Civil War

[Rod Sheridan]

Discussions of the Civil War (War of Northern Agression), always take me back to my first visit to Shiloh and a tour of the grounds.

It was early April, the weather was warm, and I had a day off from a business trip, just perfect.

I went on the guided tour, and was early so I was able to spend some time with the tour guide, and I learned a lot from the preliminary discussion.

Once we were on the tour we visited the gravesite with thousands of white markers on the already green grass of the gently rolling ground. It was one of those moments I'll never forget, read what you want, watch what you will, the first time you stand before that many markers of the fallen, it's a humbling and thought provoking moment. I cannot imagine what it must feel like for people whose ancestors lie there.

We also toured the 3 large mass grave burrows that were the original Confederate graves, if I remember correctly. A young man behind me remarked that it wasn't right that one group was treated differently (not so politely), and me, like an idiot, remarked that the victor builds the monuments.

I was trying to be on my best behaviour, and not stick more than one foot in my mouth at a time, however, my accent betrayed me, leaving the young man to yell at me that I only found it funny because I was on the winning side.

I was momentarily speachless, until the tour guide told the young man that I was from further north than the Union states, which simply caused more confusion. Finally I said that I was Canadian, at which point I was told that I was probably on the winning side in our civil war.

The remainder of the tour was extremely interesting, and that odd encounter has reminded me ever since to be careful and respectful when visiting civil war sites.

As always a viewpoint depends upon the point of origin, which made me smile when I read the jesting about the Civil War/War of Northern Agression, it's like your War of Independance, on my side of that artificial line called a border, it's the Revolutionary War as we're part of the British Empire.

Hopefully in the future we'll be able to settle differences through diplomacy..............I can always hope....................Rod.

[Keith Outten]

The Civil War was not about slavery, the only issue in the South was States Rights.
I seriously doubt that anyone would believe that so many Southerners would be willing to give their life to protect an institution that was only available to the most wealthy Southerners. A very small group of very wealthy Plantation owners took advantage of their right, at the time, to own people. At the same time a very small group of very wealthy Northerners in Massachusetts and New York took advantage of their right at the time to sell people. Over 90% of the slaves sold to the South came from these two Northern States. The average Southerner during this period of our history was very poor.

The lessons that were learned and the price paid during the Revolutionary War were very much on the minds of Southerners, the last thing they wanted was to replace a King with a Federal Government that would threaten everything they had just recently gained such as their Liberty and the right to govern themselves. Most Southerners of the period had no interest in the slavery issue other than they did not think it was an issue that should concern the new Federal Government.

Here in Virginia the Civil War is everywhere. There are battle fields and graveyards in almost every city and county. When I was young we used to find Civil War graves in the woods, they were literally everywhere. I have found cannon balls in the field behind my house, muskets and bayonets in trees and more buttons and other metal objects than I can remember now. Our History teachers used books that to this day are inaccurate and that failed to tell both sides of this tragic period accurately. IMO history books about the period are no better than newspapers. The truth can be found reading the letters of the period and from the stories we heard that were passed down through our families and those recorded in family bibles.

I lived near Fredericksburg Virginia for several years when I worked at North Anna Power Station. I was able to spend some time visiting the battle fields on that end of the state. I have personally visited the majority of the graveyards in Eastern Virginia, during my youth my Father spent almost ten years researching our family tree. I spent many weeks in the Library of Congress viewing old newspapers for articles concerning the birth and deaths of the Outten family with my Mom, Dad and my sister. Our first ancestor arrived in the Virginia Colony in 1634 so it took many years to account for every member of our family. The education I received over many years doing research of our family history often conflicted with what I learned in every history class I ever attended.

The Northern forces showed no compassion for the South after the war, they burned raped and punished. The Federal Government illegally confiscated land owned by Robert E. Lee which is now Arlington Cemetery. Many of the things Southerners feared would happen if they lost the right to govern themselves became a reality.

The phrase "War of Northern Aggression" today is not meant to be a slur against those who live in our Northern States, its about our Federal Government both then and now.

Concerning President Andrew Jackson IMO he is without a doubt the most cruel and dishonorable man who ever served in the White House. What he did to the American Indians made the institution of slavery look like a vacation.

American History is an interesting subject and there are valuable lessons for all of us to learn if we accept the truth and the consequences of our ancestors actions. White-washing the facts serves no constructive purpose IMO.
.

[Mike Henderson]

I've studied the time of the Civil War a fair amount and my reading of history is that slavery was the main reason for the war. You can call it "States Rights" if you believe that each state should have the right to decide if slavery can exist as an institution within their borders, but that's just pushing the reason off one level. The differences between the states was primarily the institution of slavery.

The war itself was to decide if the nation would exist as single entity or whether some of the states could secede and go it alone, or form another country. But the reason the south wanted to secede was because of slavery.

After the war, southerns came up with all kinds of reasons for the war, other than slavery, because none of them wanted to defend the institution of slavery, which was impossible.

Mike

P.S. I'm a southerner (deep south, very deep south). But I can read history. And I believe that any unbiased reader of history would come to the conclusion that the primary cause of the American Civil War was the issue of slavery.

[Montgomery Scott]

The Mississippi Declaration of Secession makes it very clear the reason was for the right to own slaves. So far you've provided only an assertion, no sources. Here's a direct quote from the Declaration.

"In the momentous step, which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.
The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion."

[Douglas Clark]

The Northern forces showed no compassion for the South after the war, they burned raped and punished. The Federal Government illegally confiscated land owned by Robert E. Lee which is now Arlington Cemetery. Many of the things Southerners feared would happen if they lost the right to govern themselves became a reality.

While I will not claim to be, even remotely, a Civil War scholar, I personally think that the Northern politicians more than "The Northern forces" were the ones more lacking in compassion following the war. But in light of your assessment, Keith, which I think is mostly fair, it is worthy to recall one interesting irony about that fact. Originally, when Sherman negotiated peace with Johnston the terms were quite generous to the average southerner. In fact, so much so that President Andrew Johnson effectively nullified every aspect of Sherman and Johnston's agreement for fear of the political implications. Consequently, though many Southerner's may revile me for saying as much, I've always felt sorry for Sherman that his form of the peace treaty didn't survive. Those generous terms may have represented Sherman's only possible opportunity to redeem himself, even a smidgen, with the majority of his Southern brethren and it was stripped away from him by a President who, I believe, had little appreciation or understanding of what Sherman had actually attempted both in the efforts of war and the efforts of peace. I have often wondered if Sherman would have experienced greater forgiveness from the South had his original terms been allowed to stand. On the other hand, perhaps not. It is probably easier to forgive those who we are certain have lost enough, such as Lee did as the leader of a fallen army.

In the same vein, I sympathize tremendously with Lee, as well. About two years ago I had the privilege of visiting Arlington National Cemetery and Arlington House, which I can actually only describe as a spiritual experience, for me. As I stood there on the front steps of that magnificent house, looking across the river towards the Washington Monument and the Capitol, I tried to comprehend what that moment must have felt like for Lee when he was confronted with the decision. Knowing, that if he chose his beloved Virginia, that the next time he crossed the Potomac that all bets were off and that he would be in enemy territory. That is not only a sobering thought to me, but an absolutely heartbreaking one and I can barely fathom being able to make a choice, let alone even being confronted with it to begin with.

I suppose if I could meet any two people from the Civil War it would be those two Generals. And I know that there are probably a few southerners out there that would curse me to Kingdom-Come to see me venerate Lee and Sherman in the same sentence, but in my humble readings both seemed to be men of substantial character and integrity. And while neither was remotely perfect, particularly Sherman, they both seem to be men who did what they honestly felt was right and acted to the best of their understanding and ability. Unfortunately, it seems that both men were destined to live out the same trial as they suffered the indignity of infamy as a result of that war and yet both seem to have tried so sincerely for reconciliation.

That being said... I hope we never have to do that again.

[Belinda Barfield]

For anyone who is interested, here is a link to Georgia's Declaration of Secession. The right to own slaves was clearly an issue, but preferential treatment of non slave holding states by the federal government was an issue as well.

And I know that there are probably a few southerners out there that would curse me to Kingdom-Come to see me venerate Lee and Sherman in the same sentence, but in my humble readings both seemed to be men of substantial character and integrity. And while neither was remotely perfect, particularly Sherman, they both seem to be men who did what they honestly felt was right and acted to the best of their understanding and ability.

Mr. Clark, I fail to see how you can consider burning a state to the ground from one end to the other "negotiating" peace. Sherman a man of substantial character and integrity? Those in the North and the South faced the atrocities of the war in their very front yards and on their doorsteps. In the south innocent women and children, many of whom lost husbands and fathers in the fighting, were struggling to survive on what little food was left behind when northern soldiers departed their area. Their livestock had been killed, houses raided, gardens trampled, and smokehouses cleaned out. Enduring all of this, they were subjected to Sherman's famous March to the Sea which left much of Georgia a smoking, smoldering ruin. Yes, Mr. Clark, you have found one southerner who takes great offense at the mention of Lee and Sherman in the same sentence, much less one where you venerate Sherman.

I realize that those in the North suffered as well, but the primarily agrarian south did not have the resources required to properly arm the army, or to sustain the population over the prolonged war. I am well aware that both sides suffered horrendous losses. I am also well aware that there was looting and raiding of homes and farms on both sides of the Mason Dixon. Knowing all of that, I still cannot condone the destruction of a state to "negotiate" peace.

It is truly regretable that such as war took place. In defense of the south, many thought that the states would be able to secede and then be left to their own devices. They never anticipated that the war would drag on for so long.

[David Weaver]

It's amazing to me that otherwise intelligent people who live in the south go totally nuts with "it wasn't about slavery". Without the slavery issue, there would've been no civil war. It's convenient to play "we were the good guys" and make it seem like it was about something else now that it's 150 years later.

It was clearly about slavery, which drove the economy of the south. It didn't so much so in the north. The south didn't want to give up slavery any more than anyone else would want to give up a huge sum of their earning potential at the request of someone else.

[Scott Shepherd]

I have to agree 100% with Keith on this one. The Emancipation Proclamation didn't come until 18 months or so AFTER the start of the Civil War. The War was going on before that issue even came up. I agree that it BECAME about that issue, but it did not START because of that.

There is the Museum of the Confederacy a couple of miles from here, in the city. They have one of the most incredible collections of documents I've ever seen, and they have much more that can be shown privately. Once you see the documents and talk to the historians that run that place, you'll throw your history book in the trash can.

The actual documents are there to support it all, you just have to be willing to accept what you find.

[Mike Henderson]

I have to agree 100% with Keith on this one. The Emancipation Proclamation didn't come until 18 months or so AFTER the start of the Civil War. The War was going on before that issue even came up. I agree that it BECAME about that issue, but it did not START because of that.

There is the Museum of the Confederacy a couple of miles from here, in the city. They have one of the most incredible collections of documents I've ever seen, and they have much more that can be shown privately. Once you see the documents and talk to the historians that run that place, you'll throw your history book in the trash can.

The actual documents are there to support it all, you just have to be willing to accept what you find.

The events leading up to the Civil War have been extensively studied by scholars for over 100 years. I don't know of any reputable study that does not point to slavery as the primary cause of the Civil War.

Remember that the war was not fought to free the slaves but to preserve the union. The war started because of the secession of the southern states, but the southern states seceded because of the issue of slavery. And slavery was important to the southern states because it was the economic basis of the south.

Southerners continue to claim that the war was caused by issues other than slavery but that's similar to the Holocaust deniers - the truth is just too difficult to accept.

Mike

[Kent A Bathurst]

.............. The Federal Government illegally confiscated land owned by Robert E. Lee which is now Arlington Cemetery............

Actually, IIRC, the confiscation was perfectly legal under the laws at that time. Property owners had to pay their property taxes in person, and Lee thought it would be unwise to stroll in to the tax office, seeing as he was a military leader in a rebellion. So, the property was taken for non-payment of taxes.

Now, I admit that it was a really "In your face, Bobby" move to immediately start interring dead Union soldiers on the front lawn of his former home.........that was really twisting the knife.........but from an objective, non-emotional view, I find it a bit amusing. It was a war, after all, and confiscating property was one of the least objectionable horrors.

In a mental rewrite of history, I've been entertained by the thought that, had Lee been less myopic at a critical time, he may have been able to disengage at Gettysburg, wheel around the Union Army, and march into Washington DC virtually unopposed.........and once again slept undisturbed in his mansion on the hill.

Shifting gears slightly - One of the last things a delerious Lee said on his death bed was "tell AP Hill he MUST come up". Pretty sure he was replaying Anteitam, where Hill made an overnight 25+ mile forced march from Harper's Ferry....but this led me to wonder about Hill - a man Lee called for in his final hours. There is an excellent biography about this remarkable man - he was the guy that Lee turned to time and again when there was an action that had to be done, and had to be done correctly.

[Kent A Bathurst]

.....It was clearly about slavery, which drove the economy of the south. It didn't so much so in the north. The south didn't want to give up slavery any more than anyone else would want to give up a huge sum of their earning potential at the request of someone else.

Yeah, that's pretty much my thinking - the point that it was only a relatively small group of wealthy people that owned slaves seems disingenuous to me. The wealthy drove the economic engine for everyone, plus people would have been motivated by their visions of becoming wealthy [or, wealthier] themselves, and cheap labor was the ticket. It is not unheard of in history for a war to be launched with flowery, patriotic-sounding rhetoric by the wealthy and political elite, but ultimately fought by the proles.

[Scott Shepherd]

The events leading up to the Civil War have been extensively studied by scholars for over 100 years. I don't know of any reputable study that does not point to slavery as the primary cause of the Civil War.

Yes, it has been studied and in every document I've read, it all started with tariffs being higher on southern states and their rights being taken away from them. You are familiar with 6 or 7 states leaving the United States because of that, right? They didn't leave the United States because of Slavery, they left it because they were being taken advantage of and treated unfairly in the political and banking world.

The fact is that the Civil War was not about 1 thing, it was a combination of many things and those that try to say it was only about slavery are on the wrong side of the truth.

[David Weaver]

The war started because of the secession of the southern states, but the southern states seceded because of the issue of slavery. And slavery was important to the southern states because it was the economic basis of the south.

This is exactly the key. I have never seen anything reputable or even logical that states otherwise.

[Dave Anderson NH]

While we have strong and serious disagreements here over what is historically correct I am very proud that you folks are able to write on an emotional issue such as this without resorting to name calling and personal attacks.

This is the way things should be.

Thank you all.

[Montgomery Scott]

Yes, it has been studied and in every document I've read, it all started with tariffs being higher on southern states and their rights being taken away from them. You are familiar with 6 or 7 states leaving the United States because of that, right? They didn't leave the United States because of Slavery, they left it because they were being taken advantage of and treated unfairly in the political and banking world.

The fact is that the Civil War was not about 1 thing, it was a combination of many things and those that try to say it was only about slavery are on the wrong side of the truth.

The argument of tariffs is a red herring. The fact is that the tariff rates had continued to decrease from the Tariff Act of 1832 to the Tariff of 1857 when the tariff was reduced to the levels they were in 1812.

No, it all goes back to slavery. As it was clearly stated in the Mississippi Declaration of Secession it was also clear in the Declaration of Secession of South Carolina,

"We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection."