The American Civil War
- Thread starter Peters
- Start date
- Status
Some of the answers are in this thread. Rebel Flag draws support
Down the thread a bit is a short article by Walter Williams. It is one view. The war itself has many reasons.
Down the thread a bit is a short article by Walter Williams. It is one view. The war itself has many reasons.
There is a search option above. Just type in Civil War and you will find a lot of discussion. You may also look at the Confederate Catechism.
[Edited on 10-18-2005 by puritancovenanter]
[Edited on 10-18-2005 by puritancovenanter]
Richard King
Puritan Board Senior
This is a touchy issue...somewhat like asking a Scot about the Brits perhaps. We get in trouble discussing it, it is sort of like picking at a scab for some.
There are so many unanswered questions and the attitude seems to be ignore it and it will go away. Slavery wasn't the only issue. Slavery was wrong. Including the slaves General Grant owned.
I maintain most of the remaining ill feelings Southerners harbor for Northerners is more connected to the reconstruction and things that happened after the war...more than about the actual war. And people who have studied Lincoln realize a tremendous spin has been done in his favor.
Some interesting things to look at would be:
The tremendous faith of men like Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson.
Also Robert L. Dabney http://www.pointsouth.com/csanet/greatmen/dabney/dab-bio.htm
There are so many unanswered questions and the attitude seems to be ignore it and it will go away. Slavery wasn't the only issue. Slavery was wrong. Including the slaves General Grant owned.
I maintain most of the remaining ill feelings Southerners harbor for Northerners is more connected to the reconstruction and things that happened after the war...more than about the actual war. And people who have studied Lincoln realize a tremendous spin has been done in his favor.
Some interesting things to look at would be:
The tremendous faith of men like Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson.
Also Robert L. Dabney http://www.pointsouth.com/csanet/greatmen/dabney/dab-bio.htm
LadyFlynt
Inactive User
You will find alot of southerners on this board...so that will be the view you will mostly hear.
However, I did teach on this to the 4th-6th grade co-op students (co-op is a schoolday get-together for homeschool students).
Several things that we learned:
The North had the majority of banks, money, factories, and farmland. The North also had slavery. In fact, the last state to give up slavery was New Hampshire, a Northern state...and they waited till after the war to lawfully end it. The issue, I believe, started with over taxation. The South lawfully succeeded. The Federal Government did not like that as they would lose alot money with the loss of the Southern States. So they tried to hit them in one of the places that it would hurt, their agrarian lifestyle, which included the use of slaves. The thing is, the states in the South were already making steps to phase out slavery. The Proclaimation was directed only towards the South. You will note that to go North to a slave was usually to a certain place in the North or on to Canada. This was due to the laws requiring ALL US citizens to return slaves and that they owned slaves. Where did the North get some of their funding? The pacifists. They wouldn't fight, but they bought into the "this is to free the slaves". So they funded the war with their pocketbooks. Black ppl in the war: They fought on both sides. In the North, they had to sign up secrectly as the whites didn't want them fighting alongside them in "their (white) war". In the south, blacks signed up for two reasons. Some were made promises in exchange for fighting in lew of someone else. Some freely signed up as they were loyal to their homes. Not all plantations were cruel torture grounds. And from a study of how plantations were started, most ppl owned only a few slaves and dug into the ground alongside their slaves. Granted, larger plantations existed. And in the beginning of southern farming...there were white, Indian, and African slaves. The first two were phased out due to political issues. You will note that in the Carribean, they continued to have white and black slavery (one of my best friends is the descendant of a Irish slave and and African slave). My students did learn that race relations were better in the south than in the north until after the War. That war destroyed that. And the blacks that came North for jobs did not find a friendlier North (look at what happened at East St Louis...this would require another story about unions, companies, and wages).
The good thing to come out of the war: Other countries south of the US (brazil) ended their slavery very quickly, as they feared the war the US had just been through.
Feelings on the War...we lost being a Republic and became a Democracy, which leads to Socialism. We took away states' rights...though we claim to have them to an extent. They destroyed the South in the worst way. The entire economic culture broke down. They took advantage of the South's desperate situation and the southerners were left with very little. And the North did not keep their promise (in truth it was a faulty promise to begin with as it would have required land redistribution) about 40acres and a mule to the blacks. Some southerners left their families and started over in spanish speaking countries south of the US. Many southerners (white and black) went west to start over. They destroyed family legacies as well as families. They destroyed the oppurtunity to end slavery without destroying race relations. My personal feelings are neither here nor there...it happened. However, there are many feelings over how the War is portrayed in history books. They aren't truthful in schools. Only of few of my homeschool students knew the answers to what I had asked them (the ones with some southern roots). I made them think, study, and look at pictures. Most of them simply (simple-mindedly) thought the war started because the South had slaves, the North didn't (which I've already proven not true), and the North had big hearts towards "all men" (also proven not true). I had to correct my children when (due to their being in another class) were coming up with such simplistic and untruthful answers. And when they were told what a great man Lincoln was. When I was a child, I thought Lincoln was great, small beginnings, a love of reading, freed the slaves. As an adult, I learned the manner in which he did things, his need for control and power. My step-father's mother sent me one of those forwards on comparison between Lincoln and Kennedy. Of course everything was made to have both men look okay, mostly Lincoln (as Kennedy was notorious in the female arena). I sent her some quotes straight from Lincoln's mouth. I never heard back on the subject again.
I know, as one of my students accused me, that some would say I supported slavery. NO! I do not. But war was not the manner to go about it. (in fact, I enjoy hearing of the underground railroad). And in fact, the slavery issue was brought up by the mere fact that it would benefit the North...because in all truth, the North making this an issue with the South was a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Their reasons were not so wholesome to have been just "to free the slaves"...no they were the beginning of the selfish hand of big government. I believe slavery was a fact of life. And has been for most of history amoung ALL nationalities (I do not believe in races...see Answer in Genesis for my stand on that). I think if you can go back far enough, you will find it in all of our lineages. I don't like it. In some cases slaves are terribly mistreated. In other cases slaves were part of the family. The reality is that it split families and destroyed many.
However, I did teach on this to the 4th-6th grade co-op students (co-op is a schoolday get-together for homeschool students).
Several things that we learned:
The North had the majority of banks, money, factories, and farmland. The North also had slavery. In fact, the last state to give up slavery was New Hampshire, a Northern state...and they waited till after the war to lawfully end it. The issue, I believe, started with over taxation. The South lawfully succeeded. The Federal Government did not like that as they would lose alot money with the loss of the Southern States. So they tried to hit them in one of the places that it would hurt, their agrarian lifestyle, which included the use of slaves. The thing is, the states in the South were already making steps to phase out slavery. The Proclaimation was directed only towards the South. You will note that to go North to a slave was usually to a certain place in the North or on to Canada. This was due to the laws requiring ALL US citizens to return slaves and that they owned slaves. Where did the North get some of their funding? The pacifists. They wouldn't fight, but they bought into the "this is to free the slaves". So they funded the war with their pocketbooks. Black ppl in the war: They fought on both sides. In the North, they had to sign up secrectly as the whites didn't want them fighting alongside them in "their (white) war". In the south, blacks signed up for two reasons. Some were made promises in exchange for fighting in lew of someone else. Some freely signed up as they were loyal to their homes. Not all plantations were cruel torture grounds. And from a study of how plantations were started, most ppl owned only a few slaves and dug into the ground alongside their slaves. Granted, larger plantations existed. And in the beginning of southern farming...there were white, Indian, and African slaves. The first two were phased out due to political issues. You will note that in the Carribean, they continued to have white and black slavery (one of my best friends is the descendant of a Irish slave and and African slave). My students did learn that race relations were better in the south than in the north until after the War. That war destroyed that. And the blacks that came North for jobs did not find a friendlier North (look at what happened at East St Louis...this would require another story about unions, companies, and wages).
The good thing to come out of the war: Other countries south of the US (brazil) ended their slavery very quickly, as they feared the war the US had just been through.
Feelings on the War...we lost being a Republic and became a Democracy, which leads to Socialism. We took away states' rights...though we claim to have them to an extent. They destroyed the South in the worst way. The entire economic culture broke down. They took advantage of the South's desperate situation and the southerners were left with very little. And the North did not keep their promise (in truth it was a faulty promise to begin with as it would have required land redistribution) about 40acres and a mule to the blacks. Some southerners left their families and started over in spanish speaking countries south of the US. Many southerners (white and black) went west to start over. They destroyed family legacies as well as families. They destroyed the oppurtunity to end slavery without destroying race relations. My personal feelings are neither here nor there...it happened. However, there are many feelings over how the War is portrayed in history books. They aren't truthful in schools. Only of few of my homeschool students knew the answers to what I had asked them (the ones with some southern roots). I made them think, study, and look at pictures. Most of them simply (simple-mindedly) thought the war started because the South had slaves, the North didn't (which I've already proven not true), and the North had big hearts towards "all men" (also proven not true). I had to correct my children when (due to their being in another class) were coming up with such simplistic and untruthful answers. And when they were told what a great man Lincoln was. When I was a child, I thought Lincoln was great, small beginnings, a love of reading, freed the slaves. As an adult, I learned the manner in which he did things, his need for control and power. My step-father's mother sent me one of those forwards on comparison between Lincoln and Kennedy. Of course everything was made to have both men look okay, mostly Lincoln (as Kennedy was notorious in the female arena). I sent her some quotes straight from Lincoln's mouth. I never heard back on the subject again.
I know, as one of my students accused me, that some would say I supported slavery. NO! I do not. But war was not the manner to go about it. (in fact, I enjoy hearing of the underground railroad). And in fact, the slavery issue was brought up by the mere fact that it would benefit the North...because in all truth, the North making this an issue with the South was a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Their reasons were not so wholesome to have been just "to free the slaves"...no they were the beginning of the selfish hand of big government. I believe slavery was a fact of life. And has been for most of history amoung ALL nationalities (I do not believe in races...see Answer in Genesis for my stand on that). I think if you can go back far enough, you will find it in all of our lineages. I don't like it. In some cases slaves are terribly mistreated. In other cases slaves were part of the family. The reality is that it split families and destroyed many.
This.Plimoth Thom
Puritan Board Freshman
The saddest thing about the War in my opinion, is that there's often so much animosity between modern Americans today when they bring it up. For the most part the veterans themselves forgave each other. When Grant was dying of throat cancer and writing his memoirs at a cabin in the Adirondacks, many veterans of both sides would come and pay their respects. Both former Union and Confederate generals were his pall-bearers at his funeral. At the 75th anniversary Gettysburg reunion in 1938, the veterans reenacted "Pickett's Charge" but instead of killing each other, they embraced each other in tears. Healing and forgiveness came quickly for most veterans. But over the years both Northerners and Southerners have been guilty of revisionism, exageration, and putting a spin on history trying to justify their side's cause and the expense of misrepresenting the other. To gain a truly accurate understanding of the casuses of the War (if that's really possible at this point) would take a lifetime of study. I spent a good 7 years of my life as an obsessed Civil War "buff." I visited most of the battlefields, read all the books I could including primary sources, went to all the reenactments I could, collected artifacts. But I gave it up, and today don't really have any intrest in spending any more time studying the war. It's just too emotional a subject for many people (including reenactors) which leads to animosity and misrepresentation of facts on both sides, historical figures long dead become hated enemies. Today there's some people who can't forgive the other side, even though their ancestors, the actual veterans could. It really gets ridiculous.
[Edited on 10-18-2005 by Plimoth Thom]
[Edited on 10-18-2005 by Plimoth Thom]
LadyFlynt
Inactive User
Some of this isn't about forgiveness. I don't hold ill towards northerners. I have issues with the fact that most information is left out of student textbooks and discussion of War is not permitted in the public schools unless it is slave focused.
The South owned slaves.
The North wanted to keep the country together.
Yay, the North won.
(That is how we were taught in the public and private schools).
Teachers and students are both left in ignorance. Due to this, we are encouraging racism in our country.
The South owned slaves.
The North wanted to keep the country together.
Yay, the North won.
(That is how we were taught in the public and private schools).
Teachers and students are both left in ignorance. Due to this, we are encouraging racism in our country.
Plimoth Thom
Puritan Board Freshman
I'm not arguing here with you. I agree that your example is a bad misrepresentation and oversimplificatioin of history. Personally I was never taught that view in public school. But the abuses of history happen on both sides.
The war had nothing to do with slavery, the South just wanted its states rights.
The North came a destroyed states rights.
Booo, the North won.
I've seen way too many people teaching this view which is an equally bad abuse of history, which leaves teachers and students in ignorance. At the elementary level of education there has to be some amount of simplification of history, mostly due to time restraints. You can't even begin to really study a subject like the Civil War in one year let alone one quarter which is how long most public schools are given to teach it. So yeah oversimplification is gonna happen in textbooks. In my opinion the student has to build up their knowledge over the years both in and outside the classroom, and maybe by the graduate level, might begin to have a basic understanding of such a vast and complicated subject. One semester here or there and a couple books by guys pushing their own agendas ain't gonna crack it.
WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
My summary of the Civil War:
Godly men were betrayed by an atheist, racist traitor of a president and forced into conflict because of money/greed and the need for power by said president, who made it seem as if the war was over freedom, justice and liberty for 'slaves' (which it was not, in his own words).
Godly men were betrayed by an atheist, racist traitor of a president and forced into conflict because of money/greed and the need for power by said president, who made it seem as if the war was over freedom, justice and liberty for 'slaves' (which it was not, in his own words).
Anton Bruckner
Puritan Board Professor
reminds me of Iraq and WMDs
: Give the public a lying noble reason for the undertaking that would benefit you selfishly. :WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
LadyFlynt
Inactive User
Thom, I agree (The War wasn't about or not about slavery, rather it was one of thee issues thereof that was used to gain supporters).
Please note, that though born a southerner and having southern family, I was raised in the north (and the pacific) by northerners (step dad from Chicago and mother was raised in Colorado, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania). Fortunately for me, at home, they were willing to discuss both sides of the war...and though would not have supported the south in anyway, they even saw Lincoln as the aggressor.
The study of this war has been a passion of mine since childhood (what happens when you take a child out of the south....they read about it endlessly:the stories of the white soldiers, the stories of the black soldiers, the stories of the women, the stories of the slaves, the stories of those that went on to pass, etc) The truth is, I'm more concerned about the stories of the people than I am of Lincoln...but am looking forward to collecting some books on him. Right now, I'm trying to obtain some of the diaries (saving those pennies...ironic that Lincoln is on the penny).
[Edited on 10-18-2005 by LadyFlynt]
Please note, that though born a southerner and having southern family, I was raised in the north (and the pacific) by northerners (step dad from Chicago and mother was raised in Colorado, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania). Fortunately for me, at home, they were willing to discuss both sides of the war...and though would not have supported the south in anyway, they even saw Lincoln as the aggressor.
The study of this war has been a passion of mine since childhood (what happens when you take a child out of the south....they read about it endlessly:the stories of the white soldiers, the stories of the black soldiers, the stories of the women, the stories of the slaves, the stories of those that went on to pass, etc) The truth is, I'm more concerned about the stories of the people than I am of Lincoln...but am looking forward to collecting some books on him. Right now, I'm trying to obtain some of the diaries (saving those pennies...ironic that Lincoln is on the penny).
[Edited on 10-18-2005 by LadyFlynt]
WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
I hate using pennies and five dollar bills now.
LadyFlynt
Inactive User
On a Christian note, I don't know why God ordained this war, but he did. I believe it caused the people to spread west at a faster rate as well as Christianity. It increased and encouraged education amoung blacks, something that had been in most cases denied to them before. And maybe we have been seen as a powerful country since in comparison to what each nation (Union and Confederate) would have been if we had remained separate.
SRoper
Puritan Board Graduate
I am a d. Yankee who is now living in the South. My observation has been that the American Civil War is talked about far more often in the South than in the North. In the North we tend to have a vague notion that Lincoln was probably one of the best if not the best President we ever had. In the South it seems that Lincoln gets worse with every year. The latest accusation is that he was a homosexual. On the other hand, Christians in both the North and South have a deep respect for Generals Lee and Jackson.
Northerners tend to see the Southerners as developing a quaint folk history where current issues are projected onto the past. All problems can be traced to a strong central government which is apparently what the South was fighting against, etc.
Northerners tend to see the Southerners as developing a quaint folk history where current issues are projected onto the past. All problems can be traced to a strong central government which is apparently what the South was fighting against, etc.
LadyFlynt
Inactive User
Haven't heard THAT one!
Yup!"Well, JimBob...I think we all jest got called ign'rant..."
And? You mean it's not true? The central government knows what's best for me and my family? Boy, first we don't want to become like the USSR or China...now we are embracing it.
(yes, I'm poking a bit of fun)
Plimoth Thom
Puritan Board Freshman
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
Haven't heard THAT one!
Yeah, that's one of the newer Lincoln biographies, "Lincoln's Melancholy : How Depression Challenged a President and Fueled His Greatness" by Joshua Shenk. Apparently it delves somewhat into the opinion that Lincoln might have been gay. I think I flipped past cspan2 when the author was discussing Lincoln's alleged homosexuality. Needless, to say I didn't bother watching. In the field of history, extremes should always raise red flags. There's probably not a single Lincoln biography ever written without a biased agenda behind it. Everything from ranting over his alleged racism and disregard for the constitution, to praising his christian morality, and salvation of the constitution and the Union. Even the newspapers before and during the ACW were just as extreme and biased. The real debate of the ACW went all the back to the founding of the country and the drafting of the constitution. The debate between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists was always there, it came to the surface constantly during the Antebellum period until it finally boiled over and exploded with Lincoln's election. Lincoln was a very complex character who's political and religious thought changed and evolved over a long period of time, and people today like to pick one or two aspects out of context that they either hate or love, and blow them way out of proportion. Moderation and balance is the key in history, especially with such a loved and hated figure.
[Edited on 10-19-2005 by Plimoth Thom]
The ACW in 10 seconds: an ungrateful nation betrays the God who delivered her from the yoke of English tyranny by adopting an athiestical constitution, God punishes her by throwing her into civil war, one portion of the nation is particularly visited with wrath for its acceptance of the wicked sin of manstealing.
Bladestunner316
Puritan Board Doctor
BIC,
Why was the north right?
Why was the south wrong?
blade
Why was the north right?
Why was the south wrong?
blade
The north was right because it did not cause negotiations to break down. So long as peace (actually, the absence of war) was existent, discussion could have continued ad infinitum; ad nauseum. Eventually a negotiated settlement would have been reached and tens of thousands of lives saved.
The south was wrong because it cut off negotiations by firing on Ft. Sumter. It gave up the moral right to negotiate in good faith.
The north was right because it rejected the enslavement of an entire race*.
The south was wrong because it did agree to the enslavement of an entire race.
The north was right because it recognized the necessity of a unified Federal government.
The south was wrong because its very premise (strong state rights, independent of a governing power) would have lead to the dissolution of the Confederacy. Eventually the quest for power would overshadow the sovereignty of the individual state. In short, the south acted in vain. Eventually the same
outcome would come to pass.
*While the north rejected slavery, there were some who were sympathetic to the "institution." Just because the north opposed slavery did not exonerate it from racism. I do not want to make out the north to be moral crusaders that are devoid of criticism.
[Edited on 10-20-2005 by BaptistInCrisis]
lwadkins
Puritan Board Junior
Having been a lifelong northerner and educated with the traditional understanding of the Civil War, I have come to the conclusion (on my own and with much study) that the war absoulutly was about federalism vs states rights and its to the detrement of our country that we as a country did not embrace the states right position. We are seeing the unfortunate results of rampant federalism in our country now. Slavery was just one of the many issues tied up in the propagana surrounding the war. 
Me Died Blue
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Lincoln came to Ft. Sumter after South Carolina had exercised its right to secede from the Union, and thus it had the claim to the land. But Lincoln lied about what he was sending when he sent troops to take it over, leaving the Confederates no choice but to take charge if they were to keep their rightful property. I explain why it was rightfully theirs at that point in the last part of this post.
I would advise reading up on some of the primary Confederate leaders' views on slavery. Lee had freed his slaves prior to the war, and Grant had slaves during the war. They were convinced that the gradual influence of Christianity in the South would naturally eliminate slavery in time, while immediately abolishing it would cripple their nation. After all, the North was largely Unitarian and the South largely Calvinist, though those are obviously generalizations to some extent.
Furthermore, the North absolutely did not reject the enslavement of an entire race - the slaves of the South had originally been bought from the Northerners who had imported them. Even more significant is that initially, the Emancipation Proclamation did not free any of the slaves in the Union states, but only the Confederate states. That goes to show that it was solely a move for political and economic power on Lincoln's part (who was an admitted racist and white-supremacist, by the way), which is only further corroborated by the fact that he offered no financial compensation for the freed Confederate slaves, even though they had originally been bought from the Northern states.
Debating whether Federalism or Confederatism is the proper form of government seems somewhat beyond the scope of this thread, but the significant point is that, "right" or not, the Union did not have the right to impose Federalism. All of the states that seceeded from the Union to form the Confederacy had only signed the agreement to enter into (and thus make possible in the first place) the Union with the written agreement that they could freely leave at any time at their will. Even many Northern states had been guaranteed the same right upon entering the Union, such as New York. Then when the time came in which some states actually exercised that right, Lincoln simply ignored the written agreements and acted in spite of and against them. That is why so much of what he did was out of his realm of rights and was thus simply tyranny by definition - such as freeing the Confederate slaves when he no longer even had jurisdiction over those states.
LadyFlynt
Inactive User
Agreed...as pointed out earlier in this thread...nowhere can it be proven that the north was against the enslavement of an entire "race". The North had legal slavery and many northerners owned slaves and participated in the return of escaped slaves. New Hampshire was the LAST state out of both the Union and the Confederacy that legally gave up slavery and they waited until AFTER the war ended to do so.
I think you grossly over estimate the Calvinist influence on the South. Remember Thornwell's proposal for a Christian preamble to the CS constitution was shot down in favor of a broadly thiestic. In the context of the north being refered to as "Unitarian", I seem to remember one historian characterizing the South as Deistic.
With regard to slavery, a couple things must be remember. One, that abolitionism was largely a northern movement. many seeking abolition from ungodly principles while many on the other hand for true biblical reasons. Two, whatever the prevailing opinion on slavery in the north the fact remains it was most prominent in the South,
- Status
