US Army War College Considers Removing Paintings of Lee & Jackson and that is a good thing.

[lance_strongarm]

@Human_Action

And the Confederate states chose to a) make their stand over slavery right then,

Well, they had compromised a few times in the past, but this time an openly Northern abolitionist had won the presidency, so that was the source of their timing.

b) resolve this crisis in an arena, warfare, where all the variables were aligned against them.

I don’t agree that ALL the variables were lined up against them. They did manage to fight a long hard war after all.

That this was motivated by cultural norms rather than reason is also illustrated by the stark contrast in approach between the Deep South and Border South states.

Yes, and economic ties with the North, which the border states had more of. Also, Maryland was basically hijacked by Lincoln to keep it from seceding.

I didn’t ignore it, it’s just extremely light on specifics. It says others “dallied with compromise” and such, but not what the offered compromises were.

The point was that they did. The sentiment for compromise was still there. It was on the table.

The major one, the Crittendon, was predicated on the seven breakaway states returned. Is that true of the other compromises your cite mentions? I have no way of knowing. That cite doesn’t support the idea that there was a sizeable let-them-leave faction.

Well, I found this from a book review on the subject:

"Just about every major northern newspaper editorialized in favor of the South’s right to secede. New York Tribune (2/5/60): “If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861.” Detroit Free Press (2/19/61): “An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful could produce nothing but evil - evil unmitigated in character and appalling in content.” New York Times (3/21/61): “There is growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go.” "

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/02/lincoln.html

I didn’t deny that, I just said it was foolish. Sometimes buying scratchoffs gets you out of a financial jam, but it’s foolish as a policy.

I’m just saying the odds, while bad, were’nt as bad as a scratchoff. (BTW, where in the country or world do they call them “scratchoffs?” I know what you mean, but I haven’t heard the term.)

It’s also rational to consider alternatives. Why not go to SCOTUS? Why not wait out Lincoln and see what the future brought? Why not start preparing for war, so as to be not so badly outclassed if war was to come? And so forth.

I think the idea was that the alternatives had been exhausted, true or not.

Also, once a few states left, the rest were tempted to join them, thinking they had to choose sides and would be better off with the South.

The Japanese in World War Two were counting on that too…just like with the Confederates, it turned out that all else wasn’t equal, and they’d gotten themselves into a war they couldn’t win.

Again, hindsight is 20/20 - the Japanese looked pretty hard to beat on Dec. 8, 1941.

[Bridget_Burke]

@lance_strongarm

Well, they had compromised a few times in the past, but this time an openly Northern abolitionist had won the presidency, so that was the source of their timing…

Lincoln was not an abolitionist. (The Emancipation Proclamation came years after the election–and it was a tool to win the war, as well as do the right thing.) And, born in Kentucky, he wasn’t much of a Northerner.

[Human_Action]

@lance_strongarm

Well, they had compromised a few times in the past, but this time an openly Northern abolitionist had won the presidency, so that was the source of their timing.

He was neither Northern, nor an abolitionist, nor had he even taken office yet.

@lance strongarm

I don’t agree that ALL the variables were lined up against them. They did manage to fight a long hard war after all.

They had the defender’s advantage, and better officers (though some weren’t recruited until after hostilities began, and thus again the Confederates were gambling). Fair enough.

The long, hard war owed plenty to Union ineptitude.

@lance strongarm

Yes, and economic ties with the North, which the border states had more of. Also, Maryland was basically hijacked by Lincoln to keep it from seceding.

Sure, it’s hard to distill one factor for any historical decision.

@lance strongarm

The point was that they did. The sentiment for compromise was still there. It was on the table.

Certainly, for instance, the Crittendon Compromise. The issue was whether a compromise that allowed the Confederacy to secede was on the table.

@lance strongarm

Well, I found this from a book review on the subject:

"Just about every major northern newspaper editorialized in favor of the South’s right to secede. New York Tribune (2/5/60): “If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861.” Detroit Free Press (2/19/61): “An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful could produce nothing but evil - evil unmitigated in character and appalling in content.” New York Times (3/21/61): “There is growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go.” "

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/02/lincoln.html

Ah, there you are. Thank you. That’s more what I had in mind.

@lance strongarm

I’m just saying the odds, while bad, were’nt as bad as a scratchoff. (BTW, where in the country or world do they call them “scratchoffs?” I know what you mean, but I haven’t heard the term.)

Just an analogy. We call them scratchoffs or scratchers here in Kentucky.

@lance strongarm

I think the idea was that the alternatives had been exhausted, true or not.

Also, once a few states left, the rest were tempted to join them, thinking they had to choose sides and would be better off with the South.

I’d come down on the side of “not true”. Plenty of alternatives remained. Imagine if the Supreme Court ruled that states could secede, what a game-changer that’d be. Or, another compromise in the spirit of 1820 or 1850.

I’ll tell you the real problem: Kentucky’s own Henry Clay, the Great Compromiser, had died in 1852. There’d have been no war if he’d been around in 1861.

@lance strongarm

Again, hindsight is 20/20 - the Japanese looked pretty hard to beat on Dec. 8, 1941.

Yes, hindsight is 20/20, but that doesn’t mean the Confederate leaders made optimal decisions, given what they knew at the time, any more than Japanese leaders did.

[dougie_monty]

Originally posted by 2sense:
[…]
Affairs of honor have their own logic. By disdaining Brooks’ challenge Sumner had demonstrated that he had no honor. Since Brooks didn’t consider Sumner a gentleman it was permissible to beat him. For more on this Joanne B. Freeman has a wonderful book about dueling culture and is in the process of writing another specifically on congressional violence.
[…]

Brooks was hardly one to talk; I understand he was subsequently challeneged to a duel, in Canada (of all places), but declined, and was branded a coward. (I can give you the documentation if you like.)

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@dougie_monty

Originally posted by 2sense:
[…]
Affairs of honor have their own logic. By disdaining Brooks’ challenge Sumner had demonstrated that he had no honor. Since Brooks didn’t consider Sumner a gentleman it was permissible to beat him. For more on this Joanne B. Freeman has a wonderful book about dueling culture and is in the process of writing another specifically on congressional violence.
[…]

Brooks was hardly one to talk; I understand he was subsequently challeneged to a duel, in Canada (of all places), but declined, and was branded a coward. (I can give you the documentation if you like.)

He was considered a coward in the North, I think that, as might be expected, the South found excuses for his base cowardice.

Preston Brooks is one of the few people in history that I am glad died painfully.

[lance_strongarm]

@Human_Action

He was neither Northern, nor an abolitionist, nor had he even taken office yet.

He was from a free state, his views on slavery were close enough to label him an abolitionist (especially in Southern eyes), and like I said, he had won the presidency and was due to take office a few months later.

The long, hard war owed plenty to Union ineptitude.

No doubt.

(I find it interesting that Lincoln, with no military background and not expecting to be a war president, was often a better strategist than his generals.)

I’d come down on the side of “not true”. Plenty of alternatives remained.

I’m just describing the Southern mindset.

Imagine if the Supreme Court ruled that states could secede, what a game-changer that’d be.

Problem is, what if it said no? Then what? If you appeal to a court, and it rules against you, and you ignore its ruling, you delegitimize your argument.

Or, another compromise in the spirit of 1820 or 1850.

Yes, but like I said, in Southern eyes those had been tried and hadn’t solved the problem in the long run.

I’ll tell you the real problem: Kentucky’s own Henry Clay, the Great Compromiser, had died in 1852. There’d have been no war if he’d been around in 1861.

Perhaps.

Yes, hindsight is 20/20, but that doesn’t mean the Confederate leaders made optimal decisions, given what they knew at the time, any more than Japanese leaders did.
[/QUOTE]

I wouldn’t dispute that they were far from optimal.

Thanks for a good conversation, but I can’t keep up any more.

[Human_Action]

@lance strongarm

Thanks for a good conversation, but I can’t keep up any more.

That’s fine, we’re not that far apart anyway: Southern leaders though they had to do what they did, though they were probably wrong.

[lance_strongarm]

@Bridget_Burke

Lincoln was not an abolitionist. (The Emancipation Proclamation came years after the election–and it was a tool to win the war, as well as do the right thing.) And, born in Kentucky, he wasn’t much of a Northerner.

He might not have claimed that label, and other abolitionists at the time might not have granted it to him, but I think it’s fair to say as a person, he wanted slavery to end. He understood that, as a political matter, he couldn’t succeed in an overt campaign to end slavery immediately. Even before he was elected president, he opposed expansion of slavery into the territories and compensated emancipation. Those positions may have fallen short of abolitionism, but they were pushing the boundaries of his day for anyone who wanted to win the presidency. He may not have technically or publicly been an abolitionist, meaning someone who wanted to end all slavery, everywhere, immediately, but he was called an abolitionist by his political enemies, and if he thought it was politically feasible he likely would have advocated total abolition, as he later did when it was safe to do so (the proposed 13th amendment was part of his party’s platform in the 1864 election, and he worked to get it adopted in Congress after the election).

So don’t use the label “abolitionist” if you don’t like it, but Lincoln clearly wanted slavery to end and tried to walk political line that would allow that to happen as soon as it could.

[RickJay]

@Human_Action

The long, hard war owed plenty to Union ineptitude.

The Confederates had some stunningly terrible generals, too, but their catastrophic defeats mostly happened in the western theatre of the war, which hasn’t received the attention the endless war in and around Virginia did.

[lance_strongarm]

@Human_Action

That’s fine, we’re not that far apart anyway: Southern leaders though they had to do what they did, though they were probably wrong.

Regardless, the end result was a country that was unified and free of slavery, so I think things worked out.

[jfreakofkorn]

seems to me that they are trying to rewrite history and remove anything associated w/ the south or anything related to the CSA ( confederate states of america )…

[lance_strongarm]

@jfreakofkorn

seems to me that they are trying to rewrite history and remove anything associated w/ the south or anything related to the CSA ( confederate states of america )…

No, it’s not rewriting history, it’s choosing to change how we view it.

There’s a difference between knowledge of history and HONORING historical figures.

[WillFarnaby]

@ElvisL1ves

Some do say it was about “states’ rights”, yes. Except that was just code for slavery.

What is “it”? Secession was most certainly about slavery among other things. The war was about the North preventing secession. Also, when you make the absurdly simplified claim that “states rights” was a code for slavery, you show your statist bias. The state “right” of nullification was used to prevent enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Law. There isn’t a way to make this into a comic book no matter how hard you try.

Later it became code for Jim Crow, then segregation, now more subtle things, but the Confederate flag still represents them al

Yep I still think of legalized marijuana, ending alcohol Prohibition, and protecting runaway slaves when I see the Confederate flag to this day.

[lance_strongarm]

@WillFarnaby

Also, when you make the absurdly simplified claim that “states rights” was a code for slavery, you show your statist bias.

No. When “states rights” was used specifically to justify secession, it meant slavery. That was the overwhelming “right” that the states were asserting.

And then the term was used to justify postbellum oppression of blacks, of course.

The state “right” of nullification was used to prevent enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Law.

But when Southerners invoked “states rights” they meant slavery and slavery only. They weren’t fighting for the general principle.

As sovereign states, states in the U.S. have some powers. Allowing and promoting slavery is not legitimately one of those, though. The South liked to make it sound like secession was about the entire relationship between the Union and individual states and standing up for each and every sovereign power of states, but nobody was trying to destroy all of them–just one.