It is nice to see that the best minds on the internet can no better reach a consensus on the origins of the Civil War than historians have in the past 135 years. You guys argue in circles like you were in the Pit! Do you EVER come to a conclusion? Is this what discussions back in college were like and I was just too drunk to remember? 
Thanks, dan, I had forgotten about Ashcroft and Forrest.
And it’s not just Ashcroft. Bush’s nominee for Interior is ANOTHER “The Confederacy was right” crackpot.
Lincoln didn’t just assert that states don’t have the right to secede. He argued it in his First Inaugural Address.
That would seem a logical starting point for debating the issue.
Jodi: You changed your analogy! 
At first it read like this:
Then you changed it to this:
I contested the first phrasing because you were using it to paraphrase why Southern desires for autonomy were really just Southern desires to own slaves. That’s why I pointed out that not all Southerners had interest in the perpetuation of the peculiar institution. I’ve got no problem with the modified analogy; I think it’s fair enough to say that most Southerners felt they could and should reserve the right to own slaves if they wanted to.
That book is really good; I heartily recommend it.
*Cite! Cite!
So what did Ashcroft have to say about all this Tuesday? Did it come up during the hearing? Did he argue about how Lee freed his slaves before Franklin Delano Roosevelt freed his?
As to the reason behind the Civil War, per the Oxford History of the American People (they are respected, and being brits, they can be a bit more neutral on this than us)= “And nobody who has read the letteres, state papers, newspapers, and other surviving literature of the generation before 1861 can honestly deny that the one, main fundamental reason for secession …was to protect, expand, and perpetuate the slavery of the Negro race. In the official declarations by the seceding conventions… there is no mention of any grievance unconnected with slavery”.
Tariff you say?- that was used by the South as propaganda with England & france- but most of the Souths congressmen voted for the tariff. And the Confederate Congress re-enacted the tariff.
Oh, and as for Nathan B. Forrest? Besides being one of the most vicious racists in American History- he has come to be a sort of "secret code’ for neo-confederate racism. See- it is “OK to respect our Southern heritage”- and I can buy this for maybe Stonewall, or “Marse Robert”. However, NBF was an insignificant general- besides his racism. Note that- altho once Robert E Lee Tshirts & etc were the most popular- now NBF outsells him 5 to 1. Per “Lies Across America” by Loewen: “Neo-Confederates do know what Forrest did at Fort Pillow and may be choosing his likeness precisely because they like his ‘solution’ to the ‘race problem’”. (at Fort Pillow, Troops under NBF killed Negro soldiers who surrendered).
I seriously doubt he’ll get called on the floor for one off the cuff remark he made almost 20 years ago – and taken out of context apparently too. Anyone have a link to the full exchange? I didn’t think so.
But, nice to see the slavery vs. King Cotton debate marches on…
Regarding the idea that only a tiny minority of Southerners owned slaves:
James F. Epperson has some interesting statistics on this page on how widespread slave ownership was among Southern families on the eve of the Civil War:
And of course it’s perfectly possible that some people might have advocated slavery, or even fought to defend it, even if they didn’t own slaves. Slavery was a social as well as an economic system, based on an avowed belief in white racial superiority. To again quote the Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union, already referred to earlier in this thread:
Even non-slave-owning whites might support a system which openly made them part of the “master race”, and might fear ending that system and losing the special status it gave them.
I think this overstates the case against Nathan Bedford Forrest on one comparatively minor point. The Britannica does not seem to dispute the description of him as a “born military genius” who “fought with distinction” and “took a brilliant part in the autumn campaign” and “decisively defeated a superior Union force”. Naturally, none of this says anything about the man’s moral character or worthiness of admiration by a modern American politician. The Britannica also describes Genghis Khan as “a warrior and ruler of genius” and describes Attila the Hun as “an outstanding commander”. (By the way, does anyone have a source for Ashcroft calling NBF a “hero”?)
MEB- you make a point- I used the expression “not a very good general”, when actually “an insignificant, minor general” would be more correct. For example- in the Oxford history- Rbert E Lee is mentioned over 50 times, longstreet, stonewall, johnsone all get dozens of mentions. NBF gets TWO. The first is: “the romantic exploits of the confederate cavalrymen Stuart, Forrest, Morgan & Shelby, contributed little to their cause…”.
The second is after the War- “Although apologists for the South decry the crimes of the KKK, they were led by the “flower of southern manhood”, who cannot escape acts in the same class with those of Hitlers stormtroopers. The “Grand Wizard” of the KKK was General N.B. Forrest, csa…” (Oxford History of theAmerican People)
Can I inject something here? From my limited readings on the subject, it seems to me that the average white Southerner would have been terrified of the possible consequences of freeing the slaves – they made up a large percentage of the population, and had good reason to be pissed off.
So perhaps that was why Southerners rallied behind the slave issue during the Civil War: fear of what the alternatives might be like. Even if they were staunchly opposed to slavery and innocent of any wrongdoing, it wouldn’t matter: the institution had already committed enough horrors so that they would be implicated along with everyone else. Consider how paranoid people get these days over minor issues, and just imagine how they must have felt back then. The North, the South and the slaves were all victims of a sad and tragic situation, in my opinion, and it’s hard to really blame anyone.
True enough, STRAWHOUSE, but by the same token it is hardly a time or an event in which to take inordinate pride. “Let us honor the memory of our Confederate forebears” always sounds odd to me, because I fail to see the value in honoring people for having fought a war to preserve injustice, and who lost the war, at that. I have always felt the Civil War should be studied, learned from, and rememberd as one of the darkest periods in our nation’s history. I have never felt it should be glorified. So honor our ancestors if we must, but do not honor the Confederacy or the cause and ideals it stood for. That’s my take on it.
Hi Jodi. Actually, my earlier post was in regard to whether the Civil War happened because of slavery. With regard to taking pride in the Confederacy NOWADAYS, I completely agree with you – it’s yet another example of deprived folks trying to add a little romance into their lives; in fact, it almost seems like the “trendy” thing to do. These days, racial issues have become mainstream in a big way and lots of people seem to be spellbound by the stuff… I can’t seem to have a conversation IRL without it eventually leading to slavery, Hitler, Irish/English issues, etc. It’s sick, but it’s simply part of today’s culture… and I don’t think it’s even possible to reason with the kind of people you’re referring to.
Actually, I think I should clarify my last posting a bit: there’s nothing wrong with having opinions, but some people seem fascinated with simple-minded revisionism without doing any real research. Or maybe I just have the bad luck to keep running into those “slavery wasn’t that bad!” people…
I guess this might qualify as a Lazarus thread: it just came back from the dead. Sorry I missed this when it was fresh.
Two points: (1) The North profited from slavery economics as much or more as the South did, and for at least a century or longer. Many Boston merchants profited by trading cod for Carribbean rum (made from sugar grown by slaves) in the 18th century. Other textile factory owners turned southern cotton (grown by slaves) into thread and cloth in the 19th century. However (and this is a key point) the North outgrew its dependence on slavery economics in the 1850s. The North was therefore free to take a firm stand against the institution of slavery. This gave them enormous power against all southern arguments and strategies, and with the its increasing political power from the growth of the nation, left the South with diminished power and few options. Sure, slavery and money were causal agents, but the war was fought over power.
(2) Bedford Forrest is correctly reviled for what we now call war crimes (why Sherman isn’t as well is sometimes a curiosity I ponder) and for his founding of the KKK. However, he was a brilliant general. You northern apologists might not be able to stomach it due to it’s pro-southern tone, but the book “Bedford Forrest and His Critter Company” by Andrew Lytle provides evidence of Forrest’s abilities as a field commander. Read it, imagine Lee taking Forrest instead of J.E.B. Stuart on the Army of Virginia’s ill-fated foray into Pennsylvania, and shudder at what might have been…
IVORYBILL –
This, to me, is largely beside the point. England flourished under a feudal system for centuries; that had nothing to do with determining, at some point in time, that such a system was no longer workable and should be set aside. (Feudalism, however, did not carry the overt taint of strong moral disapproval that slavery did.)
Of course it was fought over power, but – once again – with feeling – power to do what? Own slaves, that’s what. Of course the fact that the North’s industrial economy was not based on slavery meant that they could embrace a moral stance that slavery was wrong. This strikes me as self-evident. Again, I think it is an example of both historical revisionism and willful bifurcation of actual and theoretical causes to say that slavery was a “cause” of the war, but was not what the war was “fought over.” As the single major catalyst for the entire conflict, it most certainly was what the war was “fought over.”
I don’t think anyone has disputed this. He was, however, a lousy human being, and his value as a “brilliant general” must be offset by the fact that his side lost the war. In any event, his name was raised in this discussion in the context of putting him forward as some magnificent symbol of antebellum values. Since he was a vicious racist and unrepentant war criminal, as well as the founder of the KKK, it naturally strikes many as odd that he would be chosen for such veneration.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Jodi *
**
It can’t be beside the point: the North’s hands were just as dirty from participating in the slave economy as were the South’s at the time the war started. Many folks in this thread have come down pretty hard on the South (and rightly so) but those who are the harshest on the South also seem to ignore the North’s share of responsibility for maintaining the economic power of slavery in the United States. I’m just seeking for a little more even-handed treatment of both sides.
**
That sound you hear is my head banging the keyboard. Okay… you’re not going to admit that while slavery was the overriding factor behind the Late Unpleasantness there were also other underlying factors. I can accept that. Slavery was a biggie. So was power, tariff, and folks who were just plain mad that the North was being hypocritcal. However, could we go back in time and ask, I bet you the lion’s share of the participants wouldn’t list slavery as their motivation.
**
Seems to me that several posts on this thread made Forrest out to be a minor general who wasn’t too competent. I wanted to point out that while yes, he played a minor role strategically, he was one of the shrewdest and most capable of the Confederacy’s military leaders. Note that I didn’t let him off the hook for his more unsavory deeds. Nor was I advocating carving his visage onto Stone Mountain. Now, why don’t we treat Sherman with similar ire? In addition to his Civil War crimes, he also wasn’t overly friendly to native Americans.
IMHO, we can’t have discussions about the past (or present, for that matter) that paint one side (and its leaders) as wholly evil and the other side (and its leaders) as wholly good, especially when the reality is much more murky. Won’t you agree that such was the tone of many posts in this thread?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ivorybill *
**
A few things do come into sharp focus.
The North won. The Union was preserved. Slavery was ended.
These are generally regarded as Good Things.
The war is over.
The Good Guys won.
Get over it.
Ahh… You’re mocking me, Jackmannii.
In that the war is over, yes you’re right. In that the good guys won, yes you’re right. In that the victor gets to write the history books, you’re right again.
Something to consider as you ask southerners to “Get over it.” We are the only group of Americans to have a war fought on our home territory. We are the only group of Americans to submit to terms of unconditionaly surrender. We are also the only group of Americans to have our home territory occupied by the victorious enemy troops. My ancestors lost everything they had in the war. My great-grandmother was a college graduate (pre-1861); there wasn’t another until I came along.
So… there are a lot of stories kept alive by southern families about what our grandmothers and grandfathers did in the war and after, letters saved that point out how they felt and what they thought about it. All I’m doing in this thread is pointing out that there are two sides to every story, and that the good guys weren’t as good as they are made out to be, nor are the bad guys as bad.
Thanks for your thoughtful and rational contribution to this discussion.
Quoth Ivorybill to Jackmanii:
“Thoughtful” and “rational” are not two words which are normally…nah, too easy.
I feel it’s worthwhile to point out that, post-bellum, Northern states did as much or more to impede social and economic assimilation of freedmen as did the Reconstructed South. Not that this bears directly on the cause of the Civil War, of course (a subject on which I’ve already discoursed at length), but Jackmanii’s assertions that “slavery was ended” and “the good guys won” strike me as just a touch oversimplistic. Speaking, once again, not as a Confederate apologist but as a Westerner who’s spent considerable time in both the North (New York, Maryland) and the South (North Carolina, Maryland).
For What It’s Worth.