back much further than any differences of opinion about slavery.

 

[pbfoot]

Its funny how many people conveniently omit facts when citing history. I often have to remind my Canadian friends of this.

""Canada" defeated the US? Really, so no Brits were involved??"

Nope the brits made up about 30% natives about 40% and the other 30% were ex americans who left the US during the revolution and formed militia regiments