Forbidden Donut

Is this for some kind of report or research you're doing?

And my opinion is that despite the tragic outcome, the result of the civil war was something that this country really needed. It's very hard to say what slavery would have been like had we not had the war, so I be for it because of that reason.

I'm interested in peoples opinions on this

I'm going to start off by saying that I know that my opinions on the civil war may not be mainstream. This is a sensitive issue, and if my opinions are hurtful, that was not their intention, and I would appreciate knowing why, so that I can change my opinion.

Now that the disclaimer is out of the way, I want to say that the war should have been avoided. I cannot bring myself to approve of Lincoln's decision to go to war. After the confederate states had declared their succession, regardless of slavery, it should not have been a big enough part of his business to make that decision. From my little knowledge of history, it is the first step taken towards policing the world in the fashion that we do today, and this policing is not something that I agree with. So no, I don't think it was a necessary war.

(pre-edit) - I want to clarify my opinions here about why slavery isn't enough of a reason for the civil war. There are many heinous and inhumane things in the world, and ranking them is an extremely difficult and somber process for me. How am I supposed to weigh slavery against a horrible and costly war and come to a decision about whether or not this war is worth stopping it? By saying that if there is something out there that I know is wrong, I have to do my best to stop or prevent it? I may a lesser person than most by saying that no, I don't have to do my best to stop it, but that's what I'm saying. There are countless things going on in the world that I know would tear my heart out to witness, but I haven't lifted a finger in my entire life to do anything about any of them. Is this selfish? Yes. Does it make me a bad person and member of my community and the world? Probably. So by extending my own personal beliefs of incredible stingy-ness of when it is time for action, and not wanting to asking anyone else for more than I myself have offered, I don't think it was enough of a reason. For a little more clarification, I offer that this is based on the concept that slavery in the Americas at the time of the civil war is not worse than the things that are happening in the world today, and other things that we as a country have sat and watched go by without offering the amount of sacrifice that we offered then.

I don't think that one side is any more at fault than the other. The confederate states had no business deciding to go off and do their own thing just so that they could have slaves. And as I said before, I don't think that the remaining united states should have tried so hard to fight for what they thought was right.

In my mind, it was fought because the guys down south wanted to keep their slaves, and the guys up north weren't happy about it.

As far as individuals responsible the list would be something like: James Buchanan for not preventing what was brewing underneath his feet, everyone in the south that owned a slave, and everyone that became a part of the government in the confederate states. I do not blame Lincoln for the decisions that he made. I cannot honestly say what I would do in his situation. The views that I have today are based on the world that I live in, which is a drastically different place than it was in the era of the civil war, something I know fairly little about.

I don't think any war has a good outcome. War can be necessary, and/or make the world a better place. But I don't think that at the end of the day having a good outcome is one of the options. If that doesn't make sense, I guess it would be similar to me saying that in a war, no one wins.

Given that he war had begun, I would have moved to Canada, and rooted for the Native Americans.

Which side was most at fault? North
Why was it fought? It was fought because Lincoln refused to accept payment (the south was willing to pay the north pretty much any reasonable payment) for the occupied southern forts that he believed the Union was entitled to, and with this he also refused to allow a nonviolent secession (which is what the south wanted.)
Who were the individuals you think were most responsible (for better or for worse)? Lincoln
Do you think it was a necessary war? No
Do you think it had a good outcome? No
Given that the war had begun, which side would you have rooted for? Niether

"The south fired the first shots!" doesn't mean anything, given the circumstances.

I'm very glad everyone is at least questioning the biased view presented in our high-school by the history textbooks (they are pretty much all written [and updated] by a select few ie McGraw-Hill). Good work.

The South fired the first shots means a lot. Yes, Lincoln refused to recognize the South's secession, but how can you lay all the blame on the man when he didn't order the first attack? If someone is being unreasonable, you can't attack him and honestly say that it was all his/her fault.

The Civil War was fought, because the South felt that its influence had diminished and thought it was being oppressed. The Southern states seceded and became the Confederate States of America. The ones who fired on Fort Sumter were most to blame. Governors of Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania didn't help by starting up their militias. Lincoln for completely ignoring the southern states. And the southern states themselves for acting like brats (the first secessions happened before Lincoln became president, but after he had won the election. The south was upset that their candidate couldn't win with all of their support behind him. What's that? The South want the Democrat and not the Republican to win? It's topsey-turvey world!). There was a lot going on and the tension had been building up for a long time.

The necessity of the war depends on what outcome you were looking for. If Lincoln had let the South secede without conflict, there was nothing stopping the West or any other state from doing the same. The United States wouldn't be very united. Very few wars are necessary, but this one is a close call. I wonder what would have happened had the South just ignored every command from Washington and did their own thing. Who knows?

The outcome is acceptable. I don't feel any war has a good outcome unless I knew there was a worse outcome without the war. It did unite the states, and it made America stronger. The civil war advanced military tactics (trench warfare) and increased industrial productivity. On the flipside, many lives were lost, and it really was brother against brother.

I'm biased. I'd root for the North. My great-great grandfather was in the Pennsylvania First Reserves. His life had an interesting story (walked home from Andersonville).

Freeing the slaves was a PR move, simply meant to give huge chunks of the north a reason to recruit, and something to be self-righteous about.

I would say the end result is over ok, as long as you're talking about the result of the war, in that shit ended and slavery got ended, and not the aftermath (restoration, crow laws, etc.)

Lincoln had very good reasons for not allowing the south to secede, and the south had pretty good reasons for wanting to secede (at first anyway. I wasn't there, but I'm inclined to believe that the wave of secessions following the inauguration of Lincoln was the same kind of butthurt that has driven up the popularity of the idea in Texas to about 20%...)

The southern argument was actually a very libertarian argument, which I find appealing at first.

"The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made."
~ South Carolina's Entirely-Too-Long-Titled-Document-of-Secession.

But our government was also designed to be flexible and to change with the time and ethos of its population, so like most libertarians of that sort today, they come off as whiny bitches. Then after secession the south used what it believed to be superior numbers and will to attempt to carry out a coup on the Union. So they threw out any and all rights to bitch about the outcome.

History has been and will always be written by the winners.

I think you're letting McGraw-Hill and co off too easily. Sure, they have to piece together what the history as presented by the winners, but they also went beyond that. In both the textbooks I have, they placed the section on the morality of the war right before and just after the section on Lincoln's assassination. Confirmation by association?

I was never much interested in the civil war, but as my political views evolve and my knowledge of the changing political landscape over time in this country increases, I am starting to believe that it was perhaps the most significant event in the country's history post-1791.

I am finding myself siding more and more with the south on almost all accounts concerning the war, which is a position I never imagined myself taking. I do think slavery was an absolutely horrendous institution and is easily one of the biggest black-eyes in this country's history, and I do think it needed to be abolished via constitutional amendment. However, I don't consider slavery to be a cause of the war anymore than I consider socially-progressive movements in general to be the cause.

I also don't really see the south seceding to be anything like the temper tantrums we've seen thrown in recent days and years. The fact is, we are not the same country that we were in the 1850s. The issues most Americans are bitching about are idealistically very misdirected. But the with the very small government that existed in the mid 19th century, the issues of contention between the general north and the general south were extremely pointed and idealistic in nature. Most importantly, the south did not believe the federal government had anywhere near the authority to take away something that they truly considered to be a basic right guaranteed to them by the constitution.

Imagine the department of education telling you that you were no longer allowed to own a vehicle of any kind. Beyond the obvious fact that the department of education has no business telling you what you can or cannot own, many people's entire livelihood would be put at stake. Now add in the overwhelming fear that the department of education would continue to erode your rights until it held a tyrannical control over your entire life, and you'll have an idea about how the south felt during this time.

Ultimately, the south simply could not and would not change its awful practices in this regard, and since it was not happy with the direction of the union, used its very real right to secede from the union. Now, this no less a right than the rights we all believe are guaranteed to us, so no one had the authority or right to stop the south from seceding. However, the north simply did not let it happen.

Another hypothetical: You are on good terms with a friend who has lots of stuff, so you let him keep some of his stuff at your place. In return, he lets you use the TV that he's storing there, so it is a win-win. However, you have a falling out, so you ask your ex-friend to come get his stuff (including his TV). You even offer to pay the expenses your friend would incur to remove the stuff from your place. Your friend flat out refuses and says his stuff must remain exactly how and where it is for as long as he chooses, and since you had a falling out you are no longer allowed to use any of it. Plus, he demands that you let him come and go whenever he pleases in order to keep his stuff up to date. Would you be OK with this? Of course not! So what would you do? You can't take him to court as there is no impartial court of law that has the authority to rule on the issue or enforce action on either party. You can't move out because you have literally nowhere else to go. The only solution is, let your friend walk all over you and give into his demands, or beat the fuck out of him until he leaves.

And that is why, like Richie, I do not believe the south's firing the first shot leaves them with the blame for the war.

Even if the south's seceding was totally irresponsible, reactionary, and doomed to ultimate failure, it doesn't matter. Nowhere in the US constitution did it say that the federal government had the power or authority to stop states from seceding. There wasn't a power struggle in the south; there was no civil war. The union should have immediately acknowledged the new confederate government as an entirely separate and sovereign nation.

Really, aside from the name given to this war, I don't consider it to be a civil war. I think the US pushed the CS too far, the CS acted to defend their land, and the US used that event to invade and overthrow a foreign power. Does that sound eerily familiar to anyone else?

To make this all so much worse, I think this was the beginning of the end to the things I truly admire and respect about this country. Most significantly, I think the civil war marked the end of the overwhelming protection guaranteed by the 10th amendment, but I also believe this began the unhindered erosion of all of our supposedly guaranteed rights.

How did the founding fathers treat the situation of when Aaron Burr wanted Vermont to secede from the Union?

They didn't. His desire to secede was much like the "movements" you see to do so nowadays. He didn't even have enough support in that effort to translate to meaningful political pressure.

There was a lot at stake at the time. And I think Lincoln, prior to the secessions, stated that he didn't desire to end slavery or invade the south. Something to the effect of "the only action that will be taken by the United States is to defend federal property." Then the CS attacked federal property.

I could be wrong though, but I think my distaste for the South in that conflict is less based on the slavery issue than it is on this detail.

What were they defending again?

Gov, I completely agree with everything that you are saying, but I think that you've painted a picture that is too black and white with not enough gray, or even other colors for that matter. The U.S. Constitution was brought into the picture in 1791, and the civil war started in 1861. That's a period of 70 years. It has been 148 years since the civil war started. It had already lived about a third of its current lifespan by the time the civil war happened. Certain elements of the constitution should irrefutably be lifeless, but things change. It was the be all and end all when it was written. But by the time of the Civil War, there was more than just survival on the table.

The constitution is morally ambitious, but offers little in the actual shaping of America's sweeping movement into the most powerful country in the world. When you ask someone in a 'developing' or whatever the hell the shittiest places to live on the planet are called these days why they would want be an American, I would be willing to say that 99% of them would be more concerned with the instant raise in worldly possession and wealth than with their 'rights'.

I think that the choice Lincoln made may have been a prediction of the future of America, in more than just side-stepping the constitution. Here is a list of the break-down of U.S. history according to wikipedia: Native Americans and European settlers(we all know what happened to the Native Americans), Independence and expansion; Civil War and industrialization; World War I, Great Depression, and World War II(quote from this section: "Among the major combatants, the United States was the only nation to become richer—indeed, far richer—instead of poorer because of the war"; Cold War and protest politics(in which we basically outspent the ussr into submission); and finally Contemporary era, which is filled with a lot more wars, and teh internetz.

I would argue that our nation was founded and thrived on blood. I would argue that we are not keepers of peace, or holders of civilization, but harbingers of war, and that we have the potential to thrive on it. How much of this countries success is a result of making constitutional decisions, and how much of it is a result of us being able to obliterate something?

Zero said "It's very hard to say what slavery would have been like had we not had the war, so I be for it because of that reason. " I offer "It's very hard to say what the U.S. would have been like had we not had the war, in 1917(when we went into WWI), 50 years later."

I'm not arguing for or against anything here, I'm just presenting a different side of the argument, that I do not think can be ignored. And whether we like it or not, I think it has a lot to do with the life we live today in all its glory and splendor and fireworks and things that sparkle and twinkle and shine everywhere we look.

@Andrew: You are correct; slavery was not so much the reason for war, it was just a point of contention that led to secession. But the stance Lincoln took about federal property was just flat out wrong. The outposts we held in the south were not of any strategic value whatsoever. They actually cost us money and manpower to maintain, and they defending nothing that we could call our own. The south gave us plenty of opportunity to leave, and even offered to pay for the land and any materials that had to be left behind. In the end, Lincoln refused to remove US troops, refused to acknowledge the south as a sovereign nation, and refused to stop using southern territory to reach their forts. Even nowadays in an age of much openness compared to the world in the 19th century, you can't just go around transporting military goods and persons throughout other countries' territories without their permission. To do so could be easily construed of an act of war in an of itself.

@redbone: But your whole "side" of argument is making the quite dramatic (and wrong) assumption that I care whether or not we're the most powerful country in the world. We didn't revolt because we thought we would ever be able to challenge their military or even economic might. To anyone that thinks our power is a virtue, you don't really understand why it is this country even exists.

I don't think the constitution is fluid in nature, and I don't think it is at all outdated. I think it should be taken just as literally now as it was 200 years ago. It isn't a document that deals with the conditions of the time; it is a document that deals with the nature of human beings, which I don't think has changed at all for thousands and millions of years. So, until we biologically evolve past that nature, I think it is very relevant. Unfortunately, the only thing the document could not possibly change is our ability to completely ignore it.

I would argue my whole opposition to the civil war could also be applied to pretty much every war thereafter.

I realize I was being dramatic, but I wanted to make my point about power being an issue, that I don't think it can be placed on the sidelines as a minor player when talking about this. You're the minority on the issue of our power being a virtue. There are way too many people that think that wealth and 'security' are in the foundations of the American dream. Why this country exists and what it turned into are two separate things.

I couldn't agree more. You and I are obviously not in contention with that point.

I believe the ending of slavery was the most important consequence of the war and more than good enough reason to have the war. I don't know about any of this other shit you guys are talking about.

@Gov

Just as literally now as it was 200 years ago? The way I see it the constitution was never taken very literally by anyone, including the founding fathers. Unless you're talking about the parts that allowed them to get richer. They just needed a bunch of bombast to justify the fact that they wanted to govern themselves so they could get rich without interference from Britain. All this talk about freedoms and blah blah blah meant nothing to anyone except rich white men for the longest time. Our constitution was and is a huge joke to most people in power.

Maybe i'm wrong though, i'm not an expert.

While I understand and don't want to degrade you're perfectly cogent opinion, I'd like to point out that the nature of human beings may not change, but their perceptions of themselves and their ethos do. For example, the constitution assumes slavery to be legal. And were it not a fluid document, women would still not be able to vote.

The founding fathers are not so high above or far removed from some of the things we decry now as fundamental inequalities as I believe they would have needed to be to actually author a document that not only could, but SHOULD stand the test of time.

Fortunately they put that mechanism in that lets us edit it as times change.

You're beloved 10th amendment being a great example of how the document is fluid.
/just saying, you are as usual spot on in your assessment, IMO.
//I just think the South was itchin' for a fight, thought they could win, and went for it. 10th amendment issues being a pretty good excuse for it, of course.

I'm pretty sure the South was specifically not "itchin'" for a fight, but rather, diplomacy.

@CJ: Do you believe that slavery would not have ended if not for the war?

@Anunez: Why do you think the South was "itching for a fight?"

It would have ended eventually, but who could have said when? Definitely not as quickly.

How many more years of slavery would you accept if war could be prevented? 0? 10? 25? 50? 100?

4

de wiki:


Sure have a funny way of being diplomatic...

i dont see how that is itchin for a fight. that's like saying im taking the umbrella you left in my house for ages as my own cus u wont even come get it if i pay your taxi ride.

i skimmed rather quickly through the pages, but i don't think anyone mentioned Britain's involvement with the war (specifically their interest for preventing tax trade and the freedom of slaves)


it's capitalism at it's finest. without the ability to mass produce with no overhead (ie slavery) the south would have to increase cost to compensate for actually paying workers.








ALSO, let's have a little fun exercise. Think about all the events that led up to the succession and the war. Do you think that would have happened in this day and age? The age of the internet, the television, the pacifist, the vegetarian, the neo nazi, the inner city urban youth, and the house wife that has been watching days of our lives for the last 10 years. Do you think people would feel so passionate about their country that they would turn on one another and stand up for what they believe in? I don't. I feel that technology is our pacifier, and the boundaries that the government oversteps is far beyond what happened in 1861.

I'm confused by the analogy. Can you clarify what you mean?
/not trying to be a dick.

I highly disagree. Technology does not hinder our desire to kill each other. I think the disbelief that we as a country would not stoop to such a level will ultimately be our doom, if we keep believing how strong the foundations of our society, technology; capitalism; freedom; the Constitution; etc, is. We will be in a world of hurt when something disastrous happens and realize that we are in fact vulnerable even with all these advancements. And don't believe disasters will not happen. Katrina is not a disaster; the global cooling that kills the Greenland Norse is a disaster; the depletion of natural resources on Easter is a disaster; the famine that starts the civil war in the Mayan Yucatan is a disaster; and you all know about Rome, Mesopotamia, Rwanda, and Indus Valley, so I will save breath. If we continue our comfortable reliance on what we call our foundations, one day we will find out just how reliable they are. Technology, and everything else I mentioned, does not pacify anyone.

I'm gonna have to disagree. But I'm too busy watching the draft to explain why.

I'd love to see your reasoning...but then again I never gave a fuck in the first place!

Lincoln had zero intentions of freeing the slaves as far as I know. Every other country was able to rid themselves of slavery without a war.

On the other hand, I still can't conceptualize the idea of slavery; especially only 150 years ago. How fucked up do you have to treat someone as property? So I can't argue too heartily against something that DID end slavery whether it was Lincoln's original intention or not.

What the fuck do people hate about blacks so much?

Edit: P.S. I'm not black.

Nice quote, Chuck.

You are quite right. People like being distracted. How many more people would be involved politically if they weren't watching television every night? I think it goes much deeper than that as well. Before we entered the connected age, geography correlated with ideology, more so than today. With the internet, ideas can become widespread quickly. Democrat or Republican is a much larger divide than North or South.



It's easy when they dehumanize them. It still done in war, today.

As far as I can tell, this is the definitive list of Reasons Racists Hate Black People:
1. Black people are angry at a system that I perceive myself being a part of. I hate people who are angry with me for no reason.
2. Black people are parasites on society because they are poor. And poor people use welfare instead of getting a job.
3. Black people can dance. I can not dance. This makes me jealous.
4. Black people are criminals. I know this because more black people are in jail than white people.
5. Hip Hop.
and my personal favorite
6. They look different. Therefore hating them is A-OK!

However that is neither here nor there, since slavery is not about hating the people who are your slaves. It's about being able to justify keeping them slaves. Here are some of the juicier justifications from the day:
1. What would these "animals" do if just unleashed them on civilized society!?
2. What skills can they possibly bring to the world that we aren't already milking?
3. We feed them, we clothe them, we give them a place to live and sleep. They OWE us this service. (also a justification used for why people should worship God /biggrin.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin.gif" />)
4. If not for us, they'd still be in Africa, doing... whatever it is they do there... At least they are in America now, emirite!
5. Without this source of infinite free labor we would be unable to produce at a level which would sustain the Union.
And a more modern commentary from Limbaugh:
6. "I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark."
And 7. "They’re 12 percent of the population. Who the hell cares?"

wooooooooooooo racism is awesome.

The Civil War was a pairing of things:

1. The North had roughly 4 times the population that the South did. Which culminated in 1860 with a Presidential candidate from the north carrying both the electoral and popular vote with zero support from the South. (They no longer had illusions of being able to get a President elected that would be openly friendly to the South)

2. The North was industrializing, but wasn't able to compete domestically with English industry just yet. Their solution, which was backed by congress c/o their control of the House? Raise protectionist trade tariffs on imported goods... Namely goods imported by southern states / wealthy land (and slave) owners in the South... So as to encourage them to buy American Goods from the North.

3. Various "states rights" issues that went beyond simply matters of Slavery. (and somewhat related to #2)

4. Large amounts noise from the North(and a growing movement) regarding the abolition of Slavery. While Lincoln was distancing himself from it, he wasn't hostile to it. Likewise however, the South knew that even if Lincoln didn't back it, there was nothing stopping the next person elected into that office from trying to do so in 4 to 8 years. They felt it was a safer bet to take on Lincoln while the country was split multiple ways over that election cycle than see what would happen later on. (going back to #1)

5) Prevailing military thinking of the time was that in case of War, an attacking nation would take 4 casualties for every death suffered by the defending Nation. In the event of a war with the North, the prevailing view was that the South would be able to "stalemate" the war given that fact. (The South made a Alamo/Pearl Harbor-esque miscalculation as to the will of the Union to fight a war until victorious)

Which also pointed to:
6) Practically all of the best Union General's in the Army as of 1860 were all Southerners(who did ultimately side/serve with the Confederate Army, and a large factor in why the Union sucked by comparison at the onset of War).

----------------------------------------------

The war, at its onset, had nothing to do with Slavery. Britain had interest in potentially siding with the south as the Southern states provided them with raw materials(mainly cotton, and to some extent tobacco) that they used to supply their industry at home.

However, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation changed the rules of the game for Britain as it was already generally antagonistic towards the practice of slavery at that point(part of why they didn't immediately side with the South -- slavery was a big enough issue that they wanted time to think it over). The Proclamation played itself out in such a way that it rallied the Anti-Slavery people in the Northern United States, and also gave the people in Britain who were reluctant to throw in with the south the excuse they needed to get out of the process entirely. It was a very brilliantly executed political move on Lincoln's part.

-----------------------------

As to the question of whether or not slavery would have persisted, I remember hearing claims from some economics people that the Southern Cotton and Tobacco-related industries would have likely collapsed in another 20 years due to increased competition from India and other nations, which would have likely resulted in the end of Slavery in the south regardless, but it is hard to know one way or another on that front.

There is a bunch of other stuff that could be said, but I think that is enough for now.

I do generally think the outcome was a net-positive on the very long-term scale of things. Though I also think it did introduce some further problems on the Federal level as a result of that war. The Federal Government shouldn't be as supreme a power over the states as it became as a result of that war.

I also find the WWI comments amusing. You're missing out on another War that probably was much much more significant for the United States in the grand scheme of things: "Remember the Maine!" and the Spanish-American War. That war netted us most of Spain's remaining territorial possessions of that time, and turned the US into a Colonial Power in its own right. Those colonial "possessions" included Cuba(setting the stage for us getting a Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay), the Philippines(setting the stage for a US Army presence there at the onset of the United State entry to WWII and the resulting Bataan Death March, as well as a major Naval Staging area for most of the Cold War), Guam(A very strategically significant location for the US Military even now), Puerto Rico, the US Marshall Islands, and so on. Which isn't to mention that the Spanish-American War gave us the Rough Riders which helped make Teddy Roosevelt popular and allowed him to get the VP pick in the next Presidential election cycle... Where one Presidential assassination later we get all kinds of other historically significant events following suit.

It wasn't until WWI that we became a little more "noble" in our practices in regards to our dealings with others in war.

Awesome post. I agree it was a brilliant move on Lincoln's part.

Imagine the implications if GB had joined the South.

i already brushed on the topic of england supplying and silently backing the confederacy because of the pressures of foreign policy specifically related to the trading of cotton. A common misnomer about the south being a rag tag organization is lolworthy when you look at the amount of goods that england provided. If you're feeling like a book, check out "guns for cotton"

Oh yeah, they were involved in the Civil War like much the United States later was involved in Afghanistan during the 80's.

But the big thing is that Great Britain was considering openly entering into the War in favor of the South, in the form of their declaring war on the North, until Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation. At that point, open support for the South became very (politically) unapproachable for Britain.