DB: Should Obama Honor Dixie?

[Predicto]

Reducing a complicated issue is not that simple....and I think you know it.

Absolutely, I agree.

oh wait, I thought we were talking about abortion.... nevermind.

[PeterMP]

On the side issue you brought up, why did R.E. Lee, an otherwise remarkable battle tactician and strategist, order such a doomed charge? It just didn't make sense. Longstreet, who commanded Pickett, tried desperately to talk Lee out of it. A confederate colonel quoted Longstreet as saying "General, I have been a soldier all my life. I have been with soldiers engaged in fights by couples, by squads, companies, regiments, divisions, and armies, and should know as well as any one, what soldiers can do. It is my opinion that no fifteen thousand men ever arrayed for battle can take that position."

To no avail. Lee order Pickett's troops to make the charge, and they were slaughtered.

...an odd mystery of the Civil War...

My understanding has always been the charge was a combination of things:

1. As ordered by Lee, it wouldn't have been such a spectacular failure. There were several issues related to getting it started and the artillary that was suppossed to preceede was largely ineffective that Lee didn't know about or anticipate.

2. Lee was desparate to continue winning in the north and pushing the union army. The Seige of Vicksburg was completed the next day splitting the Confederacy. A stalemate at Gettysburg would have still meant a Confederate loss of the war. By changing from a defensive to offensive startegy, Lee created a situation where in the north the Union could "win" by simply holding ground against his army. Lee had to advance to have any chance of winning the war.

[nonniey]

So if the most of the vast majority of people who fought for the south didn't own slaves then the idea that the Civil War was fought over slavery doesn't make sense...

Most of the British could care less about the Polish...... so the idea the War was fought over a German invasion of Poland doesn't make sense.

Most Americans could care less about the Vietnamese and Koreans ....... so the idea these wars were fought to prevent a Communist takeover of those countries doesn't make sense.

Bottomline is tha vast majority of people will fight for what they consider to be there Countries/States no matter the reason behind it.

[BigMike619]

You ought to read the Articles of Secession, written by the folks who seceeded, then rethink your position.

Enough with the revisionist history. It's maddening. Yes, the Civil War was about slavery, end of subject.

....

THIS IS MADNESS!!

[nonniey]

On the side issue you brought up, why did R.E. Lee, an otherwise remarkable battle tactician and strategist, ...

He was a remarkable tactician to be sure. However, he was deficient as a stratagist (Which is why Grant is considered by most professionals to have been the superior General).

[zoony]

Reducing a complicated issue is not that simple....and I think you know it.

It most certainly is, if you approach it with an open mind. The aristocracy in the South needed slavery to continue their way of life. The fact that they were able to spin the issue to their populace as a "dam yankee" thing or federal government problem shouldn't come as a surprise. That's what governments and ruling classes do and have done throughout history.

Unless of course you think every member of the Wehrmacht hated the Jews.

Mississippi:

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world

Georgia:

For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic

Texas:

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States.

Plenty more here

http://americancivilwar.com/documents/index.html

Madenning to hear the argument that it wasn't about slavery. It was about the Fed usurping power. With regard to slavery- lol.

Talk about intellectual dishonesty.

[Predicto]

He was a remarkable tactician to be sure. However, he was deficient as a stratagist (Which is why Grant is considered by most professionals to have been the superior General).

I would not say Grant was deficient in any aspect of generalship - but he had to work with the materials available to him, which were limited and forced him him into certain courses of action.

You are correct that Grant was a first-rate strategist, I just haven't seen the evidence to knock Lee on that point.

[JMS]

JMS, just who invaded who?

Fort Sumpter had been a federal fortification like Fort Knox TN, Fort Levensworth KT, or Fort Smith AK... Clearly South Carolina fired the first shots in the war, directed at the Federal Troops at Sumpter... They just didn't hit anybody...

( Union casualties at Sumpter occured after the terms of surrender had been signed. the union general wrote into the terms of surrender that his troops would give themselves a 100 cannon salute before retireing from their fortifications.. Around the 40th shot, one of the cannons blew up and killed two Union soldiers. The salute was shortenned to 50 rounds.. )

A piece of Trivia for you... First casualty of the civil war due to enemy action was actually at Fairfax County court house (6/1/1861), Fairfax City Virginia. several months after Fort Sumpter (4/12/1861).

[zoony]

I've always thought the adoration for Robert E Lee was blown way out of proportion. As a matter of fact, in my opinion he was solely responsible for losing the war.

Had he simply fought a war of attrition, the North would have eventually given up. Like the Soviets did in Afghanistan.

Instead, Lee's ego had him marching his army throughout MD and PA where he was destroyed. Easy pickins for Sherman sweeping through the south.

....

[zoony]

Yes, rebel forces fired the first shots of the civil war on Federal troops.

And Lee invaded the North.

War of Northern Agression my ass. Maybe they should rename it the war of Southern Aristocratic Arrogance.

.....

[Predicto]

Madenning to hear the argument that it wasn't about slavery. It was about the Fed usurping power. With regard to slavery- lol.

Talk about intellectual dishonesty.

I think that romanticism has obscured the issue for many people. The antebellum South is part of their heritage, and they naturally gravitate to interpretations that are less objectionable to "their" side.

Fully accepting uncomfortable historical facts is a rare thing. The Germans have been able to fully admit the German culpability in WWII, but the Japanese never have accepted their part. Even after the fall of the Soviet Union, Russians generally believe that the Soviets were "liberating" the Eastern European countries they occupied (even though everyone actually from those countries tells them they are full of :pooh: ). Turks deny the Armenian genocide. It goes on and on.

It's human nature, not dishonesty.

[zoony]

It's human nature, not dishonesty.

True to some extent and I think that's an interesting point- but I think the heart of the issue is that most in the South think that a war fought over slavery reflects poorly on them or their ancestors.

It doesn't. It reflects poorly on the aristocratic *******s who started the war. Spend some time in Charleston- those wealthy caste-system *******s are still around, lol.

99% of Southerners fought the war for pride and honor- duped by a very small, very arrogant, very wealthy group of rulers. Who started the war over slavery rights. Pure and simple.

..

[Predicto]

I've always thought the adoration for Robert E Lee was blown way out of proportion. As a matter of fact, in my opinion he was solely responsible for losing the war.

Had he simply fought a war of attrition, the North would have eventually given up. Like the Soviets did in Afghanistan.

Instead, Lee's ego had him marching his army throughout MD and PA where he was destroyed. Easy pickins for Sherman sweeping through the south.

....

I don't think that is the case. Afganistan was a foreign conflict, like Vietnam. Giving up on that is very different than giving up in a civil war. In addition, the Confederate economy was much less equipped to outlast a war of attrition than was the North.

[Prosperity]

We can go on forever on different causes of the war,and who /what divided us without accomplishing much...Let us simply agree slavery was a abomination,and honor those that died under our united States colors throughout time.

Fighting against the Union pretty much means fighting without united states colors... but still the Southern States were still American even if they wouldn't say they were.

Overall it was a tragedy, and it's a good gesture to lay the wreath.

[PeterMP]

Yes, rebel forces fired the first shots of the civil war on Federal troops.

And Lee invaded the North.

War of Northern Agression my ass. Maybe they should rename it the war of Southern Aristocratic Arrogance.

.....

Well, if Lee could have made the jump to guerilla warfare that might have worked, but generally, the concept in western military wasn't redeveloped and understood as a method to win the war.

(Even though I have seen it argued that the south did exactly that via the KKK and policies put in place to limit social access to blacks successfully until the 60's.)

Plus with imigrants the north had a pretty regular supply of man power that was pretty unique to the situation.

[Old Bay]

I've always thought the adoration for Robert E Lee was blown way out of proportion. As a matter of fact, in my opinion he was solely responsible for losing the war.

Had he simply fought a war of attrition, the North would have eventually given up. Like the Soviets did in Afghanistan.

Instead, Lee's ego had him marching his army throughout MD and PA where he was destroyed. Easy pickins for Sherman sweeping through the south.

....

Sherman wasn't Lee's responsibility, that was a different army all together. The Army of Northern Virginia was just that, really. They hovered around Northern Virginia for a great deal of the war.

To say that all Lee had to do was wait out the Union isn't totally true, IMO. The Confederacy was being gutted after only a couple of years, and with two armies marching around in some of the prime areas of Virginia it would be difficult for both to live off of the land which is often necessary. Lee pushed the war north to aleviate Virginia from the tramping armies. Not only that, but the only way to defeat the north was to punch them in the nose and keep going until they said enough. Waiting it out is what brought the war to its eventual conclusion, IMO (in a round about kind of way).

[PiLfan]

To those who say slavery wasn't THE issue behind the civil war, might want to check out this speech from Alexander Stephens (VP of the CSA, so he would know a little something about it )

"The prevailing ideas entertained by Thomas Jefferson and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature - that it was wrong in principle - socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent [temporary] and pass away. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. . . . and the idea of a government built upon it. . . . Our new government [the Confederate States of America] is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid - its cornerstone rests - upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man. That slavery - subordination to the superior race - is his natural and moral condition. This - our new [Confederate] government - is the first in the history of the world based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth"

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=76

But right, it wasn't about slavery. It was about states rights (states rights to institutionalize slavery, that is. And to institutionalize slavery not only in exisiting southern states, but in the western territories as well....but let's just call it "states rights" and forget about the rest, ho-ho)

[zoony]

I don't think that is the case. Afganistan was a foreign conflict, like Vietnam. Giving up on that is very different than giving up in a civil war. In addition, the Confederate economy was much less equipped to outlast a war of attrition than was the North.

It certainly would have bought them more time- and the North's resolve wasn't as steadfast as many historians would have you believe. But their economy wasn't any better at fighting a war of agression

Time would have been what won the war for the South- they would have secured help from France- and I'm not sure the North would have stayed at it much longer.

....

[zoony]

Sherman wasn't Lee's responsibility, that was a different army all together. The Army of Northern Virginia was just that, really. They hovered around Northern Virginia for a great deal of the war.

My point being that had the resources not been spent to put together the Army of NOVA, they could have been used elsewhere, perhaps to save Atlanta, etc.

To say that all Lee had to do was wait out the Union is misguided. The Confederacy was being gutted after only a couple of years, and with two armies marching around in some of the prime areas of Virginia it would be difficult for both to live off of the land which is often necessary. Lee pushed the war north to aleviate Virginia from the tramping armies. Not only that, but the only way to defeat the north was to punch them in the nose and keep going until they said enough. Waiting it out is what brought the war to its eventual conclusion, IMO (in a round about kind of way).

You might be right of course, who knows- it's just my opinion

[Old Bay]

My point being that had the resources not been spent to put together the Army of NOVA, they could have been used elsewhere, perhaps to save Atlanta, etc.

That's possibly true. The Eastern Theater was the 'important' one though. Or at least the glory theater. Most of the resources from both sides went there.

You might be right of course, who knows- it's just my opinion

Hey, that's part of the fun in discussing! ::::

[Predicto]

True to some extent and I think that's an interesting point- but I think the heart of the issue is that most in the South think that a war fought over slavery reflects poorly on them or their ancestors.

It doesn't. It reflects poorly on the aristocratic *******s who started the war. Spend some time in Charleston- those wealthy caste-system *******s are still around, lol.

99% of Southerners fought the war for pride and honor- duped by a very small, very arrogant, very wealthy group of rulers. Who started the war over slavery rights. Pure and simple.

..

I totally agree. And I've been to Charleston several times - my wife's parents live there, and those people can suck eggs as far as I am concerned. The war really was about slavery, pure and simple.

I'm just saying that it is not simple intellectual dishonesty for southerners to cast about for more abstract explanations, even if they never can precisely articulate what they are. In this context "states rights" was little more than the right to keep owning slaves. "Property rights" were little more than the right to keep other human beings as property. "Illegal acts by the North" was little more than the possibility that they might lose slavery in the future. "Economic oppression" was the danger that the slave based economy would suffer if no more slavery was allowed. It's all bunk. I agree.

Nevertheless, It is human nature to defend the motivations of your own people. If you tell a southerner that the war was about "states rights, property rights, illegal acts by the North and economic oppression" - that explanation is going to feel right. If you tell them that the war was about the ability to keep other human beings as slaves - it's going to feel wrong, unfair, insulting. Even if it is correct.

[Prosperity]

Predicto your argument is essentially the same as the one's you are criticizing. You don't want to view apologist Southerner's as dishonest you want to view them as fulfilling a part of their human nature (being dishonest because the truth feels bad). Just like southern apologist don't want to view the Old South as fighting for slavery they want to view it as fighting against oppression (because of oppression means taking away their right to hold slaves).

The obscuring of the truth is dishonesty, the motives are secondary

your motive is to feel better about others, but what the southern apologists are doing is dishonesty by any definition. Whether it is in human nature to be dishonest in certain situations is irrelevant.

[JMS]

So if the most of the vast majority of people who fought for the south didn't own slaves then the idea that the Civil War was fought over slavery doesn't make sense...

Actually it does...

South Carolina suceeding from the Union was tied directly to the election of Abraham Lincoln and his Radical Republicans whos entire party was formed along abolishonist lines..

This had been a dance going on since the American revolution. John Adams called it the one major failure of the founding fathers left to the next generation. Built into the union was a delicately maintained balance between slave and free states. When that balance was shattered and it was clear the south would continue to loose power and influence on this issue to the north, they suceeded.

The claim it was about states rights is hollow. The fact is the state right the south was interested in maintaining was slavery...

Here is how the slavery battle stood and eventually errupted into the civil war.

Missouri Comprimise of 1820 - Let Missouri into the Union wich along with Alabama a few years earlier created a balance between Free and Slave States. The South got the equilibrium, the Union got a pledge that slavery wouldn't spread further.

the Compromise of 1850 - After the Mexican American war the Union had all sorts of new land includeing Texas and California. this compromise (Actually 5 laws) maintained the equalibrium letting Texas come in as a slave state and California come in as a Free state. the other territories like Arizona, New Mexico, and Nevada were organized but not designated slave or anti slave. There were some other featues of this compromise too. The slave trade was ended in Washington DC, but not slavery. Also non slave states had to agree to aid in returning run aways captured in their territory.

The Kansas Nebraska Act.- This is the Bill which the GOP was organized to end. It allowed future states without regard to geographic location to decide for themselves if they were to be slave or free states. This represented the south's only hope to maintain it's equalibrium on the issue. Kansas voters defeated the slave initiative and about 20 days after Fort Sumpter was attacked rativied their free state constitution. Nebraska was not admitted to the union at all until after the war.

The Republicans stated goal of overturning this compromise is what sparked the civil war, because without the compromise the South was destined for political subservience to the free north.

[Johnny Punani]

Most of the British could care less about the Polish...... so the idea the War was fought over a German invasion of Poland doesn't make sense.

Most Americans could care less about the Vietnamese and Koreans ....... so the idea these wars were fought to prevent a Communist takeover of those countries doesn't make sense.

Bottomline is tha vast majority of people will fight for what they consider to be there Countries/States no matter the reason behind it.

I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say but the British were worried about the threat of German military domination of Europe and the national security threat that presented. The same with the US and its perceived national security threat from the spread of communism globally.

[Old Bay]

...the South was destined for political subservience to the free north.

This is where it spawns off of slavery, somewhat. The cultures of the north and south were different in many ways, and the south saw it just as you said. They would become subservient before long. No matter what they wanted to do, they basically had no control as a block. They would lose the House because the north had the population, they would lose the Senate because there would eventually be more free states than slave, they lost the Presidency (Lincoln won none of the eventual confederate states) and eventually, in time, they wouldn't have a majority on the Supreme Court either (I don't remember how the Supreme Court's mindset was at this time, actually).