The Confederacy: America's worst idea

I do. What have I said that you think is a 'revision'?

Quantrill

 

Since my trip to Gettysburg, I have been studying the civil war battles, the politics that led up to the Civil war and the generals on both sides.

Secession was the result of the failure of the Federal government to recognize and honor state's rights.

The example used was the institution of slavery.
The south had better/smarter generals and tactics-look how many times Lincoln had to change generals.
There were several tactical errors the south made in various battles which culminated in a northern victory. In other words, they got lucky.
All along Lincoln used the phrase "preserve the Union". It wasn't until later that freeing the slaves became an issue.
Robert E Lee had heart disease. It became worse and worse until his tactical battle decisions were downright poor. He had to sleep sitting up. It eventually killed him.
If Longstreet had replaced Lee, even 2 or 3 years into the conflict,we'd all be whistling Dixie.
Look deeper, as I did, into the actual battle strategy and tactics and you will see the Union, even thought they outnumbered, out gunned and out supplied the Confederates, won by tactical mistakes of the south. If you study the battles as I am doing,you will see.

 

People say they "studied the history and politics" yet that history always begins around Lincoln's Inauguration and the immediate secession afterwards and always glosses over the previous 15 years of strife, bloodshed and near civil war that had been taking place all over the country.

Missouri was already a warzone by 1861, with armed bands of abolitionists and pro-slavers fighting it out in towns across the State back during the days of the Missouri Compromise.

Here are the facts:

Both the North and the South realized that for Slavery to remain a viable and lasting institution(not important to the North, very important to the South) it had to be able to expand with the Country as it moved West, otherwise it would wither and die eventually. This idea was anathema to the rich southern plantation owners who saw it as their God given right to own another human being.

They knew that Slavery would die out if it didn't get to expand equally into the West. This means that there was guaranteed civil unrest within territories about to become States. Understand that there was a low grade guerrilla war going on in this nation since 1845 or so already.

Every time a new state in the west was about to enter the union, a small civil war would break out in the territory between pro and anti-slave forces for control of the State until eventually Washington would step in and issue a compromise.

This happened for decades and the situation grew worse. Then Uncle Tom's Cabin hit like a bombshell upon not just the USA but the entire planet. When that happened, the abolition movement reached fever pitch.

No, the north never had any intention of nationwide abolition, at that time it was a State's Rights issue. But the Southerners saw the political winds changing, knew that eventually in some few decades, slavery would be abolished by Constitutional Amendment, therefore NOT violating their rights.

The entire secession was predicated on the fact that the South wanted to keep the Institution of Slavery in perpetuity without fear of an abolitionist controlled Government pushing for national action at some point 50 years from then forcing Slavery abolished by Constitution amendment once the nation grew large enough to have 3/4ths of the States' legislatures against slavery and amendment would pass and there would be no slavery.

The only way Slavery could be kept in perpetuity, forever and ever was if the Slave States seceded and formed their own nation.

The US Government didn't violate any State's Rights until after the Southern States officially by law gave up their US Constitutional Rights and rebelled against it.

After that there was no recourse but war.

Since everyone knows so much history. I'd like to know what law the Federal Government passed in 1860 that made the Southern State's secede?

During the Revolution, we had valid laws passed by the British Parliament we could point to.

What law was passed in the USA in 1860 that violated the States' Rights?

All that happened was Lincoln, a moderate Republican, got elected and the South freaked out about it.

 

Sounds like a lot of political opinion.

Battle statistics have more facts.

The Homestead Act was to undermine large plantations.

 

Lincoln was elected by a sectional vote. Lincoln had said his intentions was for the Union to be either completely slave or free. He appoints Seward, and abolitionist as chief of his cabinet. An abolishonest who spoke of a coming irrepressible conflict with the South.

There was no law made that forced the South to secede. It was the Norths continual donouncing the law that caused the South to seced. Most especially the Dred Scott decison. Most especially their belief that they could act under a higher law.

Quantrill

 

http://library.thinkquest.org/CR0215469/secession.htm
It is interesting to note Lincoln quotes change over time. at first he talks about indifference to slavery,later makes it the spotlight of the war. I guess he learned that carrying the banner for a social issue will get you WAY more support than trampling on the constitution will produce outcry.

 

Here. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

http://www.historynet.com/irreconcilable-differences.htm

That's real history, written and studied by real historians.

 

ROFLOL
You quote someone who wrote a book about slaves in his family and state he is a real historian?

Oh okay.
Pardon me if I don't take your argument seriously.

 

That is exactly right. Lincoln was a politician, not a statesman. He showed his cards when he appointed Seward. However, the South already knew about him. He didn't fool anyone.

Quantrill

 

I see. You tell me to stay away from the Confederate web sites, and then you go to a web site for some 'real history' .

Yeah, horses don't like drinking from poisioned water holes.

Quantrill

 

Yeah but apparently you can lead a horse to water,but you can't make him drink......
http://www.newswithviews.com/HNB/Hot_New_Books35.htm

My next read

 

One spark was all that was needed to start the war and the lack of one could have precluded one. If those hotheads in Charleston had not bombarded Ft Sumter there is every possibility that the secession would have succeeded without a war. The Federal government had already sucessfully negotiated the peaceful turnover of many other facilities to the confederate states and abandoned them without incident.

 

Wrong again. There were no hotheads. The North broke their agreement already in moving troops from Moultrie to Sumter when they were to remain until further orders. Then Lincoln attempted to reinforce Sumter. There was never any interntion on the Norths part to allow the secession.

Quantrill

 

Look this isn't some kook blog I'm linking to it's Historynet, the web presence for the publishers of American Civil War Magazine and about a dozen others. This is highly respected historical analysis.

 

As far a as I have read, the ships trying to get to Ft Sumter had no extra troops aboard so it was either a supply mission or an evacuation.

Regardless there was no reason to resort to ultimatums and start a shooting war. You can try to blame the north all you want but the fact is that the south was the aggressor and precipitated the shooting war by firing the first shots. If anything, the commander was trying to avoid incident by moving the troops to an island.

 

Both sides made grievous errors. The point being it could have been resolved much better while preserving the union.

The government needed to buy the slaves like the UK did.

 

Oh. If you go to a web site its highly respected. If I go to a web site its a kook blog. Typical.

Quantrill

 

Sorry. You haven't read very far. Try something other than wicki. Cherck your history. The North was the aggrssor by not abiding the order to not move from Moultrie. Then they attempted to reinforce the fort at Sumter. What planet do you live on?

Quantrilll

 

The South made no error. It did what It had to do. I agree, compensation would have helped tremendously. But no compensation was offered. The yankees sell their slaves off. Then they get on their moral high horse and cry that the Southernor must free his at his expense. Sure. Typical yankee.

Quantrill

 

To say either side was "blame free" would be dishonest.

There was talk of compensation but never materialized. Too bad, it would have saved millions of lives.

 

Sorry. I am sick of the South presented as guilty of this war. When it has always been the North that brought this on. So, no the South was blameless in starting this war. It was brought on completely by the North.

Not too bad. Lives are the price of fighting for what you believe.

Quantrill

 

What was stopping the south from doing the exact same thing at the same time?

You keep saying that as if it is an insult. Its a compliment. The typical yankee was morally superior to the typical southerner.

No matter how you slice it, the south WAS morally inferior to the north. No matter what standard you use. No matter how many people owned salves in the north or supported slavery, there were ALWAYS more in the south.

 

Lincoln was not an abolitionist or Radical Republican, a point Bennett reiterates innumerable times. He did not favor immediate abolition before the war, and held racist views typical of his time. But he was also a man of deep convictions when it came to slavery, and during the Civil War displayed a remarkable capacity for moral and political growth-Eric Foner

 

What do you mean, selling the slaves to somewhere else? Or freeing the slaves?

You base your 'morality' on the amount of people who owned slaves? So because the South was more agriculture than the North then they would be morally inferior.

Typical, as I said, of the yankee thinking.

Quantrill

 

Just what I said...whatever the North was doing.

LOL @ "Morality" in quotes. Do you not consider slave ownership to be immoral?

Yes, if fewer people in the north owned slaves or supported owning slaves, that makes them more moral than the South.

No. It is their slave ownership that made them morally inferior, not their agriculture.

Thank you.

Try not to choke on those sour grapes.