Boooorring!

[CalicoPenn]

Maybe everyone is at summer camp.  I just got back Saturday.  But the most interesting topics are a couple re-hashed threads from a few years back.  Can't anyone gin-up a news article about a gay Scout getting married to spice things up?

 

Why do the words "Be careful what you wish for" come to mind 

[Rick_in_CA]

But it's far easier for folks to pick on the single issue of slavery and tie it to racism and the battle flag/navy jack. It's what the media tells them to say and what the talking head mouth pieces advocate. An academic review of the history shows there was far more to the war than just slavery.

I just came across a reference to this video. It's an academic view of the Civil War and slavery by Colonel Ty Seidule, Professor of History at West Point. It's only five and a half minutes. Yes, it was all about slavery.

[JoeBob]

Seidule is from Ohio.  What would you expect?

 

Try some rebuttals:

It's refreshingly honest as far as it goes, but it's also politically correct propaganda. The jingoistic ending is patriotically hypocritical, so I'll deal with it first. The US Army did eventually fight to end slavery, but it also preserved and defended it."

[Stosh]

The USA flag flew over slavery far longer than the CSA flag ever did.  One can add an additional 100 years on top of that for racial segregation.  

[Gone]

I just came across a reference to this video. It's an academic view of the Civil War and slavery by Colonel Ty Seidule, Professor of History at West Point. It's only five and a half minutes. Yes, it was all about slavery.

Meh....and H2 ran a series this week on it where they had a whole section dedicated to the topic of why the rebel soldiers fought and died, and not one of the experts noted "not preserve slavery". In fact Ben Stein said outright, "Many think e war was about slavery, but that's the tip of the iceberg. It's the easy answer everyone gives. It was so much more than that."

[scoutldr]

This was from the old lodge next door to mine...now called Wahunsenakah

 

http://www.kecoughtan.com/463flaps.html

[Stosh]

Meh....and H2 ran a series this week on it where they had a whole section dedicated to the topic of why the rebel soldiers fought and died, and not one of the experts noted "not preserve slavery". In fact Ben Stein said outright, "Many think e war was about slavery, but that's the tip of the iceberg. It's the easy answer everyone gives. It was so much more than that."

 

If one looks at the overall picture of what was going on in 1860, one would have to conclude that the entire "conversation" was centered around the problem of slavery.  Politically most of the congressional arguments focused on returning runaway slaves, would the new states coming on line be free or slave, the economy based on slavery was VERY lucrative financially, slave trade was a big issue, etc.  

 

Couple that with the fact that the southerners were not at all that pleased with how things had to shape itself into preserving the issue of slavery.  These people pretty much lived in the slave prison they created and maintained.  In the mid to late 1700's there began in Europe the emancipation of slaves and the abolishing of the slave tradition.  Because of cotton, the US could hang on and justify it economically.  However, eventually the abolitionist movement began to pick up speed.  The constant threat of slave revolts basically terrified the southern population.  What if the millions of slaves DID revolt?  It would be the basic holocaust they imagined.  Then the north refused to return the runaways, the slave/free issue out west, etc. and the parting of the way began to emerge.  The Democrats basically had it all wrapped up to preserve slavery and maintained it pretty much through political means.  However, the party soon split it's differences and the Southern and Northern Democrats couldn't hold it together for the 1860 election and with a split vote the third party Republicans (known for it's abolitionist stance) managed to squeak into power.  Lincoln won on the lowest populace vote ever garnering only 39% of the population supporting his presidency.  That, along with such threats as John Brown's "terrorist" tactics of inciting slave revolts, was too much and the Southern states had had enough. Yet not everyone was really on board.  What held the Union in tact in 1776 was going to need to be done once again to hold the Confederacy in tact.  Not everyone was on board with this separation mentality.   

 

Maryland was taken over by military force immediately because it surrounded Washington DC.  Missouri governor took the state militia and went south, but the populace remained loyal to the Union.  US invaded Kentucky to hold it, Virginia split off West Virginia who stayed loyal to the Union. etc.  All this political posturing occurred rather quickly to draw up sides.  The reason everyone's "interpretation" of events vary is because it has been politically spun just about every which way imaginable.  The states that officially voted to removed themselves from the Union believed they were on legal grounds (Mass. tried to secede earlier and no one really made an argument for it being illegal).  They spelled out their rationale for secession in these Articles of Confederation and explicitly state that the reason for leaving was slavery.  Of course that has been spun to mean "States Rights" of self determination.  However, that premise is totally false, because if anyone was yelling States Rights it was the NORTHERN states who refused to do such things as return fugitive slaves at the mandate of other states, free states didn't recognize slavery so southerners couldn't safely pass through free states with their slaves, etc.  So, whether anyone likes it or not, the Civil War was fought because of slavery.

 

Lincoln's only concern was the preservation of the Union.  He was willing even as late as two years into the war, to allow slavery to continue if only the southerners would lay down their arms and rejoin the union.  Lincoln's solution was to send all the slaves back to Africa if they did.  The political atmosphere was so bad at that point that the two sides couldn't even agree on why they were fighting.  North was NOT to set the slaves free, but to preserve the Union at all cost.  South was to maintain the economic institution of slavery.  The South was under the impression it was actually fulfilling the mandates of the US Constitution (The US Constitution and the CS Constitution are remarkably similar except for slavery language.)  They would have been content to kick the US presence out of southern states (Ft. Sumter) and be at peace.  Seriously?  A small fort in the middle of a key port in the south that couldn't defend or maintain itself was a big issue?  The first casualties of the war were self inflicted by the Union, but it did make good media press. That was pretty much okay until the US "invaded" the south (First Bull Run/Manasseh)  To further complicate the issue Lincoln made a HUGE international mistake at the beginning of the war.  He BLOCKADED the southern ports instead of CLOSING the ports.  One closes their own ports, but blockades are reserved to be used against foreign ports.  It was paramount to declaring the Confederacy sovereignty right from the beginning.

 

Unfortunately no one really wants to admit to the reality that slavery was the real issue behind the Civil War, but it was.  But remember!!! Slavery and Racism were two different issues back then.  Yes our slavery was based on race, but there were many free blacks in the North as well as the South that were still persecuted because of their race.  A group of southern black businessmen raised an artillery unit and offered it to the southern forces to fight in the war.  The Southerners rejected the offer.  So they, in turn, offered their services to the Union forces, they too refused the offer. Slavery as an institution of holding another human in captivity was the issue.  The issue of race was not addressed until the 1960's, one hundred years later.

 

If one doesn't think slavery was the issue. read the writings of some of the Founding Fathers who knew what was going on but needed the southern colonies to pull off the Revolution.  I think it was Thomas Jefferson who made the comment about having a "wolf by the ears" on the issue.  Not a good place to be, but as long as you hang on, it's okay, just don't let go.    For you, @, you'll understand it a bit better if I just say, "Don't blink."  

[Rick_in_CA]

Meh....and H2 ran a series this week on it where they had a whole section dedicated to the topic of why the rebel soldiers fought and died, and not one of the experts noted "not preserve slavery". In fact Ben Stein said outright, "Many think e war was about slavery, but that's the tip of the iceberg. It's the easy answer everyone gives. It was so much more than that."

@@Stosh gave an excellent answer, so I won't repeat what he said. I will just say the simplest way of describing the Civil War is this:

 

The war was fought over secession (the north to prevent it, the south to secure it), but secession was all about preserving slavery. How do we know? Because that is what the south said it was about.

[NJCubScouter]

Since this thread has reared its ugly head again, I will just repeat that the recent Confederate flag controversy (remember that? Seems like years ago, before the News Cycle cycled on in its interminable way) is not about what happened in the 1860's, it is about what happened in the 1960's.

[Fehler]

Just like people forgetting that "Under God" wasn't added to the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954 (with some groups using the term as early as 1948).

[CalicoPenn]

Well, we Americans are really good at forgetting or ignoring parts of our history that we just don't want to admit or deal with - hardly anyone remembers that the author of the Pledge of Allegiance was a Socialist.

[Gone]

There great books out there written about how the Civil War's historical perspective was being white-washed as early as 1882, with the biggest push being in the 1920-40s. The current round of historical editing is not the first....nor will it be the last.

[Stosh]

@

 

You are referring to all the "Lost Cause" legends that have been created over the many years since the Civil War and yes, you are correct, "They ain't done yet!"  

 

The modern history books are loaded with these legends.  For example, everyone believes the war ended with the surrender of Robert E. Lee at Appomattox Courthouse, VA.  Nope,  The Army of Northern VIrginia surrendered when Lee surrendered, but there were still other Armies from the different Confederate states that still fought on.  The last to surrender was Texas in late summer, early fall of 1865.  Johnson surrendered in the Carolinas somewhere, Hood in Alabama/Mississippi area and I believe it was Taylor who surrendered the Texans. 

 

The reason Lee got so much notoriety is because his Army was closest to Washington and it protected Richmond, the Confederate capital.  The newspaper reporters didn't need to go very far to get the news.    

 

Lost Cause will let everyone know how brilliant Lee was when he fought on for 4 years.  Well he wasn't part of the Army of Northern Virginia in the beginning and when he finally did take command it was just that small part of the Army located in Virginia.  Grant on the other hand was over-all US general of all the federal forces from Missouri to Washington DC.  Grant fought in every aspect of the war from Vicksburg on the Mississippi to the city of Richmond in Virginia.  Lee fought in Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania only.  He never left his own backyard.  

[Rick_in_CA]

Well, we Americans are really good at forgetting or ignoring parts of our history that we just don't want to admit or deal with - hardly anyone remembers that the author of the Pledge of Allegiance was a Socialist.

It was written by Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister and a Christian socialist.

[DigitalScout]

Here's an interesting history of slavery in Great Britain, Europe and the Americas.  Note the difference between the banning of the slave trade and the abolition of slavery. 

 

1777 - State of Vermont, an independent Republic after the American Revolution, becomes first sovereign state to abolish slavery

1787 - The Society for the Abolition of the Slave Trade founded in Britain by Granville Sharp and Thomas Clarkson

1792 - Denmark bans import of slaves to its West Indies colonies, although the law only took effect from 1803.

1807 - Britain passes Abolition of the Slave Trade Act, outlawing British Atlantic slave trade.

- United States passes legislation banning the slave trade, effective from start of 1808.

1811 - Spain abolishes slavery, including in its colonies, though Cuba rejects ban and continues to deal in slaves.

1813 - Sweden bans slave trading

1814 - Netherlands bans slave trading

1817 - France bans slave trading, but ban not effective until 1826

1833 - Britain passes Abolition of Slavery Act, ordering gradual abolition of slavery in all British colonies. Plantation owners in the West Indies receive 20 million pounds in compensation

- Great Britain and Spain sign a treaty prohibiting the slave trade

1819 - Portugal abolishes slave trade north of the equator

- Britain places a naval squadron off the West African coast to enforce the ban on slave trading

1823 - Britain's Anti-Slavery Society formed. Members include William Wilberforce

1846 - Danish governor proclaims emancipation of slaves in Danish West Indies, abolishing slavery

1848 - France abolishes slavery

1851 - Brazil abolishes slave trading

1858 - Portugal abolishes slavery in its colonies, although all slaves are subject to a 20-year apprenticeship

1861 - Netherlands abolishes slavery in Dutch Caribbean colonies

1862 - U.S. President Abraham Lincoln proclaims emancipation of slaves with effect from January 1, 1863; 13th Amendment of U.S. Constitution follows in 1865 banning slavery

1886 - Slavery is abolished in Cuba

1888 - Brazil abolishes slavery

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/03/22/uk-slavery-idUSL1561464920070322