The Lost Cause of the Confederacy

[Checkmite]

I'm ornery and feel like debating.

When I read about historical revisionism vis-a-vis the Holocaust, and think of its possible cultural implications should it actually catch on, I am reminded in some ways of the Lost Cause of the Confederacy. This is not to state that what the Lost Cause implies is anywhere near as heinous as the denial of the Holocaust; but the motives are the same: a losing side's attempt to justify themselves at the expense of the winning side – although in the case of Holocaust denial, it is more “those sympathetic with the losing side”.

For those of you unfamiliar with the notion, the “Lost Cause of the Confederacy” is a set of idealizations and reinterpretations of facts surrounding the Southern secession and the resulting civil war. These ideas were put forth and advocated post-hoc, by Southern cultural figures, in response to the Confederacy's defeat in 1865. The purpose of the Lost Cause was to function as a sort of balm for psychological and cultural wounds; a vehicle by which the Southerner might be able to remain proud, and to rationalize his side's devastating loss.

The Lost Cause features several specific tenets. A great number of these tenets' factuality is questionable, if not utterly debunk-able; still, their followers' insistence upon clinging to them gives the Lost Cause something of a religious air. Among the most important tenets:

Slavery was not the reason for secession. In fact, most Southerners did not even care about slavery. Instead, the war was fought for any number of other reasons; the most commonly mentioned is “State's Rights”.

Southern culture before the War was the epitome of genteel; the people were extremely religious, chivalrous, and kind. Slavery was not as bad as most people think it was; on the contrary, most slave owners were on good relations with their slaves. By contrast, Northerners were shallow, irreverent, and greedy, and cared not about family or family values; they were also liars, who did not in fact care about slavery, and only emphasized the issue to make Southerners look bad or evil.

General Robert E. Lee was the son of Jesus Christ. Well, OK, not literally; but he may as well have been. According to the Lost Cause, Lee was infallible, a man of genius and unshakable faith, whose strategic and tactical prowess the world has never seen before or since. His successes were his successes; his failures were the fault of others. Other figures, such as Jefferson Davis and Thomas Jackson, receive similar treatment. The Northern general staff, on the other hand, was incompetent, using their troops for cannon fodder and engaging in the most irresponsible campaigns, and the only reason the North won the war is because they had more numbers and more equipment.

Of course, the first tenet is the easiest to disprove; but despite this, it remains the subject of much controversy when discussed. This is because it is by far the most important tenet of the Lost Cause; slavery was the primary vehicle for the demonization of the South by the North during and after the war, because it was the reason for the secession – if slavery weren't an issue, the North could no longer claim the moral high ground, and the Civil War would be a more matched, economic contest rather than a genuine civil war.

But the fact of the matter is, the issue of slavery is directly related to the secession. Specifically referenced in South Carolina's rationale for seceding was the Northern states' (note: NOT the Federal government's) failure to abide by the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850, a federal law. Passed before the influx of anti-slavery Republican congressmen, the Law, based on Article 4 of the U.S. Constitution, specified penalties and provisions regarding the capture and return of slaves who had escaped to Northern states. Under the law, federal marshals were required, under penalty of a $1000 fine (that's $1000 in 1850), to arrest and detain without due process any black man upon nothing more than an ex parte claim of ownership by any white man. As can be expected, such a law led to significant abuses, and created a surge of anti-slavery activism in the North, even at the government level. Some states disallowed state and local officials and facilities from being used by federal agents pursuing or holding alleged fugitive slaves. Other states mandated a jury trial for all alleged fugitives before they could be returned (Personal Liberty Laws). At such trials, jury nullification often prevented the 1850 law from being enforced with any efficacy. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin simply declared the law unconstitutional and refused to recognize it. The Republican Party was created against this background in 1854, on a primarily anti-slavery platform. When several prominent people joined this party, and the party won control of Congress, and in 1860 the Presidency, the pro-slavery states began to secede. This essentially debunks the notion of Southern advocacy of States' Rights, as the South most decidedly did not recognize Northern states' rights to refrain from directly supporting the institution of slavery by the return of escaped slaves, who, as far as the Northern states were concerned, were free upon arrival. It also debunks the notion that Northerners in general were not concerned with slavery; Abraham Lincoln, whose party ran on an anti-slavery platform, won the popular vote in the North.

Of the seceding states, the ones who issued articles or declarations of secession identified slavery as the cause of their secession. Only one state, Georgia, specifically mentioned economic disadvantage as one of the justifications, alongside slavery. Many states issued new constitutions, whose only notable difference with the previous versions was typically the identification and protection of the institution of slavery. In addition, the new Confederate constitution applied federal-level protection of slavery as well; Alexander Stephens, the new Vice President of the Confederacy, made a speech in which he said that

The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution — African slavery as it exists amongst us — the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.

The Northern sentiments of equal rights, Stephens said,

...were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. ... Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner–stone 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 normal condition.

People have often attempted to justify that particular snippets of Stephens' speech are abused out of context. I invite you to read his speech here (http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=76) and judge for yourself. Other highlights include this tidbit:

They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just—but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails.

and

As I have stated, the truth of this principle may be slow in development, as all truths are and ever have been, in the various branches of science. It was so with the principles announced by Galileo—it was so with Adam Smith and his principles of political economy. It was so with Harvey, and his theory of the circulation of the blood. It is stated that not a single one of the medical profession, living at the time of the announcement of the truths made by him, admitted them. Now, they are universally acknowledged.

I submit that Stephens' above quote is the first time in history that an against-the-mainstream advocate has used the “they laughed at Galileo” line to bolster his position.

This speech has come to be known as the “Cornerstone Speech”, and shows that, even though Lost Cause advocates insist that slavery was not the dominant issue of the Civil War, at the time, the actual Confederate leadership certainly seemed to think it was.

Aside from the above, most tenets of the Lost Cause are subjective opinions of individuals and groups. Robert E. Lee, for instance, is deified in the South, and it is curious to note how willing the Lost Cause is to attribute the Confederacy's early military successes to Lee exclusively, yet how unwilling they are to find any fault with his later blunders and disasters, attributing them to his subordinates. James Longstreet, Lee's second-in-command, bears the worst of the scapegoating, despite being Lee's favorite general, and an enormously successful military career. This is mostly in part due to Longstreet's conversion to the Republican party after the war, and his endorsement of Grant's presidency some time later. For a time, Southerners refused to lay flowers at his grave, when attending to those of other, more beloved Confederate figures.

Nevertheless, bits of the Lost Cause have managed to infiltrate common knowledge of history as factoids or general assumptions. A great example of this is the 2003 film Gods and Generals, in which Confederates are depicted as honorable, reluctant warriors defending their freedoms while Union generals are shown as pompous and incompetent. In one scene, Union soldiers are shown ransacking Southerners' houses, at one point being confronted and stopped from entering a house by a black slave who orders them to leave. Confederate generals give long, impassioned monologues about the nature of God's will and how much they don't like war and would be somewhere else if they didn't love their home states and their families so much. General Jackson seems to regularly have conversations on serious matters with a slave who likes him.

The reason Lost Cause mentality has taken root is because of historians' willingness to be as impartial as possible. It is a common cliché that “history is written by those who win the wars”, and historians try to include material from the “other side” whenever prudent in order to avoid a one-sided account. In such a way, the losers of a conflict can take advantage of the goodwill of historians and attempt to win culturally a war they may have lost militarily. I consider this weakness among historians to be very similar to modern geographers' attempts to meet Atlantis woos half-way by conceding that Atlantis did exist, or was inspired by a real place, but that place was Crete (for instance). It inspires the woos to think that maybe they're onto something after all. No, there was no real “Atlantis”, inspirationally or otherwise; and no, the Confederacy did not secede over “states' rights”. Slavery may not have been the only reason behind the Civil War, but it was the largest reason by far. And while they were no geniuses of war or paragons of virtue, the Northern leadership was not incompetent or corrupt; likewise, while there surely were good men among them, the Confederates were not the synthesis of every good thing people can be.

Another prominent result of the Lost Cause mythos is the Southern sentiment surrounding the “rebel flag”, a battle flag used during the Civil War by Confederate units. Most displays of this flag are obviously for peer-acceptance reasons – among certain people, it's just trendy. Others' display of the flag is clearly intended to harass or provoke neighbors and other onlookers. In either case, the use of the flag is justified as an expression of “Southern heritage”, and the user is portrayed as a victim of political-correctness should anyone argue. Consider the bruhaha a few years ago over the redesign of the Georgia state flag. In 1956, the Georgia legislature created the flag as part of a package of legislation aimed at establishing Georgia as a “leader in segregation”, according to the governor at the time. The flag was changed from its earlier incarnation to incorporate a “rebel flag” which took up a larger space on it than any other feature of the flag. Two years earlier, the US Supreme Court's ruling in Brown vs. Board of Education had lead to a significant racist backlash in the South. Many high schools were renamed after Confederate generals during this period. That, coupled with the 1956 redesign incorporating the Confederate flag, and the decision in 1962 to permanently fly an unaltered battle flag beneath the state flag on the capitol building of South Carolina, fairly establishes the connection between modern white Southerners' idea of the Confederacy and the idea of racial inequality. Open white supremacist groups around this time began using the flag as well. In 2001, more than 40 years later, the Governor of Georgia pushed a new flag design through the legislature, an act which outraged many Georgians despite the then-current flag's obvious connection with segregation. The following term, that governor was removed from office. With a similar display of popular outrage on the part of white citizens, the battle flag was removed from the South Carolina state capitol, but only under the condition that the flag be allowed to remain prominently displayed on the Capitol building property. A “Confederate memorial” was quickly commissioned as an excuse for claiming a lack of racist intent and placed on the state capitol lawn, and the flag was relocated there.

[Cainkane1]

While the so called cause can't be justified in a left handed way the Southerners can be proud of a few military firsts. Southerners were the first to sink a ship using a submarine in the history of warfare and the fight between the CSS Virginia and the Monitor was the first gun duel at sea between tow armoured ships. Rapid fire weapons such as machine guns were developed by the North but a Confederate machinegun was ahead of its time also.

maybe the southeasterners shouldn't be proud but a lot of things led to the civil war and the south wasn't entirely to blame. Secedeing from the Union wasn't illegal nor was slavery. Northern sea captains made their fortune from the slave trade. Slavery didn't end in many places until 1895.

[WildCat]

Northern sea captains made their fortune from the slave trade.
No. Importation of slaves was made illegal in 1808.

[Dancing David]

Which Madison fought for because Virginia made a surplus of slaves.

South would had lost unless the took Washington after Gettysberg, not enough men or materials.

[Checkmite]

South would had lost unless the took Washington after Gettysberg, not enough men or materials.

The South lost because of hard fighting and eventually effective resistance by the Union Army, coupled with progressively worse decision-making on the part of the Confederate Army.

[a_unique_person]

It was interesting to see the the US army that fought Nazism was segregated. Some factories that built the materials for the war that were documented by Ken Burns had to be segregated after racial violence. Blacks could only drink from black water taps, for example.

There have been several threads on this topic before, sometimes quite heated.

[Jeff Corey]

And during Nam, our leaders were more than willing to draft black men for cannon fodder. Some progress.

[Gurdur]

1) The South had a large number of military firsts: the very first one is General Longstreet being the first (in the world) to use the railroad to move thousands of troops quickly to a battle (the Battle of The Bull Run, or if you prefer The First Battle of Manassas).

2) The North had some military firsts, much later.

3) The South would have lost very eventually, because the South was expansionist (a large part of the ACW developed because of nasty politicians wanting new slave states and new ways of gaining slaves, e.g. invading and annexing Cuba). So even had the South won the ACW, eventually new war-starting by the South and opposition from the North would have meant the South losing.

4) The OP leaves out many elements in the Lost Cause mythology; ranging from the ignorant crass "If only Lee had backed up Pickett's Charge at Gettysburg", which only shows idiocy, but is still often heard, to "If Only Lee Had Listened To Longstreet", to the utter crap myth that the South just had to lose the ACW (it didn't) because it was agrarian versus the Northern industrial, which is only partly true and did not determine the course of the war; the South could still have won it (but would have lost it later).

[Gurdur]

5) oh, and I forgot to mention: Gods & Generals (one of the worst films I have seen in my life) has been faulted for painting the top Union generals as incompetent fools.

While it is a crap film, this is an unfair criticism of it. In the Eastern theatre of the ACW, the top Union generals for a long while were incompetent fools; good at building an army up but useless or even secretly cowardly about deploying it in battle, and/or just incompetent.

The best Union top commanders came to the Eastern theatre from the Western theatre of the ACW, quite late in the day.

[Nogbad]

One thing that has never been fully clear to me is why the South was simply not allowed to leave the Union? Was this a Monty Python style "no splitters" thing?

[Checkmite]

One thing that has never been fully clear to me is why the South was simply not allowed to leave the Union? Was this a Monty Python style "no splitters" thing?

The Northern position, outlined by the newly-elected President Lincoln, was that the United States Constitution was a binding contract on those states which ratified it; his argument was that secession was unconstitutional and therefore illegal, and the United States would not formally recognize it. Like President Buchanan before him, Lincoln indicated when he took office that he had no intention of attacking the South, nor of ending slavery in states where slavery already existed. He did, however, indicate that he planned on protecting federal property.

It may be argued that hostilities would have begun anyway, somehow. But what is historically true is that the Confederacy began the hostilities by attacking a federal fort when its commander refused to surrender.

[WildCat]

:


Slavery was not the reason for secession. In fact, most Southerners did not even care about slavery. Instead, the war was fought for any number of other reasons; the most commonly mentioned is “State's Rights”.


Of course, the only "state right" in big dispute at the time was the right to legalize slavery.

IOW, it really was about slavery.

[Nogbad]

The Northern position, outlined by the newly-elected President Lincoln, was that the United States Constitution was a binding contract on those states which ratified it; his argument was that secession was unconstitutional and therefore illegal, and the United States would not formally recognize it. Like President Buchanan before him, Lincoln indicated when he took office that he had no intention of attacking the South, nor of ending slavery in states where slavery already existed. He did, however, indicate that he planned on protecting federal property.

It may be argued that hostilities would have begun anyway, somehow. But what is historically true is that the Confederacy began the hostilities by attacking a federal fort when its commander refused to surrender.

So in effect it was a Hotel California "you can check out but you can never leave" thing.

If the South had left peacefully and the Industrial North had inevitably become the wealthier nation would the South have rejoined? (it seems unlikely slavery would have continued in the Confederacy alone while the rest of the world abolished it).

[ConspiRaider]

One thing that has never been fully clear to me is why the South was simply not allowed to leave the Union? Was this a Monty Python style "no splitters" thing?
Because the Civil War was the capstone to years - decades - of conflict over the slavery issue. People in Kansas and Missouri? They were whaling on each other years before the official declaration of hostilities. The "bleeding Kansas" days. Private little wars being conducted by the Jayhawkers (Kansas abolitionists) and Bushwhackers (Missouri slave owners). And the violence was savage, vengeful on both sides of those local conflagrations. People in Lawrence Kansas, for example, would cross the border into Missouri, raise hell, burn and pillage and destroy and kill: And then would bring Missouri cemetery flagstones back to Kansas to be used as home walkways and porches.

This issue of slavery was going to have to be officially addressed, because there was no easing away from it. Far too much culture, tradition, and economic factors, invested over generations of time, were intertwined for amicable solutions to proceed, I think. We had to go through hell to make it official. And we had to make it official to the world as well. England, for example. Who built ships for the Confederacy and who badly needed imports of cotton to continue. After the war, financial reparations with England were sought by the North and some money was paid.

This time in history, in this place, was where the buck had to stop on the reprehensibility of slavery. Given our human nature, that we tend to let things simmer for so long until they become uncontrollable, bloody and horrific war was about the only viable stopper.

[geni]

to the utter crap myth that the South just had to lose the ACW (it didn't) because it was agrarian versus the Northern industrial, which is only partly true and did not determine the course of the war; the South could still have won it (but would have lost it later).

Not complete rubish. The north won to a large extent through better logistics.

[Dancing David]

The South lost because of hard fighting and eventually effective resistance by the Union Army, coupled with progressively worse decision-making on the part of the Confederate Army.

I would say that the troop losses on both sides were staggering, especially from disease. The South was bound to loose unless they had a quick victory.

I would say the decision to attack at Gettysberg was also a mistake. (An understandable one, but Pickett's charge, wow.)

[WildCat]

(An understandable one, but Pickett's charge, wow.)
Charging across a mile of open ground (and uphill to boot) into the teeth of enemy artillery was truly one of the most stupid moves ever. Legend has it just one of his men actually made it to Union lines, don't know if that's true or not.

Problem was, Pickett had gotten cocky from beating the odds in prior campaigns, but his dumb luck had no chance at Gettysburg.

[Dancing David]

One of the more interesting states rights cases:
http://www.enotes.com/supreme-court-drama/ableman-v-booth

Also the Constiution had many fights over state's right although slavery was the biggest by far.

Jefferson's opposition to the Federal Bank is also interesting because of his feeling that there was going to be a new aristocracy (which is strange , since he was a member of it).

The most interesting to me of the state's rights issues is represented by the Whiskey Rebellion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_rebellion

[Dancing David]

Charging across a mile of open ground (and uphill to boot) into the teeth of enemy artillery was truly one of the most stupid moves ever. Legend has it just one of his men actually made it to Union lines, don't know if that's true or not.

Problem was, Pickett had gotten cocky from beating the odds in prior campaigns, but his dumb luck had no chance at Gettysburg.


I know Lee wanted the rail and road line and to whip the Union army, or something like that. But gosh they could have run to the mountains instead.

I was at Gettysberg this summer, that field is huge, and it is hard for me to imagine the carnage. But then they were still attacking entrenched lines fifty years later.

[ConspiRaider]

Charging across a mile of open ground (and uphill to boot) into the teeth of enemy artillery was truly one of the most stupid moves ever. Legend has it just one of his men actually made it to Union lines, don't know if that's true or not.

Problem was, Pickett had gotten cocky from beating the odds in prior campaigns, but his dumb luck had no chance at Gettysburg.
Hey Cat -

Apparently some of the rebels made it to a small section of the Union wall, some fierce fighting, hand to hand, but all of those rebels either were killed or captured.

You meant Lee, right, about the cockiness? Supposedly Pickett hadn't been involved in a prior battle.

13,000 men go across the field, 6,500 come back. Of course the Union got the snot beat out of it the day before, July the 2nd, in the peach orchards, with equally foolhardy battle tactics.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Of course, the only "state right" in big dispute at the time was the right to legalize slavery.

IOW, it really was about slavery.

Exactly.

Saying the Civil War was not about slavery is like saying WWII was not about Hitler.

[WildCat]

You meant Lee, right, about the cockiness? Supposedly Pickett hadn't been involved in a prior battle.
Oops, yeah it was lee who ordered the charge.

[ConspiRaider]

I know Lee wanted the rail and road line and to whip the Union army, or something like that. But gosh they could have run to the mountains instead.

I was at Gettysberg this summer, that field is huge, and it is hard for me to imagine the carnage. But then they were still attacking entrenched lines fifty years later.
Well I am envious, David. I really have to get to Gettysburg one of these old days, and Arlington, and Appomattox Court House, and Antietam and Cold Harbor and Petersburg and Richmond and Vicksburg and Manassas / Bull Run and and and...

[UnrepentantSinner]

...to the utter crap myth that the South just had to lose the ACW (it didn't) because it was agrarian versus the Northern industrial, which is only partly true and did not determine the course of the war; the South could still have won it (but would have lost it later).

Shelby Foote (hardly a Northen Apologist) commented in Burns' The Civil War that the Union faught with one hand held behind its back and that if things had started looking dire they would just have brought out that other arm.

[autumn1971]

I thought that, despite the percieved illegality of secession, the US would have quietly accepted the South's departure as long as the Conferderate states were kind enough to pay for every scrap of Federal property they possessed (a clearly impossible demand).
Could be because I'm from the South, but I was taught that secession was about slavery, but the excuse for the shooting was about money.

[Chaos]

So in effect it was a Hotel California "you can check out but you can never leave" thing.

Not quite. The states could not leave. The people could. Nobody would have prevented those slave-owners to pack up their stuff and move to some place where nobody had any problems with slavery.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Not quite. The states could not leave. The people could. Nobody would have prevented those slave-owners to pack up their stuff and move to some place where nobody had any problems with slavery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_colonies

[Checkmite]

I thought that, despite the percieved illegality of secession, the US would have quietly accepted the South's departure as long as the Conferderate states were kind enough to pay for every scrap of Federal property they possessed (a clearly impossible demand).

Not impossible at all; representatives from the South actually did offer to buy all the federal land down there at one point. However, they presented themselves as the Confederacy; Lincoln could not accept the offer, as it would have effectively established recognition of the Confederacy as a legitimate foreign country.

[sackett]

Before Sumter, some Northern fool said of the Confederacy, "Aye, let her go, and fair fortune to our daughter." That's about equal parts bull and chicken

shoot, if I'd been around then, I would have answered, "But I do not choose to see my country torn apart for the profit of what Andy Johnson accurately calls 'a scrub aristocracy.'"

We shouldn't underestimate the strength of regional animosity (which exists to this day), and to the irritant power of Southern stidency and insolence. Johnny spent several generations buying and paying for what he finally got.

[Kaylee]

Slavery didn't end in many places until 1895.

???

The 13th amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion), which abolished slavery, passed in 1865.

[Doubt]

I agree with the opening post about everything except Lee.

Yes, he made some really big blunders. Yes he gambled. Won some and lost some.

Most of Lee's success came from figuring out what he opposition was going to do before they knew it themselves.

Specific screw ups aside, I don't really see how else he could play the cards dealt to him after accepting command. Play defense and get over run by superior numbers and better supplies. Take the battle to the enemy and the a few more options open up. Lee was able to keep his opposition off balance for quite some time. Considering the disadvantages, he did better than most others could expect under the circumstances. Lee was playing a game similar to the Prussian army to beat greater numbers. Similar ideas with even more flexibility were also adopted by the US army at the end of the cold war as a way to confront the Warsaw Pact. (A transformation I was able to witness first hand.)

But if you roll the dice enough, you are going to lose. Lee kept rolling when the North did not give up and the quick victory never happened. The odds played out and he could not win.

But Lee was not alone. The army of northern Virgina had the best military talent the Confederacy had to offer. OTOH, the other big Confederate army was mostly known as the army of Tennessee. It had the dregs of the Confederate leadership and was ultimately the door mat for Sherman's march to the sea. Lee's greatest weakness was not on the battlefield. Lee's greatest weakness was keeping resources and talent in the east under his control and not supporting his western flank enough.

Pickett's charge? Yes that was a big blunder. Study George Washington on Manhattan and you will see an even bigger one.

If you were in Lee's position, what would you do? Attacking the Union's left flank had failed. Attacking the right was a very risky option given the that the Union line was curved back on itself. (For those not acquainted with the idea, study "lines of communication" to understand the Union advantage there.) That leaves pushing the center or withdraw. Withdraw was probably the better option, but Lee again rolled the dice. Probably betting that the attack would be unexpected and would catch the Union off guard. The distance was to great to pull it off. Maybe if they had attacked in the dark they could have reached the line more intact but then they would not be able to control what happened next.

But bigger blunder took place at Gettysburg on the Union side. And it was the same mistake made over and over again when Grant was not running things. They failed to pursue Lee and his army escaped again.

[Checkmite]

Charging across a mile of open ground (and uphill to boot) into the teeth of enemy artillery was truly one of the most stupid moves ever. Legend has it just one of his men actually made it to Union lines, don't know if that's true or not.


More than one did; a number of Confederates, surprisingly including a brigade commander, General Armistead, managed to contact the federal line (General Webb's brigade) at a place known as "the Angle", and initiated a brief hand-to-hand fight. It's unsure technically which regiment would be credited with reaching the position, as at this point order had pretty much broken down and the men were probably a mix of the remnants of a couple of different regiments. In any case, they were all quickly taken care of. This point, marked with a large National Park Service monument, is known as the "High Water Mark", the furthest advancement of Pickett's Charge.

Traditionally, the High Water Mark is considered the point at which the Confederacy stood the best chance of winning the Civil War, but I personally disagree with this. No serious military historian or tactician will argue with the fact that, from the moment it kicked off, there was never any point at which Pickett's Charge looked as if it had any possibility of succeeding. Because of this, I would place the beginning of the Confederacy's demise not at the end of Pickett's Charge, but at the beginning; and as such, I consider the point at which the Confederacy stood the best chance of winning the Civil War to be their position on Seminary Ridge at sunrise on July 3rd, before General Lee ordered the charge. Pickett's Charge is one of the biggest, if not THE biggest, military blunders in modern history.

I would like to have been at Gettysburg on July 3rd, 1913. There was a large reunion held there, of both Union and Confederate veterans - some 52,000 of them. At the culmination of the event, the Confederate veterans began marching from Seminary Ridge toward Cemetery Ridge in a reenactment, of sorts, of Pickett's Charge. When they reached the wall that marked the Union position, the assembled Union veterans reached out their hands to help the Confederates over the wall, and embraced them.

[gtc]

I would like to have been at Gettysburg on July 3rd, 1913. There was a large reunion held there, of both Union and Confederate veterans - some 52,000 of them. At the culmination of the event, the Confederate veterans began marching from Seminary Ridge toward Cemetery Ridge in a reenactment, of sorts, of Pickett's Charge. When they reached the wall that marked the Union position, the assembled Union veterans reached out their hands to help the Confederates over the wall, and embraced them.

I think footage of that was shown in Ken Burns documentary. Very moving.

[Checkmite]

But Lee was not alone. The army of northern Virgina had the best military talent the Confederacy had to offer. OTOH, the other big Confederate army was mostly known as the army of Tennessee. It had the dregs of the Confederate leadership and was ultimately the door mat for Sherman's march to the sea. Lee's greatest weakness was not on the battlefield. Lee's greatest weakness was keeping resources and talent in the east under his control and not supporting his western flank enough.

Pickett's charge? Yes that was a big blunder. Study George Washington on Manhattan and you will see an even bigger one.

I'd like you to qualify that. I can't see how the loss of Fort Washington under a nearly 5-1 attacking force advantage qualifies as a "blunder". It's not even in the same league as Pickett's Charge.

If you were in Lee's position, what would you do? Attacking the Union's left flank had failed. Attacking the right was a very risky option given the that the Union line was curved back on itself. (For those not acquainted with the idea, study "lines of communication" to understand the Union advantage there.) That leaves pushing the center or withdraw. Withdraw was probably the better option, but Lee again rolled the dice. Probably betting that the attack would be unexpected and would catch the Union off guard. The distance was to great to pull it off. Maybe if they had attacked in the dark they could have reached the line more intact but then they would not be able to control what happened next.

As "obvious" as you make an attack on the center of the line sound, you have to be senile not to expect that the Union would think of it, too - which they did, which is why the Charge failed. What's obvious to you should've been incredibly obvious to such a "genius" as Lee. Perhaps that WAS his problem - he was going senile.

Since an attack on the center was, indeed, the most obvious course of action, the Union would naturally suspect it and reinforce the center. All those reinforcements had to come from somewhere - to wit: the left and the right. The Union's salient on the right was a weakness, not a strength, when you take into account that the entire curve of the line was facing enemy forces, which practically surrounded it. That end of the line would not have been able to advance or change its position under any circumstances. The alternative is to attack the left, again. Since the left of the line simply terminated at the Round Tops, it would not have taken much to flank that end and start rolling it up until the Union position was essentially surrounded. That means flanking, not a frontal assault on that line. The only reason the attack on the Union left failed was because, quite luckily, the line extended further south than the Confederate commanders thought it did. Since they now knew where the flank proper was, a new assault around it was the most logical choice. Would it have worked in practice? Perhaps not, but it stood a much better chance of succeeding than a frontal assault on the center.

Consider, for a moment, that even if the Union had not anticipated the central assault, they could easily have reinforced the center in the time it took for the Confederate army to march in formation across a mile of open ground where the entire Union line could observe their every move. Consider also that in defending against a center assault, one could rely on artillery support from not only the center, but the left and right ends simultaneously. Contrarily, defending against a flank assault robs your artillery of effectiveness, as there comes a point where the enemy's line crosses the horizon of your own line, and you have no clear line of fire.

No, there's no way to spin it, no "what else could he have done". He could've done many other things. Pickett's Charge was the worst option in a vast, deep, despairing, tragic ocean of bad options. It was stupid, stupid, stupid.

But bigger blunder took place at Gettysburg on the Union side. And it was the same mistake made over and over again when Grant was not running things. They failed to pursue Lee and his army escaped again.

The Union Army at the conclusion of the Battle of Gettysburg were exhausted - they were out of energy, out of ammo, low on everything else, including non-wounded soldiers. They were in no condition to directly engage the retreating Confederates. They DID follow them, however, until the Southern army had completely left Union territory.

One could disagree with Meade's decision; however, considering that Pickett's Charge had a direct, measurable contribution to the loss of the war for the South, while the Union's halfhearted pursuit did not lead in anyway to a loss for the North, calling Meade's decision a "bigger blunder" than Lee's rather courageously defies logic and common sense.

[Doubt]

I'd like you to qualify that. I can't see how the loss of Fort Washington under a nearly 5-1 attacking force advantage qualifies as a "blunder". It's not even in the same league as Pickett's Charge.

More like start over instead of qualifying it. I was thinking of the Battle of Long Island.


As "obvious" as you make an attack on the center of the line sound, you have to be senile not to expect that the Union would think of it, too - which they did, which is why the Charge failed. What's obvious to you should've been incredibly obvious to such a "genius" as Lee. Perhaps that WAS his problem - he was going senile.

Since an attack on the center was, indeed, the most obvious course of action, the Union would naturally suspect it and reinforce the center. All those reinforcements had to come from somewhere - to wit: the left and the right. The Union's salient on the right was a weakness, not a strength, when you take into account that the entire curve of the line was facing enemy forces, which practically surrounded it. That end of the line would not have been able to advance or change its position under any circumstances. The alternative is to attack the left, again. Since the left of the line simply terminated at the Round Tops, it would not have taken much to flank that end and start rolling it up until the Union position was essentially surrounded. That means flanking, not a frontal assault on that line. The only reason the attack on the Union left failed was because, quite luckily, the line extended further south than the Confederate commanders thought it did. Since they now knew where the flank proper was, a new assault around it was the most logical choice. Would it have worked in practice? Perhaps not, but it stood a much better chance of succeeding than a frontal assault on the center.


It is not unusual for armies to get lazy and fail to defend against the obvious. Or put up a front to make it look like they are. (The later bit being used by armies with inferior numbers and does not apply to the union here.) the failure can take two forms. One is the leadership delegates authority and and ignores it and the other is for the lower level commanders and troops to assume they won't get attacked. There are many examples of such failures in military history.

Second, the curve of the union line is, excuse my shouting...AN ADVANTAGE! Look, if you have a line that curves back, you can move troops, supplies and information faster than the enemy on the other side. The curve works against them. They either have to travel a somewhat longer distance within sight or a much longer distance out of sight to pull off the flanking effort. This means it takes much less effort for the Union to re-enforce a flank than it does for the confederates to flank them. The advantages of the curve apply to the whole of the line.


No, there's no way to spin it, no "what else could he have done". He could've done many other things. Pickett's Charge was the worst option in a vast, deep, despairing, tragic ocean of bad options. It was stupid, stupid, stupid.

As I also said, the better option would to have withdrawn. Next would possible have been a night attack that would have caused their attack to not be noticed right away. Flanking action requires you to move quicker than your enemy. Where was that Confederate cavalry?

BTW. The attack on Little Round top was a flank attack. It failed.


The Union Army at the conclusion of the Battle of Gettysburg were exhausted - they were out of energy, out of ammo, low on everything else, including non-wounded soldiers. They were in no condition to directly engage the retreating Confederates. They DID follow them, however, until the Southern army had completely left Union territory.

One could disagree with Meade's decision; however, considering that Pickett's Charge had a direct, measurable contribution to the loss of the war for the South, while the Union's halfhearted pursuit did not lead in anyway to a loss for the North, calling Meade's decision a "bigger blunder" than Lee's rather courageously defies logic and common sense.

No. Sorry, but failure to pursue is a blunder unless you are in worse shape than your enemy. This is what they did under Grant and failed to do over and over again without him. And they did when the troops were exhausted. The quote Napoleon: "The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier."

Which army was in worse shape after Pickett's charge? Letting your enemy escape costs you by allowing them to reform. Which is what Lee's forces did.

[Checkmite]

Second, the curve of the union line is, excuse my shouting...AN ADVANTAGE! Look, if you have a line that curves back, you can move troops, supplies and information faster than the enemy on the other side. The curve works against them. They either have to travel a somewhat longer distance within sight or a much longer distance out of sight to pull off the flanking effort. This means it takes much less effort for the Union to re-enforce a flank than it does for the confederates to flank them. The advantages of the curve apply to the whole of the line.

Gettysburg was a special scenario. Along the extreme right, the Confederates held the town and higher ground on Culp's hill. All they had to do was take potshots at the Union line, without actually trying to advance, in order to stress that end and keep it from being able to support any other part of the line. It is true that reinforcements would be directed that way...but those reinforcements would have to come from other parts of the line, thinning it out.


As I also said, the better option would to have withdrawn. Next would possible have been a night attack that would have caused their attack to not be noticed right away. Flanking action requires you to move quicker than your enemy. Where was that Confederate cavalry?

It was to the south of the Union line, standing by to harass the retreating Union army that never ended up retreating.

BTW. The attack on Little Round top was a flank attack. It failed.

I already covered this; in fact, you quoted the coverage, but seem to have blipped over it. The attack on Little Round Top was an attack on the Union flank, but it was not a flanking maneuver. And I explained the reason for that.

No. Sorry, but failure to pursue is a blunder unless you are in worse shape than your enemy. This is what they did under Grant and failed to do over and over again without him. And they did when the troops were exhausted. The quote Napoleon: "The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier."

Grant had the advantage of knowledge - of how greatly demoralized the enemy was, and of the Confederacy's weakness as a whole due to developments in the western theatre...knowledge that Meade did not have. At the time it happened, Meade had absolutely no idea how badly Gettysburg had damaged Lee's army, therefore was incapable of knowing whether the rebs were in worse shape. Pickett's Charge was the result of a number of very bad assumptions on Lee's part: Meade knew this, and learned a lesson from it. He was certainly not going to throw his army at the enemy the same way Lee had done, without sufficient intelligence. Once he had that intelligence, he DID pursue.

And, when Grant became aware that Lee was on his last leg, of course THEN he was relentless.

Which army was in worse shape after Pickett's charge? Letting your enemy escape costs you by allowing them to reform. Which is what Lee's forces did.

As explained above, Meade could not have known that Lee's army was in worse shape. Lee had routinely defeated the federals time and time again over the past two years. Over the past three days, the Army of the Potomac had been kicked all over hell by the Confederates. Lee won at McPherson's Ridge, he won at Seminary Ridge, he won in Will's Woods, he won on Culp's Hill, he won in the Peach Orchard. Meade won at Little Round Top - that's it. Since his army had been continually pushed further and further east, away from their previous battlefields, Meade had no intelligence on enemy losses. Pickett's Charge was obviously a great victory but it would've been foolish to assume that single engagement had left Lee's army worse off as a whole than Meade's battered troops.

[WildCat]

I would like to have been at Gettysburg on July 3rd, 1913. There was a large reunion held there, of both Union and Confederate veterans - some 52,000 of them. At the culmination of the event, the Confederate veterans began marching from Seminary Ridge toward Cemetery Ridge in a reenactment, of sorts, of Pickett's Charge. When they reached the wall that marked the Union position, the assembled Union veterans reached out their hands to help the Confederates over the wall, and embraced them.
Here's one pic of that reunion: http://www.civilwarphotos.net/files/images/819.jpg

[WildCat]

Well I am envious, David. I really have to get to Gettysburg one of these old days, and Arlington, and Appomattox Court House, and Antietam and Cold Harbor and Petersburg and Richmond and Vicksburg and Manassas / Bull Run and and and...
I'd like to spend a full day their myself. You look at an old photo, such as this famous one of the dead Confederate sniper: http://www.civilwarphotos.net/files/images/098.jpg and it seems so distant and far away. Then you see the same spot today: http://www.panoramio.com/photo/937478 and it is suddenly real, here's where a soldier died. :(

[angelsaramark]

Your suppositions are baseless. What if the South had won the war? Then would be talking about the evil north trying to stop slavery while you sipped a mint julep delivered by one of your slaves?

YES, you would. You have fallen victim to the argument framers who have usurped the minds of the world. They draw a circle around their view of history and then people never venture out of it. With your logic, you should also be pointing out the evil of the USA who killed indians to gain this land, enslaved the black man way prior to the civil war and utilized white slaves or Irish descent (conscripted off the streets as urchin children) and indentured servants. You can't root for King George to have defeated the USA because he too was a slaver, so all we can do is all kill ourselves to absolve our guilt.

The victor writes history, no side is without guilt and you have to pick a side.

[Checkmite]

Your suppositions are baseless. What if the South had won the war? Then would be talking about the evil north trying to stop slavery while you sipped a mint julep delivered by one of your slaves?

YES, you would. You have fallen victim to the argument framers who have usurped the minds of the world. They draw a circle around their view of history and then people never venture out of it. With your logic, you should also be pointing out the evil of the USA who killed indians to gain this land, enslaved the black man way prior to the civil war and utilized white slaves or Irish descent (conscripted off the streets as urchin children) and indentured servants. You can't root for King George to have defeated the USA because he too was a slaver, so all we can do is all kill ourselves to absolve our guilt.

The victor writes history, no side is without guilt and you have to pick a side.

What are you babbling about? What makes you think that I do not condemn the actions of the United States against the natives, or the English colonists' practice of slavery, or the internment of citizens of Japanese descent during World War II? Because I have not mentioned them in this thread? I'm sorry, but the title of this thread is "The Lost Cause of the Confederacy", and it is about historical revisionism on the part of Southern sympathizers after the American Civil War. If you want to talk about a different topic, start your own thread, and stop trying to hijack mine.

[ConspiRaider]

I'd like to spend a full day their myself. You look at an old photo, such as this famous one of the dead Confederate sniper: http://www.civilwarphotos.net/files/images/098.jpg and it seems so distant and far away. Then you see the same spot today: http://www.panoramio.com/photo/937478 and it is suddenly real, here's where a soldier died. :(
Good finds, Cat, thanks much.

I spent 3 years in ole Virginny as a U.S. sailor, been through Fredericksburg, Richmond, Hyattstown, even had a few dates with a girl from Manassas. You'd have thought I'd have gone through at least some of the Civil War sites, right? HA! Nope. I was still young and foolhardy and wasn't taking much of anything seriously then.

Gonna hafta get back there. I'll write a book or film about it, and then I can write off the whole trip!!

[Dancing David]

The exciting part is the drive on RT 30 down into the valley, wow.

It is a very sad place to me. meaningful but sad.

[malbui]

Well I am envious, David. I really have to get to Gettysburg one of these old days, and Arlington, and Appomattox Court House, and Antietam and Cold Harbor and Petersburg and Richmond and Vicksburg and Manassas / Bull Run and and and...


The first time I went to the US, back in 1994, I drove from DC out to Manassas to see the site of Bull Run, spending my first night in the US there, and then headed up into Pennsylvania and spent a day at Gettysburg. Those names have a chilling resonance even for those of us born the other side of the Atlantic.

[sackett]

...Those names have a chilling resonance even for those of us born the other side of the Atlantic.

I once read a Russian's response when he was told the number of casualties at Gettysburg: "My god! More than Borodino!"

That startled me. Everyone knows that Borodino was the most concentrated slaughter in modern times -- and so it was. But the US Civil War as a whole was one of the deadliest of the 19th. century, Napoleon not excepted, and surely the most destructive.

Borodino, Gettysburg, Stalingrad, Verdun, the Somme. How terribly those bells toll.

[ConspiRaider]

The first time I went to the US, back in 1994, I drove from DC out to Manassas to see the site of Bull Run, spending my first night in the US there, and then headed up into Pennsylvania and spent a day at Gettysburg. Those names have a chilling resonance even for those of us born the other side of the Atlantic.
Not that far behind ya, Mal, I'm only 2nd generation American.:)

But still: When the very fine folks from across The Pond have troden (treaden? treadlied? trodified) okay WALKED on these historic Civil War battlegrounds then I hafta. Maybe summer 2009.

I've been to Lawrence Kansas, though, the site of the big nasty Quantrill's Raid on that city, effectively destroying it on August 21, 1863. Mentioned this, worked it into my Western screenplay. Because if you write about the Old West, the Civil War is right there in back. Jesse James, for example, was in Quantrill's Raiders.

[Doubt]

Your suppositions are baseless. What if the South had won the war? Then would be talking about the evil north trying to stop slavery while you sipped a mint julep delivered by one of your slaves?

So much ignorance expressed in so few words. Study the general trend of slavery in the rest of Western culture in it is apparent that the South was bucking a trend of ending slavery driven by a more enlightened world and a recognition that slavery did not make sense from an economic viewpoint.


They draw a circle around their view of history and then people never venture out of it.

He is challenging the status quo of history as viewed by a sizable percentage of the US population.

[Doubt]

As explained above, Meade could not have known that Lee's army was in worse shape. Lee had routinely defeated the federals time and time again over the past two years. Over the past three days, the Army of the Potomac had been kicked all over hell by the Confederates. Lee won at McPherson's Ridge, he won at Seminary Ridge, he won in Will's Woods, he won on Culp's Hill, he won in the Peach Orchard. Meade won at Little Round Top - that's it. Since his army had been continually pushed further and further east, away from their previous battlefields, Meade had no intelligence on enemy losses. Pickett's Charge was obviously a great victory but it would've been foolish to assume that single engagement had left Lee's army worse off as a whole than Meade's battered troops.

I would say that you know the battle there much better than I do. But you opinions of Lee and Meade I still disagree with. So would the US army which is the source of my opinion regarding what happened there. Meade got raked over the coals for the failure to pursue.

Also note that it would be difficult for Meade not to know what the condition of Lee's forces since they were being shadowed by Union Cavalry on they way back south. Meade failed to follow up as he should have. He could have either destroyed or much more badly damaged Lee at the Potomac but just did not follow up.

Grant, OTOH did not have a habit of retreating right from the start. He earned but was not given the nickname of "butcher" long before Cold Harbor. But there was no error in what he was doing. He had more men and supplies than his opponent just as all his predecessor had. And Like his predecessors, he could replace his losses. Lee could not do that and that is why Grant pushed hard. Meade and those before him did not and helped Lee earn his reputation. Grant did what it took to end the war while others panicked about the losses of individual battles while failing to grasp the big picture and failing to follow up victories.

In the end, Lee was a good but not great general although the potential was there. Most of those who faced him just made him look good by comparison. If Lee had the resources of the North I think you would judge him differently.

[Giz]

Shelby Foote (hardly a Northen Apologist) commented in Burns' The Civil War that the Union faught with one hand held behind its back and that if things had started looking dire they would just have brought out that other arm.

I dunno... depends if the morale of the Northern population had held firm in the face of reverses. As late as the presidential elections in 1864 there was a strong sentiment of 'is the war futile' running through the North. Defeatism was strong enough that the Democratic candidate got saddled with an anti war platform and Lincoln was down in the polls and looking likely to lose until Sherman took Atlanta, proving that the Northern war effort was making headway... saving the election (and thereby the USA).

IOW... the North had enough material to go on grinding down the south till kingsdom come but whather the will would be there was another matter. (Thankfully Abe won in 1864).

[shuize]

I dunno... depends if the morale of the Northern population had held firm in the face of reverses. As late as the presidential elections in 1864 there was a strong sentiment of 'is the war futile' running through the North. Defeatism was strong enough that the Democratic candidate got saddled with an anti war platform and Lincoln was down in the polls and looking likely to lose until Sherman took Atlanta, proving that the Northern war effort was making headway... saving the election (and thereby the USA).

IOW... the North had enough material to go on grinding down the south till kingsdom come but whather the will would be there was another matter. (Thankfully Abe won in 1864).


I agree.

While I respect the hell out of Shelby Foote, a few more serious losses prior to the 1864 election and things could have played out much differently politically.

In my opinion, Northern victory was not a foregone conclusion.

[ConspiRaider]

I dunno... depends if the morale of the Northern population had held firm in the face of reverses. As late as the presidential elections in 1864 there was a strong sentiment of 'is the war futile' running through the North. Defeatism was strong enough that the Democratic candidate got saddled with an anti war platform and Lincoln was down in the polls and looking likely to lose until Sherman took Atlanta, proving that the Northern war effort was making headway... saving the election (and thereby the USA).

IOW... the North had enough material to go on grinding down the south till kingsdom come but whather the will would be there was another matter. (Thankfully Abe won in 1864).
And in retrospect, thankfully the fumbly and timorous generaling that had plagued the North for so long, finally ended with the helmsmanship of the 2 Ohio boys, Grant and Sherman. Those two men, through their stubbornness and focus and savagery and sheer drive - have to be given a lot of the credit for pushing this conflict forward and decisively ending it. And of course Lincoln - who always wanted the conflict pressed and ended as abrubtly as possible - deserves credit for finally landing on the right choices. Without that - we could have been looking at a decades-long sporadic guerrilla-type war.

[JimBenArm]

Not that far behind ya, Mal, I'm only 2nd generation American.:)

But still: When the very fine folks from across The Pond have troden (treaden? treadlied? trodified) okay WALKED on these historic Civil War battlegrounds then I hafta. Maybe summer 2009.

I've been to Lawrence Kansas, though, the site of the big nasty Quantrill's Raid on that city, effectively destroying it on August 21, 1863. Mentioned this, worked it into my Western screenplay. Because if you write about the Old West, the Civil War is right there in back. Jesse James, for example, was in Quantrill's Raiders.
This infamous raid is part of my family heritage. I'm fourth-generation native of Clay County, MO, birthplace of Jesse James, and my relatives rode with Quantrill and Jesse, and participated in the raid, according to family lore.
Another interesting note on this, is that the Border Showdown football game (formerly called the Border War until that became non-PC) between Missouri University and Kansas University has always been a little extra nasty because of this bit of history. When the rivalry started, it wasn't all that far removed from the actual raid, and there were people with living memory of the event. Just an added bit of tinder for the fire.

[Darth Rotor]

The South lost because of hard fighting and eventually effective resistance by the Union Army, coupled with progressively worse decision-making on the part of the Confederate Army.
Hi. That is quite incorrect. The South did not invade the North to begin the war. You will note that the Antietam and Gettysburg campaigns were unusual, in that Lee's Army was moving deep into the Union. The first year of the war saw the Union penetrate into various parts of the Confederacy, and for that matter border states, with mixed results. The whole point was to suppress The Rebellion, which many Northerners called the war, at its outset. (See also western campaign versus eastern/Virginia campaign.) Winfield Scott's Anaconda strategy was a sound one, and had George McClelland not been such an overly organized and anal retentive general, might have succeeded far sooner than it did. He was good at setting up a campaign, not so good once the lead began to fly. (See the Antietam campaign for a classic example of McClelland's tactical shortcomings. )

Gurdur's remarks on how poor Union High Command was in the Virginia theater is well documented by plenty of CW historians. (Catton, among others.)

Union "resistance" to the Confederates is the most incorrect way I have ever seen the Civil War, and the adaptations of the two sides, characterized. The Union had to invade the South in order to suppress, or overcome, succession. (aka The Rebellion) So, the Union did. In due course, it was a successful method. One of Lee's few advantages is how well he knew the opposing officers, particularly early on in the war, due to the very small fraternity of regular Army officers then in existence in the US, the products of West Point. However, he did not start the war in command, but as a senior military adviser to Jefferson Davis. I am sure you are aware that Lincoln and Scott selected to lead the Union Army one Colonel Robert E Lee, in 1861, a Colonel then on assignment in Texas. He declined, for the reasons so often cited.

As to Robert E Lee marching into history after the surrender at Appomattox, hell, into legend, I don't understand what you find wrong with that. Why does that bother you? (Or seem to.) Stonewall Jackson also marched into legend, as he died after Chancellorsville. His legacy as a superb combat commander is as valid as Hannibal's or Rommel's, two leaders who also ended up on the losing side, eventually.

For my money, The Road to Disunion (http://www.amazon.com/Road-Disunion-Secessionists-1776-1854-Vol/dp/0195072596)is an excellent and detailed look into US history, 19th century, that does much to illuminate the root causes of the war. Slavery cannot be extricated from the root cause, which was obvious as far back as 1820, and possibly as far back as the compromises of 1789 that resulted in the Constitution's approval.

In summary: with the method for Constitutional amendment agreed, it was only a matter of time before enough non slave states were in the Union, a condition that would set up an amendment, and its passage, that would render slavery illegal. For the pro slavery faction in the South, it had been obvious for years. Choice: stick around and see it rammed down their throat, or, leave the Union and have their own country where they could make the laws to their own liking. The leadership eventually chose the latter.

DR

[ConspiRaider]

This infamous raid is part of my family heritage. I'm fourth-generation native of Clay County, MO, birthplace of Jesse James, and my relatives rode with Quantrill and Jesse, and participated in the raid, according to family lore.
Another interesting note on this, is that the Border Showdown football game (formerly called the Border War until that became non-PC) between Missouri University and Kansas University has always been a little extra nasty because of this bit of history. When the rivalry started, it wasn't all that far removed from the actual raid, and there were people with living memory of the event. Just an added bit of tinder for the fire.
Very interesting, Cap'n. I think I'll send you the updated version of my Western screenplay if you wish. PM me if so.

Quantrill was yet ANOTHER Ohio boy, schoolteacher, anti-slavery, but who was forged into the terror of the Confederacy he was to become, because of the ferocity and savagery of the Kansas - Missouri border wars.

Supposedly Jesse and Frank James, as young kids, watched their parents being murdered by the Jayhawkers. That apparently formed their crucible of lifetime violence. Although I think Frank finally calmed down a bit, into his senior years.

As you probably well know, Cap'n, Eastwood's The Outlaw Josey Wales was based upon Quantrill's Raiders and the aftermath.

As with so many wars, the actual day-to-day fighting motivations can stem from retribution, score-evening, vengeance. The cause? Who cares about the cause! "Those bastards killed my brother and my 2 buddies! Get 'em and kill 'em back!!!"

[Gurdur]

.... Quantrill was yet ANOTHER Ohio boy, schoolteacher, anti-slavery, but who was forged into the terror of the Confederacy he was to become, because of the ferocity and savagery of the Kansas - Missouri border wars.

Supposedly Jesse and Frank James, .....


Was Quantrill "forged into the terror", or did he help forge it?

There seem to be a fair few good reasons to heavily suspect he was simply a psychopath who found some golden opportunities and excuses.

[ConspiRaider]

Was Quantrill "forged into the terror", or did he help forge it?

There seem to be a fair few good reasons to heavily suspect he was simply a psychopath who found some golden opportunities and excuses.
Quantrill certainly went beyond the bounds - way beyond. It's why the Confederacy wouldn't give him a commission. His group was an outlaw group. I'd guess the Confederacy quietly applauded some of his actions because of their consequences to the Union, but in no way could they endorse them forthrightly.

War tends to magnify certain aspects of some individuals, to skew them. Grant was not much of a factor in civilian life, nor as an officer before the war, nor as a President after the war. But that brief few years of leadership in the early 1860s defines the lion's share of what we think of when we recall Grant. Sherman, as well. Look at what Sherman did from Atlanta to Savannah, and then through South Carolina. That is still considered atrocious behavior because of its rawness, its savagery. Yet his evaluation of the war eventually pushed Sherman into that mode of thinking, the opportunity was presented and off he went. With Lincoln's approval.

Obviously we know Quantrill didn't simply wake up one day and say: "Geez, I think I'll get 2 or 3 hundred guys together and burn down Lawrence, Kansas, and kill a couple of hundred men and boys in the town while I'm at it!" To get there, Quantrill had to have extraordinary leadership skills and of course, motivation. The terrible effects of the "bleeding Kansas" days provided plenty of motives for him and his men.

According to my research, he and a friend were attacked by Jayhawkers before the war while Quantrill was on his way West. His friend was killed, Quantrill was left for dead. But he survived, and it was the turning point in his brief life, and for the lives of thousands of others. Still, so little is known, definitively, about nearly everyone in that time period. When you research the Old West, for example, you discover that much of what we "know" is based on hearsay, tall tales, embellishments, outright boners, outrageous exaggerations.

I don't know whether Quantrill was a psychopath. Don't know if J. W. Booth was either. They both died violently at or near the age of 27 as a result of the skewed violence they both wreaked. Fitting, I suppose.

[Checkmite]

Hi. That is quite incorrect. The South did not invade the North to begin the war. You will note that the Antietam and Gettysburg campaigns were unusual, in that Lee's Army was moving deep into the Union. The first year of the war saw the Union penetrate into various parts of the Confederacy, and for that matter border states, with mixed results. The whole point was to suppress The Rebellion, which many Northerners called the war, at its outset. (See also western campaign versus eastern/Virginia campaign.) Winfield Scott's Anaconda strategy was a sound one, and had George McClelland not been such an overly organized and anal retentive general, might have succeeded far sooner than it did. He was good at setting up a campaign, not so good once the lead began to fly. (See the Antietam campaign for a classic example of McClelland's tactical shortcomings. )

While it is true that the Union at the beginning moved into the South, it is important to remember a few things: firstly that, even whilst invading the South, the Union was continually pushed around by the Southern forces, and it was two years before they were able to effectively stop being pushed around, which is the "resistance" I was referring to; secondly, that the South provoked the Union into military action by attacking a Union fort, which had been federal property for 34 years; in the act of capturing it, it could be argued that the Confederacy invaded Union territory first (Southern claims of ownership notwithstanding, the land was administered and maintained by the federal government, not the state government of South Carolina); and thirdly, that the actual turning point of the war did occur during an invasion of the North by the Southern army, however rare such an event was, at which point the Union was on the defensive and the term "resistance" would still be proper.

Gurdur's remarks on how poor Union High Command was in the Virginia theater is well documented by plenty of CW historians. (Catton, among others.)

If you re-read my OP, you will note that my problems with the Lost Cause depiction of Northern military leadership was not that its shortcomings are explained, but that they are emphasized while Southern leaders are deified as paragons of virtue who could do no wrong.

Union "resistance" to the Confederates is the most incorrect way I have ever seen the Civil War, and the adaptations of the two sides, characterized. The Union had to invade the South in order to suppress, or overcome, succession. (aka The Rebellion) So, the Union did. In due course, it was a successful method. One of Lee's few advantages is how well he knew the opposing officers, particularly early on in the war, due to the very small fraternity of regular Army officers then in existence in the US, the products of West Point. However, he did not start the war in command, but as a senior military adviser to Jefferson Davis. I am sure you are aware that Lincoln and Scott selected to lead the Union Army one Colonel Robert E Lee, in 1861, a Colonel then on assignment in Texas. He declined, for the reasons so often cited.

The Union did not invade the South to "overcome" secession. Both Buchanan and Lincoln insisted that they did not recognize the secession, but had no intention of military action unless the Southerners began to attack federal property. Eventually, of course, they did - and it was at THAT point that the secession movement became a "Rebellion" that had to be suppressed.

As to Robert E Lee marching into history after the surrender at Appomattox, hell, into legend, I don't understand what you find wrong with that. Why does that bother you? (Or seem to.) Stonewall Jackson also marched into legend, as he died after Chancellorsville. His legacy as a superb combat commander is as valid as Hannibal's or Rommel's, two leaders who also ended up on the losing side, eventually.

Lee made many brilliant moves, both before and after Gettysburg. I would not deny anyone the right to recognize and laud those successes of Lee's. But the way he is depicted is unfair. Sure, Lee was human and no human is perfect, and everybody has "shortcomings", and minor failures shouldn't eclipse or be lent as much importance as somebody's Truly Great Achievements. But I'm not talking about minor failures. Lee's blunders were at the very least - at the very LEAST - as responsible for the Confederate Army's ultimate total failure as his brilliancies were for the Army's early tremendous successes in the war. The Lost Cause simply will not acknowledge this, and THAT is what I find wrong with it.

For my money, The Road to Disunion (http://www.amazon.com/Road-Disunion-Secessionists-1776-1854-Vol/dp/0195072596)is an excellent and detailed look into US history, 19th century, that does much to illuminate the root causes of the war. Slavery cannot be extricated from the root cause, which was obvious as far back as 1820, and possibly as far back as the compromises of 1789 that resulted in the Constitution's approval.

In summary: with the method for Constitutional amendment agreed, it was only a matter of time before enough non slave states were in the Union, a condition that would set up an amendment, and its passage, that would render slavery illegal. For the pro slavery faction in the South, it had been obvious for years. Choice: stick around and see it rammed down their throat, or, leave the Union and have their own country where they could make the laws to their own liking. The leadership eventually chose the latter.


While I have my own problems with the notion of slavery as legitimate and even "God's will", I am not expounding them here. I am not questioning the decision of the Southern states to leave a Union which was becoming increasingly hostile to one of their central institutions.

All I am protesting here, is what I consider to be historical revisionism - in the form of misrepresenting the causes of the conflict and misrepresenting the behavior of both of the parties of the conflict - on the part of people with a political agenda.

[Hutch]

Gettysburg was a special scenario. Along the extreme right, the Confederates held the town and higher ground on Culp's Hill. All they had to do was take potshots at the Union line, without actually trying to advance, in order to stress that end and keep it from being able to support any other part of the line. It is true that reinforcements would be directed that way...but those reinforcements would have to come from other parts of the line, thinning it out.

Ummm, no. The Federals held Culp's Hill (a mistake by Confederate General Ewell on day 1 of the battle) and maintained control throughout the fighting, beating off several Confederate attacks with large losses to the South.


It was to the south of the Union line, standing by to harass the retreating Union army that never ended up retreating.

Actually, it was more to the east than south, 'Jeb' Stuart had tried to ride around the Union Army, had failed to account for how fast it had been moving, and ended up pretty much out of the fight until day 3 (when Union Calvary checked him about 8-10 miles from Gettyburg). The lack of his scouting and intelligence-gathering greatly hampered Lee's campaign in the week or two leading to Gettysburg.

Grant had the advantage of knowledge - of how greatly demoralized the enemy was, and of the Confederacy's weakness as a whole due to developments in the western theatre...knowledge that Meade did not have. At the time it happened, Meade had absolutely no idea how badly Gettysburg had damaged Lee's army, therefore was incapable of knowing whether the rebs were in worse shape. Pickett's Charge was the result of a number of very bad assumptions on Lee's part: Meade knew this, and learned a lesson from it. He was certainly not going to throw his army at the enemy the same way Lee had done, without sufficient intelligence. Once he had that intelligence, he DID pursue.

And, when Grant became aware that Lee was on his last leg, of course THEN he was relentless.

Lincoln was very disappointed that Meade did not follow-up his victory. Lincoln was always looking for the knockout blow, the win that would end the war once and for all, without the destruction and death that came in 1864-1865. What he wanted was Meade to cut off Lee from the Potomac River fords, forcing the Confederates to either continue marching in hostile country with dwindling supplies or making them attack Union forces dug in to defend the crossings, which would lead to another (hoped for) Union victory.

Meade did try to move, and probably did the best that he could, but Grant and Sheridan in April 1865 showed how to close and cut off an Army on the retreat--and in 1863 the Army of the Potomac simply couldn't move that fast.

And Slocum's and Hancock's Corps were still largely intact and able to move quickly if Meade had tried. We'll never know.





As explained above, Meade could not have known that Lee's army was in worse shape. Lee had routinely defeated the federals time and time again over the past two years. Over the past three days, the Army of the Potomac had been kicked all over hell by the Confederates.

But Confederate losses were also running high, as the Union forces had put up stubborn resistance at every point.

Lee won at McPherson's Ridge, he won at Seminary Ridge, he won in Will's Woods, he won on Culp's Hill, he won in the Peach Orchard. Meade won at Little Round Top - that's it. Since his army had been continually pushed further and further east, away from their previous battlefields, Meade had no intelligence on enemy losses. Pickett's Charge was obviously a great victory but it would've been foolish to assume that single engagement had left Lee's army worse off as a whole than Meade's battered troops.

Lee might have won some actions, but in general the Union forces held their ground on day 1 (until outnumbered and out-flanked late in the day) and maintained their lines through day 2 and 3. And Meade's intelligence was probably as good as any (it had to be better than McClellan's) so he knew that he had done a lot of damage to at least 2/3 of Lee's Army (AP HIll and Longstreets' Corps) while, as I mentioned earlier, Slocum, Hancock and Sedgewicks' Corps were still relatively fresh (most of the fighting on Day 1 was by Reynolds (Doubleday's) and Howards' Corps and Day 2 by Sickles' Corps.

[Hutch]

While it is true that the Union at the beginning moved into the South, it is important to remember a few things: firstly that, even whilst invading the South, the Union was continually pushed around by the Southern forces, and it was two years before they were able to effectively stop being pushed around, which is the "resistance" I was referring to;

Just a footnote, while this could be argued for the East (that's the area between Washington and Richmond), the Union forces in the West were generally successful from the start and it was the timid nature of some of the Northern Generals (Hallack, Buell, Rosecrans) that prevented the North from winning the war earlier. But in general, the South, while resisting stoutly, never did win a major battle in the West (Chickamauga was at best a draw, given Confederate losses and the escape of the Union army).


If you re-read my OP, you will note that my problems with the Lost Cause depiction of Northern military leadership was not that its shortcomings are explained, but that they are emphasized while Southern leaders are deified as paragons of virtue who could do no wrong.

No disagreement there--but more recent historians are better at seeing some of the errors committed by Lee and his Generals.


Lee made many brilliant moves, both before and after Gettysburg. I would not deny anyone the right to recognize and laud those successes of Lee's. But the way he is depicted is unfair. Sure, Lee was human and no human is perfect, and everybody has "shortcomings", and minor failures shouldn't eclipse or be lent as much importance as somebody's Truly Great Achievements. But I'm not talking about minor failures. Lee's blunders were at the very least - at the very LEAST - as responsible for the Confederate Army's ultimate total failure as his brilliancies were for the Army's early tremendous successes in the war. The Lost Cause simply will not acknowledge this, and THAT is what I find wrong with it.

That opinion will get you in trouble down here in Alabama...;)

Seriously, Lee's greatest error (IMHO among others) was in trying to make every battle a "Decisive" battle, one like Napoleon (and everybody then read Napoleon's tactics) where the enemy army was destroyed and peace soon followed. Trouble was he had the smaller force and was never quite able to pull it off, despite taking reckless chances. And big battles also got his troops killed and wounded, and the Confederacy had less ability to replace them than the North. Still, fighting a totally defensive war (like Joe Johnson and later Lee himself in 1864-65) was probably going to be a losing stragety in the long run, so Lee, unless the Union lost heart, was going to lose in the long run--much like Yamamoto forsaw 80 years later.



You, Darth, and ConspriRaider are going to have to come visit me for a 3-day weekend one of these days in North Alabama. Shiloh is about 2.5 hours driving west of me, Chattanooga and Chickamauga are 2.0 hours east, and Fort Donelson is about 3 hours North. Shiloh especially looks about the same as it did in 1862.

[Darth Rotor]

While it is true that the Union at the beginning moved into the South, it is important to remember a few things: firstly that, even whilst invading the South, the Union was continually pushed around by the Southern forces,
It might be useful to first consider that it takes more effort, resources, and competence to conduct a successful offensive campaign than a defensive one, particularly when the defender knows the ground better than you do.
and it was two years before they were able to effectively stop being pushed around, which is the "resistance" I was referring to;
See above. While the South had its own problems in generalship, it also had a resource problem from the outset, well recognized on both sides, that as time wore on become more pronounced. (Scott's Anaconda strat included the expedition to New Orleans, whose loss was a significant blow to the Southern economy and thus to the ability to wage war.)
secondly, that the South provoked the Union into military action by attacking a Union fort, which had been federal property for 34 years; in the act of capturing it, it could be argued that the Confederacy invaded Union territory first (Southern claims of ownership notwithstanding, the land was administered and maintained by the federal government, not the state government of South Carolina);
No, that was not invasion of the Union, though it was certainly an attack on Federal, United States Property. The difference has everything to do with secession, and not with attacking the Union and the union then offering resistance. I am being a bit semantic here.
and thirdly, that the actual turning point of the war did occur during an invasion of the North by the Southern army, however rare such an event was, at which point the Union was on the defensive and the term "resistance" would still be proper.
God no, not in the least. Lee makes two campaigns north and Gettysburg is "the turning point" of the war? It was a huge gamble, aimed at both relieving pressure on feeding southern troops as well as putting the fear of Johnny Reb into the hearts and minds of the Northerners, upon whose soil most of the war was NOT fought.

Lee was painfully aware that if he didn't do something significant, all he could do was wait for yet another northern attack. He was a smart enough strategist to know that such waiting would not win the war for him. Note that Lee's gamble was both political and strategic: strike a hard enough blow in the North, and gain a victory, and you get a reaction to Lincoln's somewhat unpopular war (see Draft riots in New york, and much else at the political end) which may conclude in a peace treaty. Lee knew the he did not have the troops to invade and hold Pennsylvania, or Maryland. His two major operations north were aimed at creating a big enough battle, with his victory, that the North agreed to stop fighting: he was not in a conquest mode. The Union were. Your resistance line is still, quite simply, wrong.

If you'll look a bit further west, the Vicksburg Campaign was a critical turning point in the war, but it didn't get quite the press coverage Gettysburg did, being so far from New York and Washington. See also the issue of New Orleans mentioned above.
If you re-read my OP, you will note that my problems with the Lost Cause depiction of Northern military leadership was not that its shortcomings are explained, but that they are emphasized while Southern leaders are deified as paragons of virtue who could do no wrong.
I am with you on that. Lee and Jackson put their pants on one sleeve at a time, like any other man. ;)
The Union did not invade the South to "overcome" secession. Yes it did. Sorry, to put down the rebellion, which the act of secession was viewed as, required forceful response.
Both Buchanan and Lincoln insisted that they did not recognize the secession, but had no intention of military action unless the Southerners began to attack federal property. Eventually, of course, they did - and it was at THAT point that the secession movement became a "Rebellion" that had to be suppressed.
Uh, huh, I've seen nicer cherry's picked at a blueberry farm. If the South seceded, its separation from the North was a fait accompli unless the North took active steps to bring it back into the Union.
Lee made many brilliant moves, both before and after Gettysburg. I would not deny anyone the right to recognize and laud those successes of Lee's.
Aye.
But the way he is depicted is unfair.
So is the villification of Ghengis Khan, unfair.
But I'm not talking about minor failures. Lee's blunders were at the very least - at the very LEAST - as responsible for the Confederate Army's ultimate total failure as his brilliancies were for the Army's early tremendous successes in the war.
Lee was faced with a Hobson's choice. He had a smaller army and resource base, his CSA was losing on two fronts, West and on the waters, and his opponent had the means to defeat him unless he could, through a string of victories, make their price for fighting too war to high to continue. The Antietam campaign nearly blew the whole war, Virginia Theater, but for McClelland's tacitcal timidity. His Gettysburg campaign was a risk that didn't pan out, but was one he had to take to achieve the one possible outcome that would get the Union to consider an end to the war. It didn't work out either.
The Lost Cause simply will not acknowledge this, and THAT is what I find wrong with it.
The Lost Cause is part story, part myth, part legend, part history. I don't see any reason to get upset with it, anymore than I see reason to get emotional over Columbus discovering America, and the mythology that grew with that over time.
All I am protesting here, is what I consider to be historical revisionism - in the form of misrepresenting the causes of the conflict and misrepresenting the behavior of both of the parties of the conflict - on the part of people with a political agenda.
I grasp that you are addressing a current political agenda. When one looks at Lee's opportunities to get good ground, in unfamiliar territory, on which to fight a battle, enough were missed that he did not dictate the terms of the engagement. When one has the smaller force, that's a significant problem, which he was unable to overcome. You might argue that those relying on this retelling of the War Between the States for political purposes in the here and now are similarly a bit late to the favorable piece of ground from which to fight their battle. ;)

DR

[Gurdur]

So is the villification of Ghengis Khan, unfair.


Who the hell is vilifying Genghis Khan? He was one of the most brilliant leaders ever at both military and empire social planning.

[Darth Rotor]

Who the hell is vilifying Genghis Khan? He was one of the most brilliant leaders ever at both military and empire social planning.

I hope you did not report me for some rule 11 violation, I'd hate to be villified as some sort of off topic marauder. :jaw-dropp

[Darth Rotor]

You, Darth, and ConspriRaider are going to have to come visit me for a 3-day weekend one of these days in North Alabama. Shiloh is about 2.5 hours driving west of me, Chattanooga and Chickamauga are 2.0 hours east, and Fort Donelson is about 3 hours North. Shiloh especially looks about the same as it did in 1862.
We definitely need to do that. :) The Vicksburg box I have already checked.

DR

[Gurdur]

I hope you did not report me for some rule 11 violation,


I never use the Report function here, here out of principle. I have not used it for at the least one year here, I would say, at the very least, excepting one single post where I Reported myself.

I'd hate to be villified as some sort of off topic marauder. :jaw-dropp


I'm far more likely to get done for being off-topic than you are, so stop bitching, and just tell me who the hell is vilifying Genghis Khan, since I have a word or two to say to anyone vilifying him. He was a very brilliant leader and organizer, and his social innovations were what made his reputation, not the mere military successes.

[Darth Rotor]

I never use the Report function here, here out of principle. I have not used it for at the least one year here, I would say, at the very least, excepting one single post where I Reported myself.
I was making with the joke, eh? ;) I am aware that you feel as I do about Report, and such.
I'm far more likely to get done for being off-topic than you are, so stop bitching,
See above. ;)
and just tell me who the hell is vilifying Genghis Khan, since I have a word or two to say to anyone vilifying him. Aye, as do I, and you will note that I find it unfair. Perhaps I should have used Atilla the Hun instead of old Ghengis in my witty retort.

Here is an example of the villification of old Ghengis, who was the inspiration of a well known artist's work:

http://frankfrazetta.org/viewimage.php?loc=QMan_FF_Legacy_Extra_03_Mongol_T yrant.jpg

See also the phrase "Ghengis Khan and the Mongol Hordes." We might also consider how the resentment against old Ghengis among his subjugated peoples is a natural reaction to being conquered, and we can put this derail to bed. I would hate for the both of us to get that vile Rule 11 attack, mate. :jaw-dropp
He was a very brilliant leader and organizer, and his social innovations were what made his reputation, not the mere military successes.
Depends on who did the writing, of course, and yes, running the largest empire known to man, in his time and place, was bloody difficult.

Then again, if he actually said or proclaimed the following (http://thinkexist.com/quotation/with_heaven-s_aid_i_have_conquered_for_you_a_huge/345858.html). . .

“It is not sufficient that I suceed - all others must fail.”

“I am the punishment of God...If you had not committed great sins, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you.”
. . . then he might at least be slightly villainous!

DR

[Gurdur]

.... Perhaps I should have used Atilla the Hun instead of old Ghengis in my witty retort.


Naaaw. Attila was just a berk who had a lucky break. He did know how to enjoy himself in bed though (see the manner of his death), but overall, he was just a berk* who got lucky.

*berk = Brit slang, a little milder than a twat.

We might also consider how the resentment against old Ghengis among his subjugated peoples


Envy, nothing but envy.

Rule 11


Bugger it, and the horse it rode in on.

Then again, if he actually said or proclaimed the following (http://thinkexist.com/quotation/with_heaven-s_aid_i_have_conquered_for_you_a_huge/345858.html). . . . . . then he might at least be slightly villainous!


Naaaw, he was just quite, quite good at agitprop. And think seriously of the number of lives he saved; by happily announcing just what would happen if people did not cooperate, and making sure people knew he kept his exact word, Genghis Khan certainly did save many, many of hundreds of thousands of lives by, well, getting them to cooperate.

There are many interesting insights into him and his rule:
despite being illiterate himself, he caused an alphabet for the Mongolian language to be created, and he had scribes write a "history" of the Mongolian people, thereby giving them a lasting sense of identity and cohesion, which they desperately needed, surrounded by enemies as they were, and always in the minorty everywhere within his own empire.
.
It was said, and said while he was alive and also well after his death, that at the height of his career, when his empire stretched all Eurasia, that a naked young virgin could carry a gold bar on her head from one end of his empire to the other without fear. He brought in a rule of law and level of policing of law that did not exist among the more "civilzed" littoral states.
.
His despatch service could reliably get a message from one end of his empire to the other within 10 days. That feat would not be matched again for almost 700 years after his death.


Genghis was a bloody genius. A pity the North didn't have him; then the South would have learnt not to bitch about Sherman, who only did a few houses over.

Attila, OTOH, was just a berk who got lucky.

[dudalb]

Quantrill certainly went beyond the bounds - way beyond. It's why the Confederacy wouldn't give him a commission. His group was an outlaw group. I'd guess the Confederacy quietly applauded some of his actions because of their consequences to the Union, but in no way could they endorse them forthrightly.

Not that Jim Lane and his Redlegs were much better.
Fact is, the war in Missouri became a bloody mess, having little to do with the main issues of the war. It was more like a Ozark family feud on a grand scale.
In addition to "Outlaw Josey Wales", Ang Lee made a film called "Ride With The Devil" about the war in Missouri. Highly Recommended.

[ConspiRaider]

Not that Jim Lane and his Redlegs were much better.
Fact is, the war in Missouri became a bloody mess, having little to do with the main issues of the war. It was more like a Ozark family feud on a grand scale.
In addition to "Outlaw Josey Wales", Ang Lee made a film called "Ride With The Devil" about the war in Missouri. Highly Recommended.
Very cool, dudalb, thanks for the heads-up. I have a document called "Movies to See" and just added this one from Ang Lee.

[angelsaramark]

It doesn't matter about the South's reasons for anything. They wish to have won. They didn't. There is a winner and loser. The Union victory over the South was just part of the Manifest Destiny where also the Native Americans were conquered. The Natives didn't care to be conquered either. They have their stories and glories. Again, you have to pick a side. There are still Indians and Southerners, conquered nations, but that doesn't change their history or mindsets. Your attack of the Southern positions may or may not be accurate, I don't know, but it doesn't matter. Their pandering to you or anyone else is pathetic. If they are for the Lost Cause, then they just need to stand on it and quit apologizing. You seem to have little understanding of cultures different from yourself. The Pax Romana can work both ways. If the Taliban conquered the USA, none of us would be too happy about it as they would be highly upset with us despite our surety of our own cultural superiority.

[Neally]

This time in history, in this place, was where the buck had to stop on the reprehensibility of slavery. Given our human nature, that we tend to let things simmer for so long until they become uncontrollable, bloody and horrific war was about the only viable stopper. Other countries morally evolved out of slavery. Ours would have also without this unnecessary war.
If the South had left peacefully and the Industrial North had inevitably become the wealthier nation would the South have rejoined? (it seems unlikely slavery would have continued in the Confederacy alone while the rest of the world abolished it). Quite right. The whole conflict could have been avoided by Lincoln allowing the succession. The Confederate states would have inevitably rejoined the Union.

[interwaff]

1,000,000 dead and wounded, plus the prolonged and severe intensifying of anti-black racism ..... all because somebody had their feelings hurt in Washington DC.

Slavery would have ended anyway due to economics and foreign pressure.

Civil Rights would have happened many decades sooner, perhaps before 1900, if not for the resentment and poverty cause directly by Reconstruction.

[KoihimeNakamura]

1,000,000 dead and wounded, plus the prolonged and severe intensifying of anti-black racism ..... all because somebody had their feelings hurt in Washington DC.

Slavery would have ended anyway due to economics and foreign pressure.

Civil Rights would have happened many decades sooner, perhaps before 1900, if not for the resentment and poverty cause directly by Reconstruction.

Er.

.. no. Just no. No it wouldn't have. (For ref: the movement to nullify federal government/secced started in 1830 with Calhoun.)

And honestly, you might have a point about Civil Rights, but really, I think you're unfairly blaming Lincoln for the policies of the congress after he was dead.

So.


If the South had left peacefully and the Industrial North had inevitably become the wealthier nation would the South have rejoined? (it seems unlikely slavery would have continued in the Confederacy alone while the rest of the world abolished it).
Quite right. The whole conflict could have been avoided by Lincoln allowing the succession. The Confederate states would have inevitably rejoined the Union.

Unlikely. They were negotating with England and France for recognition and were capable of producing their own cotton. Again, unlikely. Also, why in the world would you allow someone to unlawfully seccede? Don't answer that, it's revisionism.

[BPSCG]

Coming in late here, so apologies in advance if I'm plowing over previously tilled ground.

One thing that has never been fully clear to me is why the South was simply not allowed to leave the Union? Was this a Monty Python style "no splitters" thing?Think of the principle, the precedent established. If one state could secede, they could all secede. It would simply be a matter of time before the United States disintegrated into dozens of little European-style duchies.

And don't think secession talk was something limited only to crazy southerners intent on keeping their slaves. There was sentiment in New England to secede before and during the War of 1812 (don't ask me for the details, I'm not up on it).

As "obvious" as you make an attack on the center of the line sound, you have to be senile not to expect that the Union would think of it, too - which they did, which is why the Charge failed. What's obvious to you should've been incredibly obvious to such a "genius" as Lee. Perhaps that WAS his problem - he was going senile.A lot of criticism of Lee at Gettysburg here. I won't argue that Pickett's Charge was not a disasterous move.

But there's some strong circumstantial evidence that Lee had suffered a heart attack just a day or two before Gettysburg, and may not have been at the top of his game. He died of heart failure just five years after Appomattox.

But "senile"? Please. He was given the presidency of a small, failing college in Virginia after the war, and turned it into a respected institution in just a couple of years. That college was renamed, after his death, from Washington College, to Washington and Lee University.

The only reason the attack on the Union left failed was because, quite luckily, the line extended further south than the Confederate commanders thought it did. Well, that's not quite right. They knew where the Union left was, and kept trying to flank it. Trouble was, the Union commander of the 20th Maine Volunteers regiment, on the extreme left, Colonel Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, had a habit of worrying about what the worst thing the enemy might do to his position, and then preparing for just that eventuality. Chamberlain saw that his left flank was exposed, and extended it farther left (south) by spreading his men out farther apart than he normally would have if he were not at the end of the Union line. He then refused his line, i.e., turned the leftmost postion of the line back 90 degrees. Now his regiment was facing both west (where the main Confederate attack was coming from) and south; for the Confederates to flank him, they would have to march all the way around the back of Little Round Top and attack from there.

The Rebs never could get around the Union flank there. When Chamberlain's 20th Maine ran out of ammo, they repulsed the last Confederate attack by fixing bayonets and charging down the hill, catching the by-then physically and emotionally exhausted (it was July - imagine climbing up a hill repeatedly, carrying a rifle and your ammo, into the face of massed rifle fire) by surprise and saving the position. Chamberlain - who had been a college professor just a year before - won the Congressional Medal of Honor for his work that day.

The Union Army at the conclusion of the Battle of Gettysburg were exhausted - they were out of energy, out of ammo, low on everything else, including non-wounded soldiers. They were in no condition to directly engage the retreating Confederates. They DID follow them, however, until the Southern army had completely left Union territory.They were in similar condition after the battle of The Wilderness the following April. But Grant never let up; his strategy was to keep Lee engaged and gradually chew up his army. As a result, the two armies fought almost every single day from Wilderness south to the Anna River, at which point Grant disengaged so that he could get around Lee's south flank and march unopposed into Petersburg. The flanking maneuver worked - Grant got south of Lee - but Lee was able to get his army between Grant and Petersburg. It then became a siege, at which point, even Lee acknowledged, it was just a matter of time.

Second, the curve of the union line is, excuse my shouting...AN ADVANTAGE! Look, if you have a line that curves back, you can move troops, supplies and information faster than the enemy on the other side. It's what they call "short interior lines."

As I also said, the better option would to have withdrawn. Unless I'm badly mistaken, Longstreet wanted to move east from Gettysburg, in the direction of Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, and find some high ground there. The thought was that Washington would not abide the idea of Lee's army directly threatening the capital of the United States, and Meade would be forced to attack Lee on high ground of Lee's choosing - Little Round Top and Pickett's Charge in reverse. Had that happened, and another disastrous Union defeated ensued, just months after Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville, then who knows? Lincoln might have been forced to give up the war.

Next would possible have been a night attack that would have caused their attack to not be noticed right away. No. Night attacks were almost impossible to coordinate. Nobody, not even the most aggressive generals on either side, not even Stonewall Jackson or Phil Sheridan, attempted night attacks. The pitfalls of going out at night were demonstrated at Chancellorsville, when Jackson was accidentally shot by his own men.

I once read a Russian's response when he was told the number of casualties at Gettysburg: "My god! More than Borodino!"

That startled me. Everyone knows that Borodino was the most concentrated slaughter in modern times -- and so it was. But the US Civil War as a whole was one of the deadliest of the 19th. century, Napoleon not excepted, and surely the most destructive.While the carnage at Gettysburg was the worst for a single battle, the worst in a single day was Antietam (Sharpsburg if you're from the South). Something like 26,000 men were killed, wounded, or missing after that battle.

In the end, Lee was a good but not great general although the potential was there. Most of those who faced him just made him look good by comparison. If Lee had the resources of the North I think you would judge him differently.Lee fought the only war he could, IMO, given his limited resources. He was a brilliant tactician - see Chancellorsville, where he faced a larger army and then divided his army twice and still won the battle. He was a strong leader of men - the loyalty he engendered was legendary. He had an almost uncanny ability to get into the head of his opponent and anticipate his next move.

His biggest failing, as I see it, was a lack of precision in his instructions to subordinates. At Gettysburg, his orders to Dick Ewell were to take Culp's Hill "if practicable" (Lee seemed to like that word). Stonewall Jackson, who had commanded Ewell's corps until his own death a month before, would have ignored the "if practicable" and attacked and taken it or died in the attempt. Ewell decided it was not "practicable."

Grant's communications have a reputation for much greater economy of words; his orders seldom left room for interpretation.


In summary: with the method for Constitutional amendment agreed, it was only a matter of time before enough non slave states were in the Union, a condition that would set up an amendment, and its passage, that would render slavery illegal. For the pro slavery faction in the South, it had been obvious for years. Choice: stick around and see it rammed down their throat, or, leave the Union and have their own country where they could make the laws to their own liking. The leadership eventually chose the latter.

DR

You, Darth, and ConspriRaider are going to have to come visit me for a 3-day weekend one of these days in North Alabama. Shiloh is about 2.5 hours driving west of me, Chattanooga and Chickamauga are 2.0 hours east, and Fort Donelson is about 3 hours North. Shiloh especially looks about the same as it did in 1862.Yikes, all those helicopters flying over the battlefields...

Some of my favorite reading on the above:

The Twentieth Maine - A Volunteer Regiment in the Civil War by John J, Pullen

Lee by Douglas Southall Freeman. Arguably the greatest biography of Lee, although it makes him into The Marble Man

Landscape Turned Red by Stephen W. Sears - The definitive account of Antietam

Bloody Roads South - The Wilderness to Cold Harbor, May-June 1864 by Noah Andre Trudeau - a gripping, almost hour-by-hour narrative of the most violent campaign of the war.

And, since this thread is about the Lost Cause, a must-read is Lee's Tarnished Lieutenant - James Longstreet and His Place in Southern History, by William Garrett Piston. How Longstreet was turned into the Judas-goat for the Confederacy's defeat.

[Neally]

Also, why in the world would you allow someone to unlawfully seccede?Unfortunately the writers of the constitution didn't address withdrawing from the union one way or the other, so whether it was "unlawful" can't be stated. Regardless, one reason to allow it would have been to avoid what turned out to be the biggest loss of life in U.S. history.

Think of the principle, the precedent established. If one state could secede, they could all secede. It would simply be a matter of time before the United States disintegrated into dozens of little European-style duchies.And...? Check out the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence.

[BPSCG]

Unfortunately the writers of the constitution didn't address withdrawing from the union one way or the other, so whether it was "unlawful" can't be stated. Regardless, one reason to allow it would have been to avoid what turned out to be the biggest loss of life in U.S. history....thus insuring the continuation of the ugliest stain on America's history - human slavery.

Think of the principle, the precedent established. If one state could secede, they could all secede. It would simply be a matter of time before the United States disintegrated into dozens of little European-style duchies.And...? Check out the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence.Citing the Declaration of Independence as the justification for breaking up a country to preserve the right to hold slaves is bad form, Neally.

[Neally]

...thus insuring the continuation of the ugliest stain on America's history - human slavery.Insuring? My previous post makes it clear that I think that the institution of slavery would have been relatively quickly abolished on the continent without the civil war. I haven't heard of anyone making the claim that slavery would still exist in North American today without the civil war. Do you believe this?

Citing the Declaration of Independence as the justification for breaking up a country to preserve the right to hold slaves is bad form, Neally.My point was not to preserve slavery, but to avoid the death of half a million people for a cause that would have inevitably been achieved without their deaths.

[BPSCG]

Insuring? My previous post makes it clear that I think that the institution of slavery would have been relatively quickly abolished on the continent without the civil war.You gave no indication what you meant by "relatively quickly." One year? Ten years? Fifty? A hundred?

You also give no mechanism by which you would expect this to happen. Why would the Confederate States of America have abolished slavery? It was explicitly provided for and protected in their Constitution. It would have taken a Constitutional amendment to remove it. Do you think slaveholders would have stood quietly by and allowed it to be abolished? They were prepared to make war against the United States to preserve slavery; why do you think they would not be prepared to make it against the Confederate States to preserve it?

I haven't heard of anyone making the claim that slavery would still exist in North American today without the civil war. Do you believe this? You're the one making the claim that the Confederate States of America would abolished slavery "relatively quickly." It's your job to prove it, not mine to disprove it. Your proof could begin by answering my questions above.

My point was not to preserve slavery, but to avoid the death of half a million people for a cause that would have inevitably been achieved without their deaths.And how many human lives would be destroyed - both figuratively and literally - by the institution of slavery while you were waiting for the institution to mysteriously vanish? Or don't black slaves figure into your math?

[Neally]

You gave no indication what you meant by "relatively quickly." One year? Ten years? Fifty? A hundred? Obviously impossible to say, but clearly the tide had turned and most of the rest of the world was moving in that direction.
You also give no mechanism by which you would expect this to happen. Why would the Confederate States of America have abolished slavery?Because despite the economic advantages of using slaves, they would, like the rest of the world, realize that slavery was morally wrong, and like most of the rest of the world, would move to abolish it completely.
Do you think slaveholders would have stood quietly by and allowed it to be abolished?The rest of the world did so. Do you think that the southern slaveholders were some kind of different species that would never evolve away from slavery?
why do you think they would not be prepared to make it against the Confederate States to preserve it?Because they, like everyone else would see that it was wrong and a lost cause.
And how many human lives would be destroyed - both figuratively and literally - by the institution of slavery while you were waiting for the institution to mysteriously vanish? Or don't black slaves figure into your math? Nothing mysterious about it. The rest of the world transitioned out of slavery including England, France, and Spain without a civil war. As to how many lives would have been lost before the transition, I'd say much less than the half million lost in the civil war.

[IchabodPlain]

I'm ornery and feel like debating.

When I read about historical revisionism vis-a-vis the Holocaust, and think of its possible cultural implications should it actually catch on, I am reminded in some ways of the Lost Cause of the Confederacy. This is not to state that what the Lost Cause implies is anywhere near as heinous as the denial of the Holocaust; but the motives are the same: a losing side's attempt to justify themselves at the expense of the winning side – although in the case of Holocaust denial, it is more “those sympathetic with the losing side”.

For those of you unfamiliar with the notion, the “Lost Cause of the Confederacy” is a set of idealizations and reinterpretations of facts surrounding the Southern secession and the resulting civil war. These ideas were put forth and advocated post-hoc, by Southern cultural figures, in response to the Confederacy's defeat in 1865. The purpose of the Lost Cause was to function as a sort of balm for psychological and cultural wounds; a vehicle by which the Southerner might be able to remain proud, and to rationalize his side's devastating loss.

Very true, the original "Lost Cause" came from Jubal Early, who had fought under Jackson, before joining Lee's Virginia Army as a commander.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jubal_Anderson_Early


Slavery was not the reason for secession. In fact, most Southerners did not even care about slavery. Instead, the war was fought for any number of other reasons; the most commonly mentioned is “State's Rights”.

This is wrong. The "State's Rights" that were fought over is the right of a state to leave the union.

Southern culture before the War was the epitome of genteel; the people were extremely religious, chivalrous, and kind. Slavery was not as bad as most people think it was; on the contrary, most slave owners were on good relations with their slaves. By contrast, Northerners were shallow, irreverent, and greedy, and cared not about family or family values; they were also liars, who did not in fact care about slavery, and only emphasized the issue to make Southerners look bad or evil.

Obviously the bits you included about slavery are false, but a theme of the static "agrarian" society vis a vis the more urban and fluid north is commonly found in CW books (not speaking to values here, but to societal structures).


General Robert E. Lee was the son of Jesus Christ. Well, OK, not literally; but he may as well have been. According to the Lost Cause, Lee was infallible, a man of genius and unshakable faith, whose strategic and tactical prowess the world has never seen before or since. His successes were his successes; his failures were the fault of others. Other figures, such as Jefferson Davis and Thomas Jackson, receive similar treatment. The Northern general staff, on the other hand, was incompetent, using their troops for cannon fodder and engaging in the most irresponsible campaigns, and the only reason the North won the war is because they had more numbers and more equipment.

General Lee is easily the best single general on either side of the ACW. He successfully defended and pushed union troops into their own territories with fewer men and less efficient convoy lines. Lee bested general after general, for nearly 2 years, while being blockaded, while having a logistical disadvantage.

Did he make mistakes? Yup. However, looking at the totality of decisions, Lee is the best CW general.

Of course, the first tenet is the easiest to disprove; but despite this, it remains the subject of much controversy when discussed. This is because it is by far the most important tenet of the Lost Cause; slavery was the primary vehicle for the demonization of the South by the North during and after the war, because it was the reason for the secession – if slavery weren't an issue, the North could no longer claim the moral high ground, and the Civil War would be a more matched, economic contest rather than a genuine civil war.

This point is irrelevant because, for the North, freeing slavesis not a priority of Lincoln's or the Union until the Emancipation Proclamation. Lincoln said himself it was never about slavery, but preserving the union.

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.

http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm


But the fact of the matter is, the issue of slavery is directly related to the secession. Specifically referenced in South Carolina's rationale for seceding was the Northern states' (note: NOT the Federal government's) failure to abide by the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850, a federal law.

You've quoted SC's rationale, however, if you were to quote Georgia's declaration of independence you would find grievances related to infrastructure spending (lighthouses, post roads, etc) and restrictions on trade.

Virginia, in contrast, do not list their reasoning in their ordinance of secession, so you are cherry-picking a bit. In fact, VA as a condition for signing the constitution during the Constitutional Convention in 1789, declared that they could leave the union whenever they pleased, and only after other states agreed (and some states including NY and RI included their own clause of similar nature) did they ratify the constitution.

Passed before the influx of anti-slavery Republican congressmen, the Law, based on Article 4 of the U.S. Constitution, specified penalties and provisions regarding the capture and return of slaves who had escaped to Northern states. Under the law, federal marshals were required, under penalty of a $1000 fine (that's $1000 in 1850), to arrest and detain without due process any black man upon nothing more than an ex parte claim of ownership by any white man. As can be expected, such a law led to significant abuses, and created a surge of anti-slavery activism in the North, even at the government level. Some states disallowed state and local officials and facilities from being used by federal agents pursuing or holding alleged fugitive slaves. Other states mandated a jury trial for all alleged fugitives before they could be returned (Personal Liberty Laws). At such trials, jury nullification often prevented the 1850 law from being enforced with any efficacy. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin simply declared the law unconstitutional and refused to recognize it.

Citing the Fugitive Slave Act is more of an irony than a demonstration of your case. Ironic that the "unionist" northern states would not recognize a federal law, and the "state's rights" south pushed for a more aggressive enforcement of a federal law which impeded state's rights.


The Republican Party was created against this background in 1854, on a primarily anti-slavery platform. When several prominent people joined this party, and the party won control of Congress, and in 1860 the Presidency, the pro-slavery states began to secede. This essentially debunks the notion of Southern advocacy of States' Rights, as the South most decidedly did not recognize Northern states' rights to refrain from directly supporting the institution of slavery by the return of escaped slaves, who, as far as the Northern states were concerned, were free upon arrival. It also debunks the notion that Northerners in general were not concerned with slavery; Abraham Lincoln, whose party ran on an anti-slavery platform, won the popular vote in the North.

You are forgetting the other platforms of the Republican Party under which Lincoln ran:


High Protective Tariffs
Internal Improvements (infrastructure)
No Expansion of Slavery (*but not the abolition of)


This flies in the face of Southern Democrats at the time who want low/no tariffs, or infrastructure improvements, due to their agricultural nature.

Of the seceding states, the ones who issued articles or declarations of secession identified slavery as the cause of their secession. Only one state, Georgia, specifically mentioned economic disadvantage as one of the justifications, alongside slavery. Many states issued new constitutions, whose only notable difference with the previous versions was typically the identification and protection of the institution of slavery. In addition, the new Confederate constitution applied federal-level protection of slavery as well; Alexander Stephens, the new Vice President of the Confederacy, made a speech in which he said that

Declarations were only delivered by immediately seceding states (SC, GA, MS, TX, and LA). The more "northern" southern states (VA, TN, NC, etc) did not secede until the first shots are fired at Sumter. Also, the more northern southern states did not have the slave populations of the deep south, and were less concerned by the restriction of slavery, and more concerned with a state's right to leave the union.

Aside from the above, most tenets of the Lost Cause are subjective opinions of individuals and groups. Robert E. Lee, for instance, is deified in the South, and it is curious to note how willing the Lost Cause is to attribute the Confederacy's early military successes to Lee exclusively, yet how unwilling they are to find any fault with his later blunders and disasters, attributing them to his subordinates. James Longstreet, Lee's second-in-command, bears the worst of the scapegoating, despite being Lee's favorite general, and an enormously successful military career. This is mostly in part due to Longstreet's conversion to the Republican party after the war, and his endorsement of Grant's presidency some time later. For a time, Southerners refused to lay flowers at his grave, when attending to those of other, more beloved Confederate figures.

This is another of Early's myths: The blaming of Longsteet's failure to capture little round top at GBurg as the reason the south losses the civil war.


Another prominent result of the Lost Cause mythos is the Southern sentiment surrounding the “rebel flag”, a battle flag used during the Civil War by Confederate units. Most displays of this flag are obviously for peer-acceptance reasons – among certain people, it's just trendy. Others' display of the flag is clearly intended to harass or provoke neighbors and other onlookers. In either case, the use of the flag is justified as an expression of “Southern heritage”, and the user is portrayed as a victim of political-correctness should anyone argue.

Firstly, a battle flag is a part of history, and should be respected. Secondly, if you look at the "southern cross" what you see is the celtic symbolism of the St. Andrew's Cross (also featured in Scotland's national flag). It's easy to see how some see the flag of national heritage (specifically celtic history in the US).

It is a shame how the flag was adopted (sometimes by the same people who take pride in their cultural history) flown over banners of the KKK or neo-secessionists.

But a battle-flag it is, and it should be respected as a part of our national history.

[BPSCG]

You gave no indication what you meant by "relatively quickly." One year? Ten years? Fifty? A hundred?

Obviously impossible to say, but clearly the tide had turned and most of the rest of the world was moving in that direction. So you don't know how long it would have taken to abolish slavery in the CSA. I submit to you that a constitutional amendment abolishing slavery in the CSA would not have been passed for many, many years. As evidence, I offer the fact that in the fourscore and nine years since the founding of the USA, it had not been abolished, despite the fact that a majority of the population lived in states where it was illegal. How much longer would it have taken to abolish it in a country where nobody lived in a state where it was illegal?

Because despite the economic advantages of using slaves, they would, like the rest of the world, realize that slavery was morally wrong, Nonsense. If you are taught from the cradle that a black man is not quite human, that he is too ignorant to govern himself, that he is better off being enslaved because as a slave he will be fed and clothed and housed, just as a horse would be, and you never hear a word to the contrary, you will believe that slavery is not only not morally wrong, but that it is a positive good.

And believe me when I tell you that an antebellum southerner might have literally never heard a bad word spoken about slavery.

Do you think that the southern slaveholders were some kind of different species that would never evolve away from slavery?
No. See above. They were comfortable with their "peculiar institution" and had no reason to question its morality. Even the pulpit taught them that slavery was the natural order of things.

As to how many lives would have been lost before the transition, I'd say much less than the half million lost in the civil war.You have no way of knowing this, since you acknowledge that you don't know how long it would have taken for the CSA to abolish slavery.

[IchabodPlain]

Coming in late here, so apologies in advance if I'm plowing over previously tilled ground.

Think of the principle, the precedent established. If one state could secede, they could all secede. It would simply be a matter of time before the United States disintegrated into dozens of little European-style duchies.

Exactly.

And don't think secession talk was something limited only to crazy southerners intent on keeping their slaves. There was sentiment in New England to secede before and during the War of 1812 (don't ask me for the details, I'm not up on it).



The Hartford Convention was an event in 1814-1815 in the United States during the War of 1812 in which New England's opposition to the war reached the point where secession from the United States was discussed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartford_Convention

[Cleon]

You've quoted SC's rationale, however, if you were to quote Georgia's declaration of independence you would find grievances related to infrastructure spending (lighthouses, post roads, etc) and restrictions on trade.

Yeah, not so much. Here are the first two sentences of Georgia's declaration (source (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_geosec.asp)):


The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. 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.


I'd quote further, but the link above will take you to the statement in all its glory. The statement is overwhelmingly about slavery; spending is mentioned, but as a secondary point at best.

The idea that the preservation of slavery was not the driving force behind secession is a historical myth.

[IchabodPlain]

The rest of the world did so. Do you think that the southern slaveholders were some kind of different species that would never evolve away from slavery?

The problem you have here is that you are using scientific terminology to describe something that is not scientific. It's not about "evolving", it's about the economic advantages that slavery had over not using slavery, coupled with the status quo of the time. If it is more profitable to use slaves to not use them, and if society at that point is willing to condone using slavery to propagate the southern economy, then that will be done.

Evolution has nothing to do with it.

Conversely, when it is less profitable than using paid labor, and/or society no longer condones that use of slaves (which is what the North effectively said by electing Lincoln), then it will change.

You peering into a crystal ball saying "well everyone else abolished slavery" says nothing about the ease or difficulty doing it in the south.

You forget the economic conditions of the south. Namely the focus on agriculture and trade, compared to the agriculture or trade that existed in England or France, or wherever.

[IchabodPlain]

Yeah, not so much. Here are the first two sentences of Georgia's declaration (source (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_geosec.asp)):



I'd quote further, but the link above will take you to the statement in all its glory. The statement is overwhelmingly about slavery; spending is mentioned, but as a secondary point at best.

The idea that the preservation of slavery was not the driving force behind secession is a historical myth.

You really need to read further:

In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.

I didn't mean to imply that they did not mention slavery, or prioritize their grievances. I was simply pointing out that not all grievances were related to slavery.

[dudalb]

5) oh, and I forgot to mention: Gods & Generals (one of the worst films I have seen in my life) has been faulted for painting the top Union generals as incompetent fools.

While it is a crap film, this is an unfair criticism of it. In the Eastern theatre of the ACW, the top Union generals for a long while were incompetent fools; good at building an army up but useless or even secretly cowardly about deploying it in battle, and/or just incompetent.

The best Union top commanders came to the Eastern theatre from the Western theatre of the ACW, quite late in the day.


the Frdericksburg sequence was the only part of "Gods and Generals" worth watching.
And yes, the Union leadership in the East really was that bad for much of the war. Burnside was a total idiot, and Hooker was not much better.

[dudalb]

I see a few people here are falling for the Neo Confederate baloney.

[Cleon]

You really need to read further:

That's amusing, as you ignored the part where I said "spending is mentioned, but as a secondary point at best."

In fact, the passage you quoted is the only part of the document dealing with infrastructure spending. The rest of the document is obsessed with the subject of slavery.


I didn't mean to imply that they did not mention slavery, or prioritize their grievances. I was simply pointing out that not all grievances were related to slavery.

Perhaps, but you did mean to imply that Georgia's statement was largely about infrastructure spending, and not the issue of slavery, as you counterposed it to pro-slavery quotes from South Carolina.

Slavery was overwhelmingly the main "grievance," here.

[dudalb]

The problem you have here is that you are using scientific terminology to describe something that is not scientific. It's not about "evolving", it's about the economic advantages that slavery had over not using slavery, coupled with the status quo of the time. If it is more profitable to use slaves to not use them, and if society at that point is willing to condone using slavery to propagate the southern economy, then that will be done.

Evolution has nothing to do with it.

Conversely, when it is less profitable than using paid labor, and/or society no longer condones that use of slaves (which is what the North effectively said by electing Lincoln), then it will change.

You peering into a crystal ball saying "well everyone else abolished slavery" says nothing about the ease or difficulty doing it in the south.

You forget the economic conditions of the south. Namely the focus on agriculture and trade, compared to the agriculture or trade that existed in England or France, or wherever.

Not to mention that the economy of the South was much more dependent on Slavery then the other countries mentioned were.
One of the main planks of the Neo Confederate Woo is that the South would have abolished slavery within a few years of independence. Not from what I have read of Southren Opinion. And I doubt they would have been that anxious to rejoin the union ,either.
I think a lot of people buy in the Neo Confederate nonsense because they think it makes them look like "rebels" (no joke intended) "Indepdent Thinkers Challenging the Status Quo" or something like that. It is amazing what people will spout to make themselves look like mavericks.

[kbm99]

I think a lot of people buy in the Neo Confederate nonsense because they think it makes them look like "rebels" (no joke intended) "Indepdent Thinkers Challenging the Status Quo" or something like that. It is amazing what people will spout to make themselves look like mavericks.

Speaking as someone who was born in the midwest but has lived in the south for 30 years, I think it more likely has to do with the pervasive, deeply-held racists attitudes of many southern whites.

[BPSCG]

And yes, the Union leadership in the East really was that bad for much of the war. Burnside was a total idiot, and Hooker was not much better.You're oversimplifying.

Hooker was a pretty good corps commander. He fought well at Antietam (where he was wounded), and did a good job of restoring troop morale after Burnside's disaster at Fredericksburg, making sure his army was once again well-equipped and well-fed. His battle plan for Chancellorsville was a good one - attack Lee on both of his flanks. Hooker's made two bad mistakes at Chancellorsville: 1) at the end of the first day, rather than follow up his initial progress, he simply withdrew to a defensive position on the Rappahannock River, and 2) he allowed his right flank to be "in the air", i.e., not anchored against a river or on high ground, making it vulnerable to a flank attack. The first mistake allowed Lee to divide his army and fight the two parts of Hooker's army separately. The second allowed Lee to divide his army again, sending Stonewall Jackson around Hooker's right flank and attacking. The result was a Union rout.

Hooker's biggest failings as a general were overbearing cockiness and disloyalty upwards; he was well-known for subverting his superiors with criticism behind their backs.

Burnside should never have been anything more than a division commander, let alone a corps commander or commander of the entire army.

[not_so_new]

Could be because I'm from the South, but I was taught that secession was about slavery, but the excuse for the shooting was about money.

The excuse for the shooting WAS about the money..... the fact that the South was getting free labor from slavery which GREATLY reduced the overhead for the plantation owners.

It's all about how it is spun. I don't think anyone actually BELIEVES slavery is a good thing including Southern plantation owners in the slave years. But profits have a way of allowing people to overlook the little voice inside that tells us when something is wrong with our actions.

I think it is pretty clear to everyone on both sides that owning slaves was not a position entrenched on the moral high ground. Were it not for the money generated the practice would have disappeared on its own.

This is in part why many feel the end of slavery was coming for the South in a few decades with or without the ACW. On top of the moral position that it posed, new technology would have lowered the economic advantage of slave holders.

[Giz]

You're oversimplifying.

Hooker was a pretty good corps commander. He fought well at Antietam (where he was wounded), and did a good job of restoring troop morale after Burnside's disaster at Fredericksburg, making sure his army was once again well-equipped and well-fed. His battle plan for Chancellorsville was a good one - attack Lee on both of his flanks. Hooker's made two bad mistakes at Chancellorsville: 1) at the end of the first day, rather than follow up his initial progress, he simply withdrew to a defensive position on the Rappahannock River, and 2) he allowed his right flank to be "in the air", i.e., not anchored against a river or on high ground, making it vulnerable to a flank attack. The first mistake allowed Lee to divide his army and fight the two parts of Hooker's army separately. The second allowed Lee to divide his army again, sending Stonewall Jackson around Hooker's right flank and attacking. The result was a Union rout.

Hooker's biggest failings as a general were overbearing cockiness and disloyalty upwards; he was well-known for subverting his superiors with criticism behind their backs.



Regarding Hooker freezing when faced with the command decision and pulling back into a (in)defensible position on the Rappanahock… there is an anecdote, told by one of Hooker's pre war Army brethen, I've seen quoted that is so good that I almost fear it has to be apocryphal. It goes something like:

"Joe Hooker was the best poker player in the Army… until it was time to go all in, then he would fold every time."


And to be fair, when the responsibility of supreme command was lifted and he was sent west he once again showed himself to be a succesful corps commander.

[BPSCG]

Regarding Hooker freezing when faced with the command decision and pulling back into a (in)defensible position on the Rappanahock… there is an anecdote, told by one of Hooker's pre war Army brethen, I've seen quoted that is so good that I almost fear it has to be apocryphal. It goes something like:

"Joe Hooker was the best poker player in the Army… until it was time to go all in, then he would fold every time."Heh - I almost put that into my post - but I thought it was about Burnside. Have to look it up; I'm sure Bruce Catton has it somewhere.

[Cainkane1]

I read somewhere that in 1895 slavery was made illegal in other countries and that countries after that date tended to not buy products from countries that used slave labor. Maybe I'm wrong but I believe Britain was one of those countries. With no market for their products the south would have had to abolish slavery for economic reasons. If I'm mistaken I'm sure I'll be corrected.

[IchabodPlain]

That's amusing, as you ignored the part where I said "spending is mentioned, but as a secondary point at best."

You are amused easily.

In fact, the passage you quoted is the only part of the document dealing with infrastructure spending. The rest of the document is obsessed with the subject of slavery.

The next paragraph is:

But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed.

Referring to the Walker Tariff, which repealed much of the "Black Tariff" of 1842. Georgia believed Lincoln, who ran on a high protective tariff platform, would repeal the Walker Tariff. It also deals with questions surrounding the federal governments limits on powers (though the limits on power mostly concern slavery and expansion).

Perhaps, but you did mean to imply that Georgia's statement was largely about infrastructure spending, and not the issue of slavery, as you counterposed it to pro-slavery quotes from South Carolina.

No, though you may have read it that way. I never said it was largely an issue of infrastructure spending. You are misrepresenting me here, for no good reason. This is reductionism; it's painful.

I also 'counterposed' the deep south to the middle or northern south. The deep south, or those that seceded before Lincoln was inaugurated, did so predominantly under the banner of slavery. However, in the northern south, or those which did not secede until after Sumter, slavery is not the overwhelming grievance.

I could have also mentioned Texas's claims for secession. The point is that different states did so for different reasons.


Slavery was overwhelmingly the main "grievance," here.

never said otherwise.

[Cleon]

You are amused easily; and also wrong.

*sigh* Look, the document deals, overwhelmingly, with slavery. It mentions infrastructure funding, but by and large, it's about slavery.

The only way to read the entire document and come away with a different conclusion is to engage in some serious cherrypicking.


Not quite, as per the above. It also deals with questions surrounding the federal governments limits on powers (though the limits on power mostly concern slavery and expansion).

So, slavery.


No, though you may have read it that way. I never said it was largely an issue of infrastructure spending. You are misrepresenting me here, for no good reason. This is reductionism; it's painful.

Your exact quote:


You've quoted SC's rationale, however, if you were to quote Georgia's declaration of independence you would find grievances related to infrastructure spending (lighthouses, post roads, etc) and restrictions on trade.


Your implication here, obviously, is that while SC was mainly concerned with slavery, Georgia was not.

Your implication is incorrect, to say the least.

However, in the northern south, or those which did not secede until after Sumter, slavery is not the overwhelming grievance.

Care to provide some evidence of this claim?


I could have also mentioned Texas's claims for secession. The point is that different states did so for different reasons.

Texas' ordinance for secession (http://www.lsjunction.com/docs/secesson.htm) also mostly talks about slavery.

[JimBenArm]

So I'm guessing the Civil War is about to resume yet again? Oh, goody.

[dudalb]

You're oversimplifying.

.


I plead guilty and I agree with your evaluation of Hooker. I just did not the time for a detailed analysis. I was a little harsh in calling him an idiot.
Hooker was a good example of the Peter Principal in action; good Corp Commander but a failure as an army commander.

But with Burnside I will stand by my calling him an idiot.

The South had it share of bad generals; Bragg comes to mind.
And Hood was a lot like Hooker; good Division Commander but a disaster as an army command. He was responsible for Franklin, which made Fredericksburg almost look like an intelligent military operation.
Granted, with Hood you had the issue of his physical condition involved (the guy had lost an arm and had bum leg from previous wounds,and there is evidence that he was taking ladunum for pain the day of Franklin) but he never should have given the Army of the Tennesee.
Even Robert Lee had his doubts. He stated that Hood had incredible courage but was in doubt about his other qualifications.
And as for emancipation, Pat Cleburn, possibly the most promising young commander in the Confederate Army, never got promoted beyond division command becuase he suggested freeing the slaves as necessary to winning the war.

[Thunder]

I consider the Confederates to be traitors to the Republic, to the Constitution, and to the values of our nation. The display of the Confederate flag should be treated just as the Germans treat the display of the Hakenkreuz (swastika).

[BPSCG]

I consider the Confederates to be traitors to the Republic, to the Constitution, and to the values of our nation. Sounds like someone who would have hanged Robert E. Lee.

The display of the Confederate flag should be treated just as the Germans treat the display of the Hakenkreuz (swastika).:biggrin:

Speaking of the Constitution, parky76, what are your feelings about the first amendment?

[dudalb]

So I'm guessing the Civil War is about to resume yet again? Oh, goody.


Hell, I have been fighting it on weekends for years.
Yeah, confession time: I am a Civil War Reenactor: 3rd US Artillery to be exact.

[Neally]

How much longer would it have taken to abolish it in a country where nobody lived in a state where it was illegal?Probably not long when you are surrounded by countries that are against it. Every country in which slavery was legal eventually abolished it. The confederate states would have done the same, or are you claiming that it is likely that we would still have slavery in the south today without the civil war?
They were comfortable with their "peculiar institution" and had no reason to question its morality.As did every country before they eventually abolished it. Again you seem to imply that somehow the southern populace was a different breed and would never have followed the path of the rest of the world without force.
You have no way of knowing this, since you acknowledge that you don't know how long it would have taken for the CSA to abolish slavery. Nor do you. Unless you think that southern slavery would exist today, the question is how many lives lost is worth additional years of slavery. If the civil war brought an end to slavery 5 years sooner than it would have without it, is 500,000 lives worth it? The demise of slavery was inevitable. I think the end of southern slavery would have happened sooner rather than later and would have spared half a million lives.

This is in part why many feel the end of slavery was coming for the South in a few decades with or without the ACW. On top of the moral position that it posed, new technology would have lowered the economic advantage of slave holders.Both the economics and growing distaste for slavery would have ended the institution.

The problem you have here is that you are using scientific terminology to describe something that is not scientific. It's not about "evolving", it's about the economic advantages that slavery had over not using slavery, coupled with the status quo of the time.The term "evolving" is not limited to the Darwinian denotation. People in both the north and south, like the rest of the world, grew increasing intolerant of slavery. Their morality "evolved" into what we recognize today as the higher ground of anti-slavery.

Conversely, when it is less profitable than using paid labor, and/or society no longer condones that use of slaves (which is what the North effectively said by electing Lincoln), then it will change.

You peering into a crystal ball saying "well everyone else abolished slavery" says nothing about the ease or difficulty doing it in the south.How easy would it be to permit the institution when elements within your society are against it, the countries surrounding you are against it, and other countries around the world would likely refuse your trade because of it?

[BPSCG]

BTW, speaking of James Longstreet - today was his birthday.

Happy birthday, Pete!

:bcake:


:hbd:

[Thunder]

Sounds like someone who would have hanged Robert E. Lee.

:biggrin:

Speaking of the Constitution, parky76, what are your feelings about the first amendment?

I don't recall Freedom of Speech includes treason..and treasonous sympathies.

I can live with bigots, KKK, Neo-Nazis, and Confederate enthusiasts flying the Stars and Bars. I just don't like it and would speak out against anyone who does.

[BPSCG]

Nor do you. Unless you think that southern slavery would exist today, the question is how many lives lost is worth additional years of slavery. You've built a straw man here. I never said slavery would exist in today's CSA. I asked you how long you thought it would last, and your best answer was that you didn't know.

But if the United States couldn't abolish it in 89 years despite a majority of the country being opposed to it, it's not reasonable to conclude that the CSA would have quickly abolished it when nobody was opposed to it.

If the civil war brought an end to slavery 5 years sooner than it would have without it, is 500,000 lives worth it? The demise of slavery was inevitable. I think the end of southern slavery would have happened sooner rather than later and would have spared half a million lives.Again, you're not counting the hundreds of thousands, even millions of black lives that would be destroyed by the institution in the interim. A slave could not expect a long life - forty or fifty years was a long life for a slave. If the CSA took until, say 1900 to abolish slavery - not an unreasonable supposition - millions of slaves would have been born into slavery and died as slaves between South Carolina's 1860 secession and 1900.

Now how does your cost vs benefit estimate stack up?

Both the economics and growing distaste for slavery would have ended the institution. There was no significant distaste for slavery in the south.

How easy would it be to permit the institution when elements within your society are against it...You keep saying that. Please identify the elements of southern society that were against slavery.

[BPSCG]

I don't recall Freedom of Speech includes treason..and treasonous sympathies.Yet you say displaying the Stars and Bars (you probably mean the Confederate battle flag - common mistake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America)) should be given the same treatment in the U.S. as displaying a swastika is given in Germany.

Unless I am very much mistaken, it is illegal to display a swastika in Germany. Do you propose making a display of the Stars and Bars/Confederate battle flag illegal? Which is why I ask about your opinion of the First Amendment.

[dudalb]

You keep saying that. Please identify the elements of southern society that were against slavery.

There were a few, but none of significence. And even those were of the "It would have been better if Slavery had never started, but now that we have it we can just get rid of it" variety.
And it was not a popular view. The fate of Pat Cleburn for daring to question the institution shows that.

[dudalb]

I am waiting for somebody to show how it would have been better to Let Hitler and Nazi Germany go on until they saw the error of their ways.

Someone has been visiting Lew Rockwell's website way too much.

[BPSCG]

There were a few, but none of significence.
Agreed. There were some prominent individuals who opposed slavery and/or felt slavery was wrong, but held slaves anyway. Some well-known such gentlemen were George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Robert E. Lee. Some (Washington in particular) freed their slaves at their deaths, others had good intentions but found the economics made it impossible (Jefferson).

But there was no significant social movement in the south to abolish slavery; calling a person an abolitionist in 1860 South Carolina was about the equivalent of calling him a neocon in Hollywood or Upper West Side Manhattan today.

[JimBenArm]

I'm sorry, but if my own experience is any guide, slavery would still be going on in the South. I grew up here in Missouri, and my family were Southern sympathizers during the Civil War. There's an earlier post in this thread about them riding with Quantrell's Raiders and Jesse James.
My dad was a racist, along with everyone else of his generation on his side of the family. It was accepted fact for them that the Blacks were not their equals. Segregation still existed in Kansas City then, as well as everywhere south of here. Even though they were "free" they still existed as virtual slaves, doing menial tasks that were "beneath" the white folk, for subsistance wages.
Now, this is in a border state, that did not secede. Where would the pressure, moral or otherwise, have come from to free the slaves, if it hadn't happened in the Civil War? It's only been in my lifetime that a majority of people are willing to accept them as equals. There are still people who don't, and the slurs are still whispered, just not in public any more. I grew up when they were still shouted in public. I heard them at the dinner table at home. Where would this moral outrage have come from, that would have put any kind of pressure on the South to change? It would have had to come from the border states, and that would not have happened, in my humble opinion. If anything, I would guess that the "peculiar institution" would still exist this very day.

[Giz]

Agreed. There were some prominent individuals who opposed slavery and/or felt slavery was wrong, but held slaves anyway. Some well-known such gentlemen were George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Robert E. Lee. Some (Washington in particular) freed their slaves at their deaths, others had good intentions but found the economics made it impossible (Jefferson).



Yeah, a lot of the southerners who felt slavery was wrong wouldn't put their money were their morals were: when Robert E Lee inherited his father-in-law's 196 slaves (who were, by the terms of the will, to be set free as soon as possible and in any event in no more than 5 years) he found it expedient to work them (and whip them) for the full 5 years.

Left to such "anti-slavery" folk, slavery would be with us yet.

[Thunder]

Yet you say displaying the Stars and Bars (you probably mean the Confederate battle flag - common mistake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America)) should be given the same treatment in the U.S. as displaying a swastika is given in Germany.

Unless I am very much mistaken, it is illegal to display a swastika in Germany. Do you propose making a display of the Stars and Bars/Confederate battle flag illegal? Which is why I ask about your opinion of the First Amendment.

if the display of the stars and bars became illegal..i would not shed a tear.

but until that day comes..which i will not actively seek..i will continue to lecture folks about how bigoted it is to display this treasonous symbol.

[shuize]

And Hood was a lot like Hooker; good Division Commander but a disaster as an army command. He was responsible for Franklin, which made Fredericksburg almost look like an intelligent military operation.


I don't know. Fredericksburg was pretty damn stupid.

Granted, with Hood you had the issue of his physical condition involved (the guy had lost an arm and had bum leg from previous wounds...


I think you've got it backwards. I've heard Hood lost use of his arm (Gettysburg) and had his leg amputated near the hip (Chickamauga) such that he had to be strapped into the saddle. /nitpicking

[a_unique_person]

I'm sorry, but if my own experience is any guide, slavery would still be going on in the South. I grew up here in Missouri, and my family were Southern sympathizers during the Civil War. There's an earlier post in this thread about them riding with Quantrell's Raiders and Jesse James.
My dad was a racist, along with everyone else of his generation on his side of the family. It was accepted fact for them that the Blacks were not their equals. Segregation still existed in Kansas City then, as well as everywhere south of here. Even though they were "free" they still existed as virtual slaves, doing menial tasks that were "beneath" the white folk, for subsistance wages.

It is interesting seeing the role of coloured people in old American B&W movies. They were the domestics, the railway conducters. "Pardon me boy, is that the Chattanooga Choo Choo?". The US Armed forces fighting the racist Nazi regime were segregated. Workers in war factories were segregated.

[BPSCG]

if the display of the stars and bars became illegal..i would not shed a tear.So let me ask you again: How do you feel about the First Amendment to the Constitution?

[Thunder]

So let me ask you again: How do you feel about the First Amendment to the Constitution?

I hate when its abused and torn to shreds by posters such as yourself.

[Neally]

But if the United States couldn't abolish it in 89 years despite a majority of the country being opposed to it, it's not reasonable to conclude that the CSA would have quickly abolished it when nobody was opposed to it.You suggest it could have taken 40 years without the war, I'm thinking it would have been much less. If the civil war ended slavery 1 year sooner than without it, how do the half million dead work for your cost vs benefit estimate?
Left to such "anti-slavery" folk, slavery would be with us yet.People and societies notions change.
Where would the pressure, moral or otherwise, have come from to free the slaves, if it hadn't happened in the Civil War?The same place the change came for the rest of the world that abolished slavery without a civil war. Public opinion realized how wrong it was. Those ideas spread and were adopted by the majority without having to kill your neighbors.
I am waiting for somebody to show how it would have been better to Let Hitler and Nazi Germany go on until they saw the error of their ways.Godwin Award!:idea:

[BPSCG]

I hate when its abused and torn to shreds by posters such as yourself.Okay, since you won't answer the question I've been asking you indirectly, I'll ask it directly:

Flying the Stars and Bars (or the Confederate Battle Flag) is an expression of free speech, protected by the Constitution. You would like to see a law passed that would ban displaying the Stars and Bars. Such a law would be unconstitutional. How do you square your professed love of the Constitution with your desire to see such a flagrantly unconstitutional law passed?

[BPSCG]

You suggest it could have taken 40 years without the war, I'm thinking it would have been much less.The difference being that I - and others here - have presented arguments as to why it would take a long time, whereas you have stuck to a short timeframe with nothing more to bolster your argument than "I think it wouldn't take long."

Your argument that economic pressure from other countries would have quickly ended slavery is not persuasive. England had no moral qualms about buying cotton from the south during the war, even though England had already outlawed slavery.

And very few countries even today have any moral qualms about buying oil from moral bankrupts like Saudi Arabia and Iran, countries that treat women as little more than chattel, that prohibit free speech and free exercise of any religion but Islam, that allow and even encourage stoning women to death for the crime of having been raped. Why do you think countries that will deal with such societies would have any reservations about buying cotton from a country that allows slavery?

So - no pressure from within the CSA to abolish slavery, and none from without. Yet you still think slavery would have been abolished in a short time.

Me, I'm a determinist; I don't believe in effects without prior causes.

[angelsaramark]

I contend again that if the South had won the war and slavery still existed, then the same bandwagoneers that drone on and on about Saint Lincoln would simply be on the other side. Slavery still exists all over the world and the current economic constaints that we live under are simply a more palatable form of slavery.

http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Wage_slavery

With that said, your hero Lincoln, simply used slavery as a mantra to rouse and solidify the resolve of the North for war. That's all. His own words show a blatant white supremacist intent on subjugating the black man, but in a manner different from chattel slavery. One can only surmise from the following comments that he was angry about the South getting the benefit from slaves and not his North. Otherwise, he would have been a bit more kind. He's basically saying I want to free your cattle. The most vile racist and virulent anti-semites of the modern age hardly use such debasing and hurtful rhetoric.

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

[dudalb]

I contend again that if the South had won the war and slavery still existed, then the same bandwagoneers that drone on and on about Saint Lincoln would simply be on the other side. Slavery still exists all over the world and the current economic constaints that we live under are simply a more palatable form of slavery.

http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Wage_slavery

With that said, your hero Lincoln, simply used slavery as a mantra to rouse and solidify the resolve of the North for war. That's all. His own words show a blatant white supremacist intent on subjugating the black man, but in a manner different from chattel slavery. One can only surmise from the following comments that he was angry about the South getting the benefit from slaves and not his North. Otherwise, he would have been a bit more kind. He's basically saying I want to free your cattle. The most vile racist and virulent anti-semites of the modern age hardly use such debasing and hurtful rhetoric.

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."


More "Moral Equvilence" nonsense from angelsareamark. A few weeks ago he claimed Nazi Germany was no worse then the Current US. He seems to have this compulsion to use the "Your're another" defense to defend repulsive regimes.
And don't get me started on the stupidity of his "wage Slavery" routine. I would like to know how he proposes people make a living without wages.

[BPSCG]

And don't get me started on the stupidity of his "wage Slavery" routine. I would like to know how he proposes people make a living without wages.:biggrin:

I saw that and reflected that one of the defining characteristics of a slave is that he works without getting wages. Live and learn, I guess.

[JimBenArm]

I contend again that if the South had won the war and slavery still existed, then the same bandwagoneers that drone on and on about Saint Lincoln would simply be on the other side.
Contending is just assertion without evidence. Provide some, or this is meaningless drivel.
Slavery still exists all over the world and the current economic constaints that we live under are simply a more palatable form of slavery. Oh, dear, did we find out you actually have to provide something in return for that paycheck? How evil!

(link removed)

With that said, your hero Lincoln, simply used slavery as a mantra to rouse and solidify the resolve of the North for war. That's all.Yes, that's all. Indeed. Nothing else mattered except the war. None of the principles were real.
His own words show a blatant white supremacist intent on subjugating the black man, but in a manner different from chattel slavery.
Gee, how was this different from any other white man at the time?
One can only surmise from the following comments that he was angry about the South getting the benefit from slaves and not his North. No, only you can surmise that from those words. The rest of us prefer to read what's actually there. You should try it sometime, it helps immensely when reading for comprehension.

Otherwise, he would have been a bit more kind. He's basically saying I want to free your cattle. The most vile racist and virulent anti-semites of the modern age hardly use such debasing and hurtful rhetoric.You haven't actually spent any time with any of those, have you?

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."
Try reading what it actually says. Maybe even from the perspective of a 19th Century politician. If you are capable of that. Which I sincerely question.

[Doubt]

It's what they call "short interior lines."

The term in the history book I had was "interior lines of communication". A bit dated but useful once you get past the part about communication.


Unless I'm badly mistaken, Longstreet wanted to move east from Gettysburg, in the direction of Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, and find some high ground there. The thought was that Washington would not abide the idea of Lee's army directly threatening the capital of the United States, and Meade would be forced to attack Lee on high ground of Lee's choosing - Little Round Top and Pickett's Charge in reverse. Had that happened, and another disastrous Union defeated ensued, just months after Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville, then who knows? Lincoln might have been forced to give up the war.


Had not heard of that one. The appropriate Union rsponse would have been to surround them and lay siege using their superior numbers while smaller units conduct offensives elsewhere. Lee and friends would have run out of food and would be cutoff from resupply.


No. Night attacks were almost impossible to coordinate. Nobody, not even the most aggressive generals on either side, not even Stonewall Jackson or Phil Sheridan, attempted night attacks. The pitfalls of going out at night were demonstrated at Chancellorsville, when Jackson was accidentally shot by his own men.


Coordination prior to the attack is not much harder than daylight. I think I pointed out in my original post what goes wrong is you cannot control you troops after the attack starts. If you have an enemy that is sure night attacks won't work, then it is an idea very worthy of consideration. But still very, very risky.

Withdrawing was still the best option from my perspective.

[bigred]

I'm sorry, but if my own experience is any guide, slavery would still be going on in the South. Then I'm sorry, but your experiences have led you to a laughable delusion.

Where would the pressure, moral or otherwise, have come from to free the slaves, if it hadn't happened in the Civil War? It would've happened in the form of technology, which would have made it economically desirable to make the switch and eventually drive slave owners out of business.

It's only been in my lifetime that a majority of people are willing to accept them as equals. I doubt it, unless you're like 100 years old. A majority of Southerners, perhaps.

There are still people who don't, Technically true but basically BFD since if only one person out of the hundreds of millions in this country don't, your statement is true.

and the slurs are still whispered, just not in public any more.I suspect a great deal less than you imagine.

Yet slurs against "the man" aren't whispered, they are shouted in plain sight and usually to great approval and laughter no less. Hell rap "artists" (I doubt I have ever used a term more loosely) have made millions doing so.

Aren't double-standards great??

If anything, I would guess that the "peculiar institution" would still exist this very day.Again, pls tell us you aren't really so deluded.


Anyway, back to the OP.......

- The war WAS mostly about slavery ("states rights".......yeah, to own slaves), even though a very small percentage of Southerners owned slaves.
- Not all slave owners were sadistic/heartless, although not implying they were exactly treated "kindly," to say the least.
- Lee WAS a brilliant military man.
- As stated earlier:
"In the Eastern theatre of the ACW, the top Union generals for a long while were incompetent fools; good at building an army up but useless or even secretly cowardly about deploying it in battle, and/or just incompetent."
- Regarding the "rebel flag" and people holding onto their Southern pride or heritage (and so sometimes symbols of it such as this): contrary to popular idiotic claims otherwise, having lived in the South for some time now (but from the North) I feel I can safely say in most cases by far this is NOT about being racist....and to say I'm more than a little tired of such asinine claims is a gross understatement.

[angelsaramark]

Contending is just assertion without evidence. Provide some, or this is meaningless drivel.
Oh, dear, did we find out you actually have to provide something in return for that paycheck? How evil!

(link removed)

Yes, that's all. Indeed. Nothing else mattered except the war. None of the principles were real.

Gee, how was this different from any other white man at the time?
No, only you can surmise that from those words. The rest of us prefer to read what's actually there. You should try it sometime, it helps immensely when reading for comprehension.

You haven't actually spent any time with any of those, have you?


Try reading what it actually says. Maybe even from the perspective of a 19th Century politician. If you are capable of that. Which I sincerely question.


The point is what is the difference between the Union and Confederacy? The Union freed the slaves. That's it. If the 19th Century attitude of the North was the same as the South toward the black man, then what was the true purpose of emancipation? Sounds more like a war tactic (they can't rebuild). Of course, I know that many fought for emancipation on the side of the North due to the propaganda campaign, but I'm talking the government strategy and purpose. They needed to keep the South from seceding to prevent France and England from getting another foothold on the continent. Lincoln said he would first preserve and Union and free the slaves if that were also possible. It's a good rallying point to help those in need or in abusive situation. We just did that in Afghanistan and Iraq, although I don't know how much we really helped them and they want us out. There is no moral superiority on the side of the North, unless disallowing constitutional secession is one of the Ten Commandments. When the corporate office calls and says, "you my bitch", you either do what you are told or face the consequences. If you are going to deny what Lincoln said in favor of putting other words in his mouth, or suppose that he was just placating someone, then nothing that anyone says including Lincoln matters. Try reading THE PRINCE by Machiavelli and get some insight into how the world really works. By the way, I hate Nazi Germany, just for the record of those here who can't seem to parse their thoughts very well (associate the South with such nonsense).

[JimBenArm]

Then I'm sorry, but your experiences have led you to a laughable delusion.


Again, pls tell us you aren't really so deluded.


Until you apologize for being insulting for no other reason than disagreeing with my conclusion, there will be no further communication between us. This was completely uncalled for. I may (or may not) have come to a faulty conclusion, but that is not any reason to call me delusional.

[bigred]

Until you apologize for being insulting for no other reason than disagreeing with my conclusion, there will be no further communication between us. This was completely uncalled for. I may (or may not) have come to a faulty conclusion, but that is not any reason to call me delusional.
Then allow me to rephrase:

Contending is just assertion without evidence. Provide some, or this is meaningless drivel.

That seemed to be good enough for you to throw at someone else, so I would expect it meets your politeness quotient.

Look - I don't mind someone having a hissy about me ripping on their opinions - in fact I admit I can be a bit of a bull in a china shop sometimes. But my patience evaporates pretty quickly when it's done in a hypocritical way. So basically either elaborate/back up what I consider a pretty ridiculous statement or spare me the hissy and just move on. I'd prefer the former, and (this silliness aside) have nothing against you at all, but if you choose to pick up your ball and go home, I'll get over it.

[JimBenArm]

Then allow me to rephrase:

Contending is just assertion without evidence. Provide some, or this is meaningless drivel.

That seemed to be good enough for you to throw at someone else, so I would expect it meets your politeness quotient.

Look - I don't mind someone having a hissy about me ripping on their opinions - in fact I admit I can be a bit of a bull in a china shop sometimes. But my patience evaporates pretty quickly when it's done in a hypocritical way. So basically either elaborate/back up what I consider a pretty ridiculous statement or spare me the hissy and just move on. I'd prefer the former, and (this silliness aside) have nothing against you at all, but if you choose to pick up your ball and go home, I'll get over it.
Ah, yes, those are exactly the same thing. Asking someone to provide evidence by showing his argument has none is exactly the same thing as calling someone delusional. Got it. "Your argument lacks evidence" is the exact same thing as "you're insane". Glad I have someone as wise as you to show this to me.
And the maturity to use the "he started it!" defense. I'm just overwhelmed. Of course, this totally excuses your bad behavior. How silly of me! Why, I don't know what came over me! Why would you ever apologize to anyone?
Well, tell you what. Just continue on doing exactly what you're doing. Others will not ask for apologies, they'll just report your posts. Eventually, based on the level of discourse I've seen from you, you'll flame out and get banned. Not that we'll miss you terribly.
Toodles.

[BPSCG]

Until you apologize for being insulting for no other reason than disagreeing with my conclusion, there will be no further communication between us. This was completely uncalled for. I may (or may not) have come to a faulty conclusion, but that is not any reason to call me delusional.JBA, I think you're being overly sensitive here.

Bigred didn't say you were delusional. He said you had been led to "a laughable delusion."

He wasn't attacking you personally. He was attacking your conclusion as being delusional.

I myself will occasionally say someone's argument or conclusion is stupid or idiotic, but I'm careful not to say that the person himself is stupid or idiotic (unless the evidence is overwhelming). We all say or do stupid or idiotic things, and we are all deluded from time to time. That doesn't mean that we ourselves are necessarily stupid or idiotic or delusional. And I think bigred was being careful to attack your conclusion, not you. And every conclusion is fair game.

[Ladewig]

I doubt it, unless you're like 100 years old. A majority of Southerners, perhaps.


Are you saying that the majority of Americans accepted blacks as equals as early as 1909?

[bigred]

JBA, I think you're being overly sensitive here.

ya think?

Let's see:

- someone has a 4-alarm hissy.
- I back off and explain myself.
- said person has 5-alarm hissy, spits on my kneecap, picks up their ball and stomps away.

:rolleyes:

I'd bother replying, but between the inability to understand and/or twisting of my words, the pot/kettle thing (calling me immature while ranting and wailing in a way my 3-yr old niece would envy) - so forth and so on - there's clearly little point. As I stated earlier, the only thing I consider worse than a hyper-sensitive whiner is a hypocritical one.

Or, to put it more succinctly: meaningless drivel.


OK side show over, back to the Confederacy.

Robert E. Lee was one serious badass eh? And never made a mistake! ;)

[bigred]

Are you saying that the majority of Americans accepted blacks as equals as early as 1909?

100 was an artibrary number grab; don't take me so literally. I suspect a majority of Americans did before jim was born (actually I'd bet my life on it at this point, since that was probably sometime in the 1990s, but I was assuming a good bit earlier initially). Impossible to say of course, and perhaps not. I will say that I don't think just because the Jim Crow laws were still in effect that it automatically indicates otherwise (silent majority and all that). Anyway, this is also getting us on a sidetrack...

I wonder how many buy this Southern apologist thing? Since I live in the South and have for some time but have never heard of it (and for the most part haven't lived under a rock), I'm guessing extremely few - but that of course is anecdotal guesstimating -

[Redtail]

100 was an artibrary number grab; don't take me so literally. I suspect a majority of Americans did before jim was born (actually I'd bet my life on it at this point, since that was probably sometime in the 1990s, but I was assuming a good bit earlier initially). Impossible to say of course, and perhaps not. I will say that I don't think just because the Jim Crow laws were still in effect that it automatically indicates otherwise (silent majority and all that). Anyway, this is also getting us on a sidetrack...

I wonder how many buy this Southern apologist thing? Since I live in the South and have for some time but have never heard of it (and for the most part haven't lived under a rock), I'm guessing extremely few - but that of course is anecdotal guesstimating -

I've heard many of the arguments surface from time to time growing up (NC), but those were somewhat rare. It seems to be becoming more prevalent but then that could simply be due to the internet and the investagooglers.

[Ladewig]

100 was an artibrary number grab; don't take me so literally. I suspect a majority of Americans did before jim was born (actually I'd bet my life on it at this point, since that was probably sometime in the 1990s, but I was assuming a good bit earlier initially). Impossible to say of course, and perhaps not. I will say that I don't think just because the Jim Crow laws were still in effect that it automatically indicates otherwise (silent majority and all that). Anyway, this is also getting us on a sidetrack...


I am interested in your reasoning and evidence, but not interested enough to start a new thread, so I'll let it drop.

[Senex]

As much as I would like to state how appalled i am by slavery (I'm proud to live in CT -- it's foolish to be proud of where you live. It's an accident of birth but it's biult in woo.) You must admit that loyalty to your community trumps rationalization.

I'm saying that I know darn well that if I was a young man living in Georgia during the civil war i would have taken my red neck ass, grabbed a gun, and fought on the wrong side. Was every German and Japanese soldier evil? Their government surely was. You have to take the side of your own community. Society would fail without loyalty.

[GreNME]

100 was an artibrary number grab; don't take me so literally. I suspect a majority of Americans did before jim was born (actually I'd bet my life on it at this point, since that was probably sometime in the 1990s, but I was assuming a good bit earlier initially). Impossible to say of course, and perhaps not. I will say that I don't think just because the Jim Crow laws were still in effect that it automatically indicates otherwise (silent majority and all that). Anyway, this is also getting us on a sidetrack...

I wonder how many buy this Southern apologist thing? Since I live in the South and have for some time but have never heard of it (and for the most part haven't lived under a rock), I'm guessing extremely few - but that of course is anecdotal guesstimating -

Then how do you explain the schism in the Democratic Party in the 1960's? Was it not because of the Johnson/Kennedy* civil rights stances? What about the outrages that took place-- though admittedly not all resulting in a stand-off like after Brown v. BoE-- regarding the revocations of segregationist rules and laws? Why was Loving v. Virginia such a landmark case if what you say was so?

I'm willing to accept that there was a greater overall apathy by most Southern whites prior to the civil rights movement, but I think asserting that they probably considered blacks and whites equal takes the probabilities a little bit farther than the likely reality. The fact that even since most of the landmark civil rights legislation there have been instances of common bigoted behavior-- even in the neighborhood I live in, there was a "white flight" of people selling their homes when a few minority families moved in **-- tends to signify to me that there has been a recognizable undercurrent of considerations of inequality, some that still tend to rear their heads today from time to time.

I'm not saying that the opposite of what you say was true. I'm saying that the probability of a general malaise or apathy toward the subject is more likely given what we know.

* I mention Johnson first because many of the education and lower-income stuff were championed by him, as far as I know.

** A phenomenon not relegated to only Southern regions in the US, by the way.

[BazBear]

I
One could disagree with Meade's decision; however, considering that Pickett's Charge had a direct, measurable contribution to the loss of the war for the South, while the Union's halfhearted pursuit did not lead in anyway to a loss for the North, calling Meade's decision a "bigger blunder" than Lee's rather courageously defies logic and common sense.
I'd have to agree with this assessment. Chasing Lee might have worked, but it might have set up the Union army for some vicious defenses coupled with counter attacks; Meade wasn't privy to our modern understanding of how depleted the ANV was; he knew they had taken a severe beating, but he also knew his army had as well. He had won a major battle, and sent the ANV packing back to to Virginia. While I understand why he didn't keep that command in the log run, and that many of the most important decisions made in the three days of that battle were not of his doing, I can't fault old George on not going into headlong pursuit mode.

[Checkmite]

So let me ask you again: How do you feel about the First Amendment to the Constitution?

Personally, I love the First Amendment, and I don't mind people being able to decorate their trucks and houses with Confederate battle flags. It lets me know what kind of people they are at a distance, without having to dirty my brain by talking with them.

[BPSCG]

Personally, I love the First Amendment, and I don't mind people being able to decorate their trucks and houses with Confederate battle flags. It lets me know what kind of people they are at a distance, without having to dirty my brain by talking with them.It's been a while, so I had to double back to see what this was about. Seems I was asking parky76 what he thought about the first amendment, after he'd said he would support a law banning the display of the Stars and Bars.

Your reply here is very similar to my sentiments, which I've expressed any number of times here: Free speech is a good thing; it makes it easier to spot the idiots.

[Polaris]

I think footage of that was shown in Ken Burns documentary. Very moving.

In case nobody's posted it yet:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1byof4IAHk

[Holler Hoojer]

I'm sorry, but if my own experience is any guide, slavery would still be going on in the South. I grew up here in Missouri, and my family were Southern sympathizers during the Civil War. There's an earlier post in this thread about them riding with Quantrell's Raiders and Jesse James.
My dad was a racist, along with everyone else of his generation on his side of the family. It was accepted fact for them that the Blacks were not their equals. Segregation still existed in Kansas City then, as well as everywhere south of here. Even though they were "free" they still existed as virtual slaves, doing menial tasks that were "beneath" the white folk, for subsistance wages.
Now, this is in a border state, that did not secede. Where would the pressure, moral or otherwise, have come from to free the slaves, if it hadn't happened in the Civil War? It's only been in my lifetime that a majority of people are willing to accept them as equals. There are still people who don't, and the slurs are still whispered, just not in public any more. I grew up when they were still shouted in public. I heard them at the dinner table at home. Where would this moral outrage have come from, that would have put any kind of pressure on the South to change? It would have had to come from the border states, and that would not have happened, in my humble opinion. If anything, I would guess that the "peculiar institution" would still exist this very day.

I agree with you. The proof is in the pudding. Since de facto slavery existed in parts of the south up into the 1970s, it would have been unlikely that de juris slavery would have ended any sooner since that was more profitable. In fact, without the relatively large number of free Blacks in the 1960s and 1970s, it is unlikely de facto slavery would have ended then. For those not raised in the south (or unable/unwilling to see it), de facto slavery existed in the form of vagrancy laws, chain gangs, and Sheriff's work crews. It was a crime (really!) to be poor and the poor were rounded up from time to time and sentenced to either 6 months in the County jail or a year "on the road". Most of the Blacks were poor enough to qualify, though a small number of vagrants were also White.

A man who got 6 months in the County jail could then be rented out by the Sheriff to large farms in the area, or to construction projects, whatever. Unless the Sheriff was generous (some were), the work crews received no money; if he were generous and wanted to exercise some control, he might give them $0.10 an hour (this at a time a similar free laborer was getting about $1.50 an hour). Some of the crews worked in hazardous area with no protective gear and usually no knowledge of the hazard. County jail sentences usually ended after 6 months, but, of course, the man was still poor and could be arrested again next day.

The men who got sent "on the road" fared much worse. It was common for the chain gang "Bosses" to immediately add an administrative sentence of up to several years onto a man's year sentence. And, that could be extended for many years for small infractions. The men typically wore chains and worked on state projects or were rented out to private employers. Typically, chain gang prisoners did receive $0.05 or $0.10 an hour as a control mechanism.

The best known, and documented, instances of modern slavery were Parchman and Angola, but the system was almost everywhere in the South. The enslavement was not necessarily for life and was not binding on children. In those senses, it was different from the ante-bellum slavery; however, it strikes many as proof the South would never have let go of slavery.

[Holler Hoojer]

Okay, since you won't answer the question I've been asking you indirectly, I'll ask it directly:

Flying the Stars and Bars (or the Confederate Battle Flag) is an expression of free speech, protected by the Constitution. You would like to see a law passed that would ban displaying the Stars and Bars. Such a law would be unconstitutional. How do you square your professed love of the Constitution with your desire to see such a flagrantly unconstitutional law passed?

Unfortunately, you are absolutely right. That sort of statement is exactly what the First Amendment meant to protect from prior restraint. We have to put up with it because it's the only way to keep political speech free. I suspect most of the people who fly that flag have no idea what it was (actually a Naval flag till Johnson's army started using it) or that it was so little used by the men who fought for the South (My gg grandaddy went up Cemetery Ridge following the Virginia State Flag.).

[Holler Hoojer]

Then how do you explain the schism in the Democratic Party in the 1960's? Was it not because of the Johnson/Kennedy* civil rights stances? What about the outrages that took place-- though admittedly not all resulting in a stand-off like after Brown v. BoE-- regarding the revocations of segregationist rules and laws? Why was Loving v. Virginia such a landmark case if what you say was so?

I'm willing to accept that there was a greater overall apathy by most Southern whites prior to the civil rights movement, but I think asserting that they probably considered blacks and whites equal takes the probabilities a little bit farther than the likely reality. The fact that even since most of the landmark civil rights legislation there have been instances of common bigoted behavior-- even in the neighborhood I live in, there was a "white flight" of people selling their homes when a few minority families moved in **-- tends to signify to me that there has been a recognizable undercurrent of considerations of inequality, some that still tend to rear their heads today from time to time.

I'm not saying that the opposite of what you say was true. I'm saying that the probability of a general malaise or apathy toward the subject is more likely given what we know.

* I mention Johnson first because many of the education and lower-income stuff were championed by him, as far as I know.

** A phenomenon not relegated to only Southern regions in the US, by the way.

To put it in the right time-frame, I sat in a Virginia civics classroom in the fall of '62 and listened to a lecture about how it was our duty to get our guns and go down to Alabama and kill "them *******" who wanted to enroll in the University there. About that time, I sat in a bus station and watched police beat a Black man bloody (I mean really bloody) for the crime of ordering a sandwich from a lunch counter in a bus station on an interstate route (thus subject to federal laws). The county I lived in did not provide education for Blacks past the seventh grade (Well, they were free to enroll in a school two counties away on the other side of a mountain range - what the heck?)