Slavery; the root cause of Secession & War

[BorderRuffian]

you've yet to in any way prove your point that slavery really was not the root cause of secession and war.

So far she's done quite well in putting holes in your premise.

[Catherine Hopley]

"Trust me on this one. You don't want to know."

Oh, go on. I'll try to be broadminded. 

[ole]

No! I'm currently in a very bad mood and will better wait until that phase passes. Maybe later, when I'm mellow.

ole

[Johan Steele]

you've yet to in any way prove your point that slavery really was not the root cause of secession and war.

So far she's done quite well in putting holes in your premise.

Has she now?  All I've seen is the standard US evil CS pure as the driven snow presented w/ considerably more intelligence than I'm used to I might add.

As to the Revolution... I don't see the relevence.  Do you for a moment believe that if it had failed the founders would have been treated as CS political leadership was?  They would have been hanged at the very least, many on the spot.  They suceeded so they are viewed as heroes.  Frankly the CS had no men the calibre of Adams, Franklin, Henry, Jefferson or Wasington.  What they had, IMO, was one of the more brilliant coup attempts in history.

Slavery is that ugly tree in your backyard the CS apologists and lovers cannot avoid.  It's there, you can't hide or obfuscate it.

I await more of your brilliant commentary on the subject, please present us something that proves slavery wasn't at the root of it all.

[Catherine Hopley]

It’s curious to read that pro-Confederates are in denial about the significance of slavery. It may be that there are some weird websites out there where some deluded Southerners deny the self-evident truth, that the Peculiar Institution was crucial to the way in which political antipathies between the two regions developed.

But serious students of the subject, with Confederate sensibilities, are perfectly prepared to discuss this in a rational manner. What we might not be willing to do is to agree with the sweeping assertion that slavery was the only factor of any consequence, or with the proposition put forward here – that slavery caused the war.

I have a modest proposition of my own: that the Union cause was profoundly unAmerican.

This is not merely because the Revolution made the word “rebellion” a sacred one in the American political lexicon, one imbued with an almost sacramental beauty. Pro-Confederates have always recognised this simple truth. Unionists, by contrast, have to go through agonizing intellectual contortions to try to draw a distinction between the two situations: “1776 was a rebellion, but something good came out of it”….”1776 was a rebellion, but we won”….”1776 was a revolution, whereas 1861 was a rebellion”. Trying to square the circle sometimes leads Unionists to express the startlingly amoral sentiment that “might is right”.

But there’s more to it than the Revolutionary heritage. Right up to the present day American culture – more than any other in the world – encourages rugged individualism and self-sufficiency. It is rightly suspicious of the malignity of Big Government. This is, arguably, America’s greatest contribution to human civilization.

Viewed from that perspective, the suppression of self-determination in 1861 was surely an aberration. The imposition of military rule on the prostrate South would have made a Prussian junker smile, but it seems a very long way from the spirit of Lexington & Concord. It is surely no coincidence that the United States’ only ally in the war was the Tsar – the Great Autocrat himself. Sitting in his palace in St. Petersburg, what made him support the cause of the Union? It can hardly have been because it was the defence of “government of the people, by the people, for the people.”

Robert E. Lee really expressed it more clearly and succinctly than anyone else: “a Union that can only be maintained by swords and bayonets has no charm for me”. That, surely, was a quintessentially American analysis.

[Johan Steele]

Self determintaion had nothing to do w/ it as anyone who studies the voter irregularities in the various Secession votes can tell you.  No the CS was a coup attempt for political gain.  No self determination as the minority wished to rule and piss on the majority view.  That isn't the American way, never has been.

Ma'am I've seen pro CSer's jump through hoops to deny the importance of slavery, I've seen it on this forum.  I've seen themgo so far as to "prove" blacks actually favored CS.  No Seccession was a minority thing as evidenced by the lack of support w/in the South, Conscription, tithing, commuatation, enormous pro US support throughout the CS and at least  200,000 Southerners in US ranks etc.

There is an enormous distinction between 1776  & 1860 and you have to ignore or invent a lot to come to the conclusion that they were the same.  US law still governed, there was no taxation w/out representation etc.  Sorry but the founders of the CS were no where near the quality of charachter of the founders of the US and to claim so is simply to delude oneself.  Frankly most of the founders of the CS lacked the courage of their convictions.

It's unAmerican to defend one's nation from attack?  It's unAmerican to fight for freedom?  It's unAmerican to expect the results of an election to be respected?  It is unAmerican, I think, to support a coup de tat.  It is unAmerican to willingly & eagerly attempt to twist & change history.  It is unAmerican to give aid and comfort to those trying to destroy the US.

[BorderRuffian]

Self determintaion had nothing to do w/ it as anyone who studies the voter irregularities in the various Secession votes can tell you.

I would like to see some information on these voter irregularities.  Book and page.

[Catherine Hopley]

Carl N. Degler estimated that “about 54,000 white Southerners native to the Confederacy fought in the invading Union armies, contributing 89 regiments.”

[Degler, The Other South: Southern Dissenters In the Nineteenth Century, p.175.]

However, this figure does not include West Virginia. I see from Stan Cohen’s “Civil War In West Virginia” that the number of natives of that state who fought in the Union army was about 30, 000. So that gives us a total figure of 84, 000.

The precise number of Southerners who served in the Confederate armies can never be known, because of missing records. Conventional wisdom puts the total at something between 750, 000 and 1, 250, 000.

Working from the lowest estimation of Confederate soldiers, this indicates that they outnumbered their Southern brethren in blue by nearly 9 to 1. If we accept the higher estimate, that changes to nearly 15 to 1.

Given that conventional wisdom also puts the Loyalist population in the Revolution at 33% (1 in 3), the Confederacy would appear to have a very marked edge over the original United States in terms of its level of popular support.

[BorderRuffian]

Carl N. Degler estimated that “about 54,000 white Southerners native to the Confederacy fought in the invading Union armies, contributing 89 regiments.”

[Degler, The Other South: Southern Dissenters In the Nineteenth Century, p.175.]

However, this figure does not include West Virginia. I see from Stan Cohen’s “Civil War In West Virginia” that the number of natives of that state who fought in the Union army was about 30, 000. So that gives us a total figure of 84, 000.

It should be noted that many of the population of western Virginia and Kentucky were born in the North and had like sentiments...and a large portion of the Missouri population was foreign born.

[Catherine Hopley]

"It should be noted that many of the population of western Virginia and Kentucky were born in the North and had like sentiments...and a large portion of the Missouri population was foreign born."


Agreed, but I'm bending over backwards to be seen as fair about this.