The South Will Rise Again?

[saltydawg]

As a disclaimer, my great-great-grandfather was a Captain in the Army of the CSA. I don't view the Confederate flag as a symbol of slavery so much as a historical artifact. My understanding of the basis of the conflict between the North and the South was that the North was planning on freeing all of the slaves without paying any compensation to the slave owners. Since a great deal of the capital of the South was tied up in owning slaves, the economic consequences would have been disasterous. Also, most of the slaves were own by poor white famers who hardly lived any better than their slaves. They typically owned 2 or 3 slaves to help them worked their fields. Hence, they felt a need to fight in order to defend their property and way of life. They could have fought on past 1865 but they finally concluded that their cause was hopeless. The North did not soundly defeat the South so much as the South gave up.

Don't know how much of my historical analysis is correct, just my opinion.

[TulsaPup]

As a disclaimer, my great-great-grandfather was a Captain in the Army of the CSA. I don't view the Confederate flag as a symbol of slavery so much as a historical artifact. My understanding of the basis of the conflict between the North and the South was that the North was planning on freeing all of the slaves without paying any compensation to the slave owners. Since a great deal of the capital of the South was tied up in owning slaves, the economic consequences would have been disasterous. Also, most of the slaves were own by poor white famers who hardly lived any better than their slaves. They typically owned 2 or 3 slaves to help them worked their fields. Hence, they felt a need to fight in order to defend their property and way of life. They could have fought on past 1865 but they finally concluded that their cause was hopeless. The North did not soundly defeat the South so much as the South gave up.

Don't know how much of my historical analysis is correct, just my opinion.

Actually, only about 5% of the southern population owed slaves, the vast majority of slaves lived on huge plantations owned by a few wealthy men. Remember that slaves were very expensive, comparable to luxury cars of today. You are correct in that the rest of the white popualtion that owned slaves only owned a couple and worked right next to them in the field.

As far as the war goes, it was a war a attrition, basically who could kill more of the other side would win, since the north had a higher population, they had an advantage there. The South dominated the war until Gettysburg/Vicksburg in July 1863 because they had superior leadership (generals, officers, etc), they were fighting a defensive war, and were familiar with the land around them- it was their own backyard afterall. The north however, had 90% of the factories, railroads, and a great advantage in population - therefore they could replace casualties much easier. It was said if the north lost twice as many men as the south in a battle(which was common), it was considered a draw. The South won every major battle, except Antietam, until Gettysburg.

After Antietam was when Lincoln issued the Emancipation proclamation, which actually did nothing but make slavery a focal point of the war. It freed slaves, not in the border states that Lincoln could control (because he feared it would sway them to go to the Confederacy), but in the "states in rebellion", in which Lincoln had no authority. The loss at Gettysburg combined with the loss at Vicksburg that gave the north control of the entire Mississippi River is what lost the war for the South. They could not get supplies to their troops, and had very few troops anyway. The Confederacy was so desperate they actually offered freedom to slaves who signed up to fight. The fact that the South fought until 1865 is remarkable, because the war was over on July 5, 1863.

Sorry to go so long, but Civil War history is my favorite subject. I was a history major for a while and am getting a minor in it.

[JAAgan]

You should have stayed a history major and starved , because that's an excellent grasp of the war. I'd love to have a history student with that much interest in the war, you gave a really good summary of quite a bit of my opening and closing notes for the war.

One thing I must say about a couple of the earlier posts. The Southern fear was that all the slaves would be freed without compensation (along with the objections to what they saw as a perversion of the origina States Rights structure of the United States); however, that was not the northern plan. Lincoln was elected on a platform that called for the end of any expansion of slavery. The more intelligent elements of the Republican Party recognized that any plan calling for immediate emancipation would inevitably doom the Southern economy to collapse, as did happen at war's end.

Now, the problem would have been relying on Lincoln to be a skillful enough leader to keep control of the Republican Party so that the more radical elements, those that did gain control after the early years of Reconstruction proved such a failure, didn't gain the upper hand. But honestly, if secession had not come, it certainly seems likely Lincoln would have been able to craft a centrist coalition in Congress of Democrats and more moderate Republicans to prevent that from happening.

That of course leaves open what would happen when Lincoln's time in office was over and also how we would have managed to achieve emancipation in a gradual fashion as I have to believe emancipation was inevitable. The tragedy of the Civil War, (if you accept the idea that the continuation of the United States as we know it was a good thing), is, as Shelby Foote said so well in the Ken Burns documentary series, that we as Americans failed to do the thing we do best -- pragmatic compromise to make progress.

As we can see from how both sides of the political spectrum behave today, we've not yet got that compromising for the best outcome down yet, either.

[Spinoza]

You should have stayed a history major and starved , because that's an excellent grasp of the war. I'd love to have a history student with that much interest in the war, you gave a really good summary of quite a bit of my opening and closing notes for the war.

One thing I must say about a couple of the earlier posts. The Southern fear was that all the slaves would be freed without compensation (along with the objections to what they saw as a perversion of the origina States Rights structure of the United States); however, that was not the northern plan. Lincoln was elected on a platform that called for the end of any expansion of slavery. The more intelligent elements of the Republican Party recognized that any plan calling for immediate emancipation would inevitably doom the Southern economy to collapse, as did happen at war's end.

Now, the problem would have been relying on Lincoln to be a skillful enough leader to keep control of the Republican Party so that the more radical elements, those that did gain control after the early years of Reconstruction proved such a failure, didn't gain the upper hand. But honestly, if secession had not come, it certainly seems likely Lincoln would have been able to craft a centrist coalition in Congress of Democrats and more moderate Republicans to prevent that from happening.

That of course leaves open what would happen when Lincoln's time in office was over and also how we would have managed to achieve emancipation in a gradual fashion as I have to believe emancipation was inevitable. The tragedy of the Civil War, (if you accept the idea that the continuation of the United States as we know it was a good thing), is, as Shelby Foote said so well in the Ken Burns documentary series, that we as Americans failed to do the thing we do best -- pragmatic compromise to make progress.

As we can see from how both sides of the political spectrum behave today, we've not yet got that compromising for the best outcome down yet, either.

Have you ever considered the possibility......
That when Johnny Booth shot Abe......
His one bullet not only killed a yankee president......
But it also KILLED any hope THE ENTIRE SOUTH may have had for an HONEST PEACE, and a genuine political environment aimed at healthy healing......
Rather than the johnson jingoism and rabid yankee retribution that ensued with old Abe no longer prowling the oval office.

IMNHO......
There is no man the SOUTH needed more after Grant's sincere surrender terms to Lee...... Than Abe.

I have ample opportunity to discuss Cival War slavery with modern Negroes......
But virtually no opportunity to discuss "this one bullet" that may have significantly altered the course of both American and Southern history...... With the progeny of America's once most noble REBELS.

I invite any intelligent reply.

[JAAgan]

I think the majority of students of the Civil War have always believed that the death of Lincoln was a great disaster to the South. I was taught that as a student and have always taught it in my teaching career. It was the mismanagement of Reconstruction by both political parties that created the most severe racial problems in this country and in some ways help retard the South's chance to economically rebuild, after having the basis of their economic system destroyed, by making the reactionary policies of the Bourbon Democrats more rigid.

Lincoln, with the creation of the "Union ticket" in 1864, had already set in motion the building of a coaltion of moderate Republicans and Democrats to bring healing to the nation. Giiven the chance, he might well have been able to help reunite the nation in a much more rapid and efficient manner, a condition that would have been so much more prefereable for the old Confederate states.

All one has to do is read the words of both the Gettysburg Address and the 2nd Inaugural Address to recognize that, despite the rhetoric some elements of the neo-Confederates produce today, Lincoln truly considered the Confederates as fellow Americans and wanted this country reunited with the Southern states as equal partners. Of course, our own occupation Louisiana legislature didn't help matters when our 1864 Constitution falied to guarantee the right to vote to the freed slaves, torpedoing the first chance for Lincoln's 10% Plan to work.

By the way, since I got pulled back into posting again, I need to say that whomever gave me the green dot for the earlier post but was left with the impression my comment about today's political parties was targeted at the Iraq War, that wasn't my intention. I'm no fan of George W. Bush and his policies, but my remark was a sincere desire for a return by BOTH parties to a climate where we can debate issues on their merits, not the letter after the name of the person proposing the idea.

[Dawgbitten]

dawg80, stupid...I haven't advanced to your level of stupidity..yet. If I can't quit this horrible gasoline huffing habit I have, I am sure I will be right there with you in about 20 years.

shouldn't you be sitting on the couch with your hand tucked atop your pants dreaming of your glory days?

[sik-m-boi]

I think the majority of students of the Civil War have always believed that the death of Lincoln was a great disaster to the South. I was taught that as a student and have always taught it in my teaching career. It was the mismanagement of Reconstruction by both political parties that created the most severe racial problems in this country and in some ways help retard the South's chance to economically rebuild, after having the basis of their economic system destroyed, by making the reactionary policies of the Bourbon Democrats more rigid.

Lincoln, with the creation of the "Union ticket" in 1864, had already set in motion the building of a coaltion of moderate Republicans and Democrats to bring healing to the nation. Giiven the chance, he might well have been able to help reunite the nation in a much more rapid and efficient manner, a condition that would have been so much more prefereable for the old Confederate states.

All one has to do is read the words of both the Gettysburg Address and the 2nd Inaugural Address to recognize that, despite the rhetoric some elements of the neo-Confederates produce today, Lincoln truly considered the Confederates as fellow Americans and wanted this country reunited with the Southern states as equal partners. Of course, our own occupation Louisiana legislature didn't help matters when our 1864 Constitution falied to guarantee the right to vote to the freed slaves, torpedoing the first chance for Lincoln's 10% Plan to work.

By the way, since I got pulled back into posting again, I need to say that whomever gave me the green dot for the earlier post but was left with the impression my comment about today's political parties was targeted at the Iraq War, that wasn't my intention. I'm no fan of George W. Bush and his policies, but my remark was a sincere desire for a return by BOTH parties to a climate where we can debate issues on their merits, not the letter after the name of the person proposing the idea.

jaagan '08.

[Spinoza]

I think the majority of students of the Civil War have always believed that the death of Lincoln was a great disaster to the South. I was taught that as a student and have always taught it in my teaching career. It was the mismanagement of Reconstruction by both political parties that created the most severe racial problems in this country and in some ways help retard the South's chance to economically rebuild, after having the basis of their economic system destroyed, by making the reactionary policies of the Bourbon Democrats more rigid.

Lincoln, with the creation of the "Union ticket" in 1864, had already set in motion the building of a coaltion of moderate Republicans and Democrats to bring healing to the nation. Giiven the chance, he might well have been able to help reunite the nation in a much more rapid and efficient manner, a condition that would have been so much more prefereable for the old Confederate states.

All one has to do is read the words of both the Gettysburg Address and the 2nd Inaugural Address to recognize that, despite the rhetoric some elements of the neo-Confederates produce today, Lincoln truly considered the Confederates as fellow Americans and wanted this country reunited with the Southern states as equal partners. Of course, our own occupation Louisiana legislature didn't help matters when our 1864 Constitution falied to guarantee the right to vote to the freed slaves, torpedoing the first chance for Lincoln's 10% Plan to work.

By the way, since I got pulled back into posting again, I need to say that whomever gave me the green dot for the earlier post but was left with the impression my comment about today's political parties was targeted at the Iraq War, that wasn't my intention. I'm no fan of George W. Bush and his policies, but my remark was a sincere desire for a return by BOTH parties to a climate where we can debate issues on their merits, not the letter after the name of the person proposing the idea.

Thank you, Jaagan......
I appreciate your reply.

And I believe I thoroughly understand your allusion to America's current NEED to embrace anything logically akin to decent American politics...... Rather than so much as another treasonable moment of continued PARTY putrefaction, from either side of our political pretense.

And BTW......
Even if I knew how to "DOT...... I doubt I could bring myself to participate in any such sophomoric "public" dalliance.
But I recently learned about and figured out how to use the seemingly private "cloud" symbol...... And I now freely use it for both my whim and my willful waggle.

Cheers.

[hoppinmad]

As a proud Confederate-American, thank you Mayor Glover!

Actually, I do think, in a historical context, that portion of our history needs never be forgotten, and in many ways, the brave lads that fought for what they believed in, namely "states' rights" should be honored. Remember this, when that war began in 1861, slavery was NOT the issue. If the South had decided to quit, really prior to 1863, slavery would had to have been dealt with in a different way. Well, actually, it was ended for real with a Constituional amendment in the fall 1865. So technically, the war did NOT end slavery. It ended the only way it could have, which would have happened if there was a civil war* or not.

Back to the question, yes, there needs to be such a month of remembrance. Even if your take is: those that forget history are condemned to repeat it.



* really it was the War of Northern Aggression.

Hey D80, Civil War Thread/many pics at trader forum:

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showth...6&pagenumber=1

[dawg80]

Hey D80, Civil War Thread/many pics at trader forum:

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showth...6&pagenumber=1

Thanks.

There are, predictably, a bunch of misinformed morons on that blog. But, also some good posters who actually know a lil something.

[hoppinmad]

About the only good news this weekend was a gun rally at the Alamo:

http://news.yahoo.com/armed-gun-righ...181856390.html


...and no liberal made the runoff for Alexander's seat in LA:

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/viewa...WS01/310190033

[JuBru]

So there will be what, 2 years left for the term? Hmmmmmm... I should start trying to build a fundraising base t run for the seat next elections.

[dawg80]

About the only good news this weekend was a gun rally at the Alamo:

http://news.yahoo.com/armed-gun-righ...181856390.html


...and no liberal made the runoff for Alexander's seat in LA:

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/viewa...WS01/310190033

I've had some great chats with Neil Riser. He's an ulm grad but is highly supportive of Tech. He recognizes the quality of Tech. As a side note, prior to the start of the Holtz era , he was saying Tech could become another Ole Miss. Even I hold reservations about that, given the landscape of big time CFB. And, Neil has probably taken a pause on that prediction given how much Holtz has already wrecked our program.

In politics, NR is purely conservative. Pragmatic, business-like.