How would you have treated confederate leaders?

[??????????]

Actually Jedi, nothing against you, but your comments show exactly the pathetic state our education system is in. Federal troops WERE in the South for years after the war and instead of sending southern kids north the yankee govt sent Northern teachers into the south to brainwash the children into believing that what their fathers & mothers fought for was "wrong".

[minionofmidas]

1) Indentured servitude is still "real" slavery

Uh, no. Mind you, it was bad enough, but it didn't compare to serfdom by any measure. And that didn't compare to slavery by a mile. (Unless we're talking Russian"serfdom", which was indeed slavery rather than serfdom. Slaves could be bought and sold, and shipped to other parts of the country, and are their owners sexual property. None of which held for serfs.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not really, unless you count apprenticeship. Which did indeed have elements of what you'd call indentured servitude.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh, no. You know what share of the Deep South's population were slaves? About 50%. Besides, indentured servitude was well on its way out by the Civil War - its peak relevance was in the 18th century. When, by the way, it was more common in the South than in the North.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's part of the reason why the situation was recreated after 1945, ie why (at least until 1990) it still isn't a fiction in the way it's entirely a fiction in the US (outside the original 13 states plus Texas).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nope. Check your facts. What's true is that the issue was flying around in New England at the time, but that's neither here nor there.


On the matter of the legality of secession, though, there's something else to consider.
The claim that it was legal for a state, as a matter of course, to secede, is an unequivocally false one, and one not even made by the vast majority of CSA statemen. That wasn't the issue at all.

But US legal and political thinkers agreed that people, and perhaps states as well, have a natural right to resist tyranny. (Which also meant that the US came into being legally. ) Which they hadn't vested in the Feds under the Constitution, and which was therefore retained, in the Constitution's phrase, "by the states, or the people". It was this right that Deep Southern states, with the uttermost of flimsy reasonings, claimed to be exercising when they seceded. It was this right that Upper Southern states, with somewhat better justification, used when they considered themselves free to join the secession after Fort Sumter. (Constitutional Unionists, this latter group was frequently called at the time, as opposed to Unconditional Unionists. To quote some North Carolina newspaper from december 1860, denouncing SC's secession and declaring it's support for the Union for now, "A union of force, held to together by force, and perhaps by blood, is not the union of the Constitution." Buchanan shared these views, hence his reluctance to do anything against the blatantly unconstitutional secession - he felt that acts of force to get them back to heel were probably unconstitutional as well. Normally, there might have been a Supreme Court to solve these matters, but the SC had just completely lost all moral weight it had ever had, thanks to the Dred Scott case.)
The 1812-era NEern radicals too viewed the Madison administration as tyrannic, pointing to its blatantly partisan treatment of the different regions' defense needs (they didn't trust the New England state militias...) which meant that a region that hadn't wanted that stupid war (not that the war was purely the US' fault, of course, the Brits were just as idiotic) ended up suffering the entire brunt of it.

[gorkay]

Lincoln's plan for reconstruction, if it had been followed, was the right course. Unfortunately, it wasn't.

[ilikeverin]

Actually Jedi, nothing against you, but your comments show exactly the pathetic state our education system is in. Federal troops WERE in the South for years after the war and instead of sending southern kids north the yankee govt sent Northern teachers into the south to brainwash the children into believing that what their fathers & mothers fought for was "wrong".

You forgot to mention the five military governors of the South.

[DWPerry]

Actually Jedi, nothing against you, but your comments show exactly the pathetic state our education system is in. Federal troops WERE in the South for years after the war and instead of sending southern kids north the yankee govt sent Northern teachers into the south to brainwash the children into believing that what their fathers & mothers fought for was "wrong".

You forgot to mention the five military governors of the South.

* First Military District:  under General John Schofield
* Second Military District: under General Daniel Sickles
* Third Military District: under General John Pope
* Fourth Military District: under General Edward Ord
* Fifth Military District: under Generals Philip Sheridan and Winfield Scott Hancock

[12th Doctor]

Actually Jedi, nothing against you, but your comments show exactly the pathetic state our education system is in. Federal troops WERE in the South for years after the war and instead of sending southern kids north the yankee govt sent Northern teachers into the south to brainwash the children into believing that what their fathers & mothers fought for was "wrong".

You forgot to mention the five military governors of the South.

* First Military District:  under General John Schofield
* Second Military District: under General Daniel Sickles
* Third Military District: under General John Pope
* Fourth Military District: under General Edward Ord
* Fifth Military District: under Generals Philip Sheridan and Winfield Scott Hancock

Wow... amazing, four of the six governors were completely worthless as battlefield commanders.

[Daniel Adams]

All of them should've been tried for treason. The main political leaders should've been executed. I'm not so sure about some of the military leaders, particularly Robert E. Lee, who at least was not convinced of the morality of slavery.

I think the largest plantations should've been broken up and land given to poor whites and blacks. Federal troops should've stayed in the South at least until the end of the 19th century to ensure blacks got all the civil rights they deserved, particularly the right to vote.

No matter what the neo-Confederates say, the Civil War was fought fundamentally over slavery. All of the leaders of this breakaway nation were fighting for this inhumane institution and should have faced justice. Many deserved execution. The disaster that happened when Hayes ended the Reconstruction shows that federal troops needed to be mantained for as long as was necessary to protect blacks.

[??????????]

All of them should've been tried for treason. The main political leaders should've been executed. I'm not so sure about some of the military leaders, particularly Robert E. Lee, who at least was not convinced of the morality of slavery.

I think the largest plantations should've been broken up and land given to poor whites and blacks. Federal troops should've stayed in the South at least until the end of the 19th century to ensure blacks got all the civil rights they deserved, particularly the right to vote.

No matter what the neo-Confederates say, the Civil War was fought fundamentally over slavery. All of the leaders of this breakaway nation were fighting for this inhumane institution and should have faced justice. Many deserved execution. The disaster that happened when Hayes ended the Reconstruction shows that federal troops needed to be mantained for as long as was necessary to protect blacks.

We've been fed your BS history for long enough. Got any other "corrections" you'd like to make?

[??????????]

Actually Jedi, nothing against you, but your comments show exactly the pathetic state our education system is in. Federal troops WERE in the South for years after the war and instead of sending southern kids north the yankee govt sent Northern teachers into the south to brainwash the children into believing that what their fathers & mothers fought for was "wrong".

You forgot to mention the five military governors of the South.

* First Military District:  under General John Schofield
* Second Military District: under General Daniel Sickles
* Third Military District: under General John Pope
* Fourth Military District: under General Edward Ord
* Fifth Military District: under Generals Philip Sheridan and Winfield Scott Hancock

Wow... amazing, four of the six governors were completely worthless as battlefield commanders.

Hancock was the best out of all those listed.

[minionofmidas]

Federal troops should've stayed in the South at least until the end of the 19th century to ensure blacks got all the civil rights they deserved, particularly the right to vote.

The disaster that happened when Hayes ended the Reconstruction shows that federal troops needed to be mantained for as long as was necessary to protect blacks.

Not sure that this was inevitable. If Johnson hadn't at first made idiotic promises that he then couldn't keep, and if there hadn't been spiteful acts like the back taxes etc, it's by no means clear that the White South would have gotten as reactionary as it did. Also, notice that Black voting rights did not collapse right after 1877 everywhere even as it was. The process wasn't completed until after the collapse of the Populists, in the first decade of the 20th century.

[SPC]

All of them should've been tried for treason. The main political leaders should've been executed. I'm not so sure about some of the military leaders, particularly Robert E. Lee, who at least was not convinced of the morality of slavery.

I think the largest plantations should've been broken up and land given to poor whites and blacks. Federal troops should've stayed in the South at least until the end of the 19th century to ensure blacks got all the civil rights they deserved, particularly the right to vote.

No matter what the neo-Confederates say, the Civil War was fought fundamentally over slavery. All of the leaders of this breakaway nation were fighting for this inhumane institution and should have faced justice. Many deserved execution. The disaster that happened when Hayes ended the Reconstruction shows that federal troops needed to be mantained for as long as was necessary to protect blacks.

Just to prove to you that the civl war wasn't fought about slavery, let us explore two alternate realities:

1) The CSA wins the war. Due to their free trade policies, other nations such as Britain use it to encourage them to abandon slavery. Reluctantly, they do, as it would be uneconomical for them to do otherwise, and prosper from their trade. Without the disastreous perios of Reconstruction, Southerners don't blame their problems on the free blacks, thus preventing the world from having to feel the wrath of the Ku Klux Klan. Ultimately, the South promises to reneter the Union if they have lower tariffs. Under threat of seccesion, Woodrow Wilson is unable to become presidenet, thus saving the USA from the Federal Reserve, the income tax, and WWI.

2) The USA wins the war before the Emancipation Proclamation. As Licoln promises, the 13th Amendment (which would have made slavery legal) is passed. Due to Lincoln's protectionism, other countries cannot manipulate the USA into abandoning slavery. The horrible practice of slavery takes several more decades before it can be abandoned.

[minionofmidas]

All of them should've been tried for treason. The main political leaders should've been executed. I'm not so sure about some of the military leaders, particularly Robert E. Lee, who at least was not convinced of the morality of slavery.

I think the largest plantations should've been broken up and land given to poor whites and blacks. Federal troops should've stayed in the South at least until the end of the 19th century to ensure blacks got all the civil rights they deserved, particularly the right to vote.

No matter what the neo-Confederates say, the Civil War was fought fundamentally over slavery. All of the leaders of this breakaway nation were fighting for this inhumane institution and should have faced justice. Many deserved execution. The disaster that happened when Hayes ended the Reconstruction shows that federal troops needed to be mantained for as long as was necessary to protect blacks.

Just to prove to you that the civl war wasn't fought about slavery, let us explore two alternate realities:

1) The CSA wins the war. Due to their free trade policies, other nations such as Britain use it to encourage them to abandon slavery. Reluctantly, they do, as it would be uneconomical for them to do otherwise, and prosper from their trade. Without the disastreous perios of Reconstruction, Southerners don't blame their problems on the free blacks, thus preventing the world from having to feel the wrath of the Ku Klux Klan. Ultimately, the South promises to reneter the Union if they have lower tariffs. Under threat of seccesion, Woodrow Wilson is unable to become presidenet, thus saving the USA from the Federal Reserve, the income tax, and WWI.

2) The USA wins the war before the Emancipation Proclamation. As Licoln promises, the 13th Amendment (which would have made slavery legal) is passed. Due to Lincoln's protectionism, other countries cannot manipulate the USA into abandoning slavery. The horrible practice of slavery takes several more decades before it can be abandoned.

Your first scenario has a realism content of 0%. (The second also has a few major flaws but is not nearly as absurd as the first one.) And still wouldn't "prove" what you're saying it proves even if it were realistic. Are you at all aware of the distinction between a cause and an effect?

[gorkay]

To say that the Civil War was fought solely about slavery is simplistic. Granted, slavery was a big part of it, probably the biggest part, but not the only part.

It would have been interesting to see how a fair and impartial Supreme Court would have ruled on a case accusing one of the Confederate leaders of treason. Since there has never been anything in the Constitution denying a state the right to secede from the Union, it would have been a complicated one for the prosecution to prove.

I don't think the formation of the Confederate States of America was illegal or treasonous, just incredibly stupid. As was the war itself.

[minionofmidas]

To say that the Civil War was fought solely about slavery is simplistic. Granted, slavery was a big part of it, probably the biggest part, but not the only part.

Okay then, try and refute this:

All the sectionally charged political issues of the antebellum period - "States Rights", homesteading, tariffs, wars of annexation, Right of Petition - are largely variants on the overriding issue of slavery. That is, none would have been sectionally charged without it. None could have led to civil warfare. (And yes, Northerners could invoke "States' Rights" and Nullification too. Think of the Fugitive Slave Acts.)

The truth is, the war was *objectively* fought over slavery by the South, and over slavery and the, ahem, sanctity of the Union by the North, whatever people thought they were doing. Oddly enough, this is an issue on which scholarly historians and the uneducated public agree, while the half-educated public and more "popular"/simplistic historians have come up with another position that has some merits but isn't nearly well-thought-through enough.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

The war was soley about slavery. They left because of a non-pro slavery POTUS being elected. Anyone who claims it wasn't about slavery is at best a hack.

[??????????]

To say that the Civil War was fought solely about slavery is simplistic. Granted, slavery was a big part of it, probably the biggest part, but not the only part.

Okay then, try and refute this:

All the sectionally charged political issues of the antebellum period - "States Rights", homesteading, tariffs, wars of annexation, Right of Petition - are largely variants on the overriding issue of slavery. That is, none would have been sectionally charged without it. None could have led to civil warfare. (And yes, Northerners could invoke "States' Rights" and Nullification too. Think of the Fugitive Slave Acts.)

The truth is, the war was *objectively* fought over slavery by the South, and over slavery and the, ahem, sanctity of the Union by the North, whatever people thought they were doing. Oddly enough, this is an issue on which scholarly historians and the uneducated public agree, while the half-educated public and more "popular"/simplistic historians have come up with another position that has some merits but isn't nearly well-thought-through enough.

"Scholarly"? Do you mean history revisers like William C. Davis?

[minionofmidas]

To say that the Civil War was fought solely about slavery is simplistic. Granted, slavery was a big part of it, probably the biggest part, but not the only part.

Okay then, try and refute this:

All the sectionally charged political issues of the antebellum period - "States Rights", homesteading, tariffs, wars of annexation, Right of Petition - are largely variants on the overriding issue of slavery. That is, none would have been sectionally charged without it. None could have led to civil warfare. (And yes, Northerners could invoke "States' Rights" and Nullification too. Think of the Fugitive Slave Acts.)

The truth is, the war was *objectively* fought over slavery by the South, and over slavery and the, ahem, sanctity of the Union by the North, whatever people thought they were doing. Oddly enough, this is an issue on which scholarly historians and the uneducated public agree, while the half-educated public and more "popular"/simplistic historians have come up with another position that has some merits but isn't nearly well-thought-through enough.

"Scholarly"? Do you mean history revisers like William C. Davis?

[uses google]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No. I'm talking about actual historians.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Why does StatesRights keep denying that the south seceded because of slavery?

[DWPerry]

Why does StatesRights keep denying that the south seceded because of slavery?

Because there were other reasons besides Slavery. That was A reason, but not THE ONLY reason.
If slavery were the only issue, the Southern States would have (peacefully) re-joined the USA when Lincoln endorsed the "Corwin Amendment"
"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."

The Emancipation Proclamation did not free any slaves in Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, Delaware, and West Virginia, nor any southern territory already under Union control.

[minionofmidas]

If slavery were the only issue, the Southern States would have (peacefully) re-joined the USA when Lincoln endorsed the "Corwin Amendment"
"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."

That was after the Deep South seceded. They weren't, at that point, listening to what the North was saying.
Besides, everybody knows that a later amendment would have overridden this amendment, so it#s really a meaningless declaration of intent. It doesn't even ban the feds from regulating - or banning outright - the interstate slave trade.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's because the Emancipation Proclamation was, pretty clearly, unconstitutional, but was trying not to be. It was legitimized as an emergency measure aimed at preserving the Union. Banning slavery in (more or less) loyal territory under that logic would have been pretty unconvincing.

[Friz]

I'd have treated them with decency and respect and welcome them back, providing they comply with Union laws.

[DWPerry]

CSA Constitution
Article 1 Section 9 (1) The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

[minionofmidas]

CSA Constitution
Article 1 Section 9 (1) The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

That's international (and had been the law since 1809, though oft circumvented). I was talking about interstate.

[gorkay]

Different historians have different ideas about what caused the Civil War, and the consensus among historians has shifted over the years.

Myself, I favor Mark Twain's thesis that it was all Sir Walter Scott's fault.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

We should have destroyed the planter elites after the ACW and given the land to the unionist mountain whites/blacks even if it meant a 20 year war to root out the last of the guerillas from the swamps.