The American Civil War

[WSUCougar]

If possible (heh), I’d like to exchange a little intellectual discourse on the Civil War.

At the risk of starting a raging flamefest – at which point I would put on my cool Mod Squad robe and wizard hat and starting dealing out lightning bolts – I’d like for people to explore their sentiments about this watershed event in American history. Be as honest as you can, and as respectful as you can to other opinions.

To start things off, I’d like to toss out the following questions:

1. Almost 150 years after its ending, what’s your personal stance on the Civil War as a key event in American history? The question is intentionally open-ended. If you are African American I'd be particularly interested in hearing your opinion.

2. Why do you think there are many Americans who still deny that slavery was the principal cause of the war? This is not meant to anger those of you who feel that way, but from a scholarly perspective that viewpoint is definitely now in the minority.

3. What, if anything, do you think Americans can learn from the Civil War?

4. Do you visit Civil War battlefields and related sites, and if so, why?

5. Can you give a brief explanation of Reconstruction and its implications on American history?

[wade moore]

I don't want this to die a slow death. I intend to respond, just have to take some time with it.

[albionmoonlight]

1. As someone with connections to two prominent antebellum cities--New Orleans and Charleston, I sometimes wonder if there was anyway to avoid the War, though I don't know if that was possible. I also tend to think more about the effects of reconstruction than about the effects of the War itself--since Reconstruction caused so much damage to the areas which I use to define myself.

2. Residents of Charleston, SC like to joke that they are like the Chineese--they eat lots of rice and worship their ancestors. To point out an obvious point, for anyone who lives in the South or who had ancestors who lived in the South, the slavery dynamic causes one to view the War as the good Northerners who believed in freedom fighting the evil Southerners who beleived in human bondage. No one likes to think of themselves and their ancestors as evil. That natural instinct, coupled with the fact that the war was, in fact, motivated by a complex combination of factors, leads many to dismiss the importance of slavery as a motivation.

3. You cannot force people to agree to a government. People need to have faith that the majority will as exercised by the instruments of government will protect their minority rights. When people stop believing that their basic rights will be protected, they have no reason to submit their soverignity to a larger governmental unit. We should note this as we try to form a government in Iraq. Better to have a government that does not do much in the early stages--but one which people get used to trusting, than a government that makes 55% of the people happy in the hopes that the other 45% will just lie there and take it. They won't.

4. No. I'm more of a natural beauty person than a history person.

5. Had we had Lincoln's wisdom and compassion during Reconstruction, the South would have been a lot better off.

[albionmoonlight]

dola--those are just my uneducated off the cuff responses. I look forward to reading wade, Bucc, etc.'s more edcuated and enlightening views.

[JonInMiddleGA]

1. Almost 150 years after its ending, what’s your personal stance on the Civil War as a key event in American history?

Umm ... err ... oddly worded question or at least I'm not grasping what you're looking for here. Obviously it was a "key event in American history", but I don't think that's in dispute so agreement on that point isn't likely what you're looking for here. Are you looking for thoughts/feelings about the outcome? Or something else?

2. Why do you think there are many Americans who still deny that slavery was the principal cause of the war? This is not meant to anger those of you who feel that way, but from a scholarly perspective that viewpoint is definitely now in the minority.

Because it wasn't. That lie is as good an example as any of history being written by the victors. I'm not going to cry about the latter, but I'm not the least bit apologetic about not falling for it either.

3. What, if anything, do you think Americans can learn from the Civil War?
Well, it's a critical moment in the expansion of Federal power beyond what was intended.

4. Do you visit Civil War battlefields and related sites, and if so, why?


Yes, although not as an obsession or anything like that. I've been to several sites through the years but I've also been to the Alamo & want very much to visit Normandy as well (among others). I think seeing the sites adds a level of understanding to the particulars of the given era of combat and it's something I enjoy learning more about. As I've gotten older though, I've found the War of Northern Aggression battlefield sites less appealing due to the feeling of great sadness they bring to me; basically there's enough things in life to depress the hell out of me without intentionally adding another to the pile.

5. Can you give a brief explanation of Reconstruction and its implications on American history?
Occupying force descends upon its victim. Sets stage for more than a century of continued conflict (albeit one without much gunfire).

[moriarty]

:cheesy:

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

2. Why do you think there are many Americans who still deny that slavery was the principal cause of the war? This is not meant to anger those of you who feel that way, but from a scholarly perspective that viewpoint is definitely now in the minority.

I know I'm not answering your question, but I am one that thought slavery was not the principal cause of war. In fact, I recall being taught that by 'scholarly' sources (granted some time ago). When did the scholarly perspective change on this, and what is the general reasoning?

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by moriarty

:cheesy:

I know I'm not answering your question, but I am one that thought slavery was not the principal cause of war. In fact, I recall being taught that by 'scholarly' sources (granted some time ago). When did the scholarly perspective change on this, and what is the general reasoning?

It changed over the last 10 or so years. Primarily because the factors that people were listing always were traced back to slavery. If it was economics that cause the war, what was the main difference in economic systems? Slavery. Was it social issues? What were the social differences? Slavery.
Why did the South vote for everyone but Lincoln? His views on, you guessed it, slavery.

Now, that was the reason for the South seceeding from the North. Lincoln did not go to war to free the slaves, he wanted to preserve the Union. However, had the South not seceeded, the war would never have been fought. Therefore, since the South seceeded due to slavery issues/fears, etc., the war would never have been fought.

[WSUCougar]

Jon: The first question is open-ended to encourage a wide range of possible responses. For example, my response would be that I find the Civil War a fascinating treasure-trove of military, social, and political themes that resonate so much it can make your head spin.

As to the second question, you clearly disagree with slavery as the principal cause of the war, to put it mildly. So let me ask you this: what role do you feel slavery had in the relationship between the North and South between 1787 and 1861?

moriarity: I don't want to aggravate anyone's sensitivities on this point, but let's just say for now that the Civil War has been wreathed in a great deal of interpretive direction and misdirection over the years.

[NoMyths]

1. Almost 150 years after its ending, what’s your personal stance on the Civil War as a key event in American history? The question is intentionally open-ended. If you are African American I'd be particularly interested in hearing your opinion.

The Civil War opened up the national discourse to something larger that provincial lawmaking and culture. It was the birth of America as a country, rather than a collection of competing regions. Also got hundreds of thousands of Americans out walking the land and visiting different parts, which was vastly different. Also resulted in America finally embracing (or starting to) it's most critical beliefs about human rights and freedom.

2. Why do you think there are many Americans who still deny that slavery was the principal cause of the war? This is not meant to anger those of you who feel that way, but from a scholarly perspective that viewpoint is definitely now in the minority.

Because slavery wasn't the principal cause of the war. It played a large and important role, but don't underestimate how things like tax rates and local vs. national power played out. South Carolina had been led for years by the rhetoric of John C. Calhoun (whose statue still towers above town), and his was a fight for political power. In most ways it was a war over culture and economics, with an incredibly critical side pot.

3. What, if anything, do you think Americans can learn from the Civil War?

That America shouldn't have to fall apart and murder half a million of its citizens in order to rediscover its virtues and cause. That an argument can begin about one thing and end considering something more important.

4. Do you visit Civil War battlefields and related sites, and if so, why?

Yes. I'm a Civil War buff.

5. Can you give a brief explanation of Reconstruction and its implications on American history?

Sure, but very briefly. The South turned into Iraq, the north's equivalents of Halliburton came in to reestablish infrastructure, and the south became financially dependent on their enemies for help. It didn't bring the cultures together -- it underlined their differences and focused attention on class (as most things do). Lots of corruption and pocket-lining. Lots of fortunes wiped out. Lots of shadiness and crime.

On thestrong other hand, Lincoln extending the olive branch to the rebels was critical, and certainly steered things in the right direction.

[moriarty]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

It changed over the last 10 or so years. Primarily because the factors that people were listing always were traced back to slavery. If it was economics that cause the war, what was the main difference in economic systems? Slavery. Was it social issues? What were the social differences? Slavery.
Why did the South vote for everyone but Lincoln? His views on, you guessed it, slavery.

Now, that was the reason for the South seceeding from the North. Lincoln did not go to war to free the slaves, he wanted to preserve the Union. However, had the South not seceeded, the war would never have been fought. Therefore, since the South seceeded due to slavery issues/fears, etc., the war would never have been fought.

Ahh, good insight (safe to say it's been 10 years since I've been in school).

[flere-imsaho]

What I find interesting is that if you look at any Presidential election results from after the Civil War until the present day you'll see that the "Old South" pretty much votes in opposition to "The Union" ( + California). This suggests to me that there continues to be a great difference in thinking between these two parts of the country. Maybe that's obvious, but....

[moriarty]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

moriarity: I don't want to aggravate anyone's sensitivities on this point, but let's just say for now that the Civil War has been wreathed in a great deal of interpretive direction and misdirection over the years.

Not aggrivating me anyways - i was just genuinely curious. I've read a lot about WWI and WWII, but have never read any of the recent material on the Civil War. Sounds like I should go to the library.

[scooter]

I've often wondered at what age can kids start to really grasp the ideas and implications of the War Between the States. I went to a middle school in IL that had a whole year course of study about the Revolutionary War and the WBTS (7th grade). It really turned me on to learning about history and the history of the birth of our nation in particular. The school year culminated in a 2 week trip to VA, PA and DC to visit some of the important sites there. It is one of my most life-changing experiences.

I enjoy walking the battlefields and reading the books. It gives me an appreciation for what others before me went through. I can see both sides of the conflict. And at the time, neither side thought of themselves as evil (they definitely saw the other side as evil). I try to keep that in mind when I try to get my head around why they fought this war.

[WSUCougar]

I would encourage everyone to jump in comment in this thread. Don't be put off by my questions or be in anyway shy or intimidated. I'm genuinely interested in hearing more opinions on this subject.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

What I find interesting is that if you look at any Presidential election results from after the Civil War until the present day you'll see that the "Old South" pretty much votes in opposition to "The Union" ( + California). This suggests to me that there continues to be a great difference in thinking between these two parts of the country. Maybe that's obvious, but....

That may be more due to the more obvious ubran/rural split.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

Jon: The first question is open-ended to encourage a wide range of possible responses.

Fair enough. I just thought I was missing some otherwise obvious direction or something.

So let me ask you this: what role do you feel slavery had in the relationship between the North and South between 1787 and 1861?

It was more symptom than cause IMO. For slavery to have been the root cause, it would have had to have been enough to start the war without any economic impact. I don't believe it would have been, i.e. in the absence of economic implications, slavery in & of itself isn't an issue worth the cost of war.

Further, I don't believe that economics were the sole/primary cause of the War either. Ultimately, I believe that comes down to a much simpler or baser issue: Who has the power to make the rules.

[GoldenEagle]

I guess others have said it, but I am going to elaborate a bit more on it. The initial cause of the war was not slavery. The succession of the Union is what caused the war to begin with. Slavery was certainly an issue, but it was not the principal cause of the war. The South’s political beliefs were more of what the United States was originally founded on. Slavery certainly became a battle cry toward the end of the war, but I would have to disagree with it being the reason why the war was started.

Warhammer and others make good points. Slavery was the biggest issue. However, slavery did not start the war. I also disagree with the theory that the South is in denial over why the war was started.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I don't believe it would have been, i.e. in the absence of economic implications, slavery in & of itself isn't an issue worth the cost of war.

Just to be clear on that statement, you do not believe the South would have fought a war just to keep slavery?

[st.cronin]

In broad perspective, it was a war which determined whether America would be an Imperial power or a Marginal power; the North winning meant that America was bound to be an Imperial power (although there are those, even today, who still resist and deny this destiny).

Had the South won (or had the North's victory been less than total), America would be a marginal power, without even regional hegemony.

[wishbone]

1. It happened a long time ago and I don't understand why anyone would be proud of what happened. I respect the people of the time for defending what they thought was right but don't like what happened.

2. I was tought and agree that slavery was a major issue, but I think even if slavery had been outlawed there would have been another issue at some point that would have caused a state to want to withdraw from the United States. Scholar schmolar, they change their minds so often I could care less what the academic community thinks about any issue.

3. In order to win a war, you must have both the tools/weaponry and the leadership. Once the Union had adequate leadership they started winning. I think it's also another example of people fighting without understanding why they are fighting and the limitations they have. Americans and it's troops need to know why they are fighting and how they need to fight.


4. No, I live in Oregon. If I was to go cross-country to visit historical sites, Civil War sites would be a low priority.

5. All I know is what was in Gone With the Wind


Is this a homework assignment or what?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Just to be clear on that statement, you do not believe the South would have fought a war just to keep slavery?

Not in & of itself (trying to differentiate between the institution itself & the right to determine its own institutions)

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Not in & of itself (trying to differentiate between the institution itself & the right to determine its own institutions)

I still don't think that most people really care about who makes the rules--except as an intellectual matter. Once you get to issues that really matter to people--abortion, slavery, taxes, gun control, etc., etc., etc., it seems that people care more about the rules being imposed on them (or the governmental decision not to impose rules) than they do about who is imposing the rules.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I still don't think that most people really care about who makes the rules--except as an intellectual matter.

Sometimes that last bit there is plenty enough.

it seems that people care more about the rules being imposed on them (or the governmental decision not to impose rules) than they do about who is imposing the rules.

Again though (and more back to where I was at originally), what might be ... unpalatable (pick a word) if your government did it becomes intolerable if another government did it.

And that probably takes us back to a core issue that led to the war -- the feeling was that "us" = the sovereign states while "them" = the federal government. That's an issue that proved to be quite troublesome for the C.S.A. as well (and is something tackled in a book I just picked up but haven't had a chance to start yet Dixie Betrayed: How the South Really Lost the Civil War).

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Sometimes that last bit there is plenty enough.




Again though (and more back to where I was at originally), what might be ... unpalatable (pick a word) if your government did it becomes intolerable if another government did it.

And that probably takes us back to a core issue that led to the war -- the feeling was that "us" = the sovereign states while "them" = the federal government. That's an issue that proved to be quite troublesome for the C.S.A. as well (and is something tackled in a book I just picked up but haven't had a chance to start yet Dixie Betrayed: How the South Really Lost the Civil War).

OK, I see your point now. The idea wasn't (as it is today) the issue of how to divide responsibility between two soverigns (the state and the fed) that the vast majority of people agree have the legitimacy to rule. The issue was whether one of the soverigns was, in fact, legitimate (or--if it was legitimate, whether steps should be taken to divest it of that legitimacy).

I agree that that is a very different issue.

[lungs]

I'd have let them go their own way.

[Honolulu Blue]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

What I find interesting is that if you look at any Presidential election results from after the Civil War until the present day you'll see that the "Old South" pretty much votes in opposition to "The Union" ( + California). This suggests to me that there continues to be a great difference in thinking between these two parts of the country. Maybe that's obvious, but....

Your conclusion is all right, but the facts are off.

From the end of Reconstruction through 1960, the Southern states all pretty much went for the Democratic candidate. I think we all understand why.

Between '60 and '64 the Democrats started to get serious about civil rights and desegretation. With the '64 election, the South shifted toward the Republicans, where they remain to this day.

This site tells the Electoral College story.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

That may be more due to the more obvious ubran/rural split.

In that "The North" is more urban than "The South"?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Honolulu Blue

Your conclusion is all right, but the facts are off.

No they're not. Look at any contested election since 1860. The "Old South" votes for one candidate, the "Union" votes for the other. Regardless of the party.

There are some exceptions, but generally it's the rule: http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Had the South won, its fair to say slavery as an institution would have continued for many year, and its debatable as to what the status of civil rights today would have been.

That may or may not be true, but I maintain that American global hegemony only became possible because of how the Civil War was resolved.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

In broad perspective, it was a war which determined whether America would be an Imperial power or a Marginal power; the North winning meant that America was bound to be an Imperial power (although there are those, even today, who still resist and deny this destiny).

Had the South won (or had the North's victory been less than total), America would be a marginal power, without even regional hegemony.

Had the South won, its fair to say slavery as an institution would have continued for many year, and its debatable as to what the status of "civil rights" would have been.

Its also interesting to think about the connatations of WW II in this scenario (if you assume a WW II would still have happened, which seems to me a reasonable expectation) - the South would have been more natural Axis allies in their quest to create a second front on the American mainland - more so than Japan.

[Arctus]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Had the South won, its fair to say slavery as an institution would have continued for many year, and its debatable as to what the status of "civil rights" would have been.

I don't think its fair to say that at all.

And for the record, I'm a transplanted northerner living in Richmond, VA.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Arctus

I don't think its fair to say that at all.

And for the record, I'm a transplanted northerner living in Richmond, VA.

Okay, let me first state that I don't think that a 100 years down the line, slavery would have still continued. I assume that the idea of basic human rights would have dawned in the South eventually. Nonetheless, I do hink its likely that it would have continued for some time, if only because of the attitude that JIMGA pointed out - that getting rid of slavery was a "Northern" idea, and upholding slavery may have had as much to do with a "rebuk" to the north as with Southern beliefs on the issue.

[Grunthos]

Wow, I just lost a nice, long, well-crafted response because the server decided I wasn't logged in even when I had to be to start the post in the first place. Nice.

I'm not composing that one again. Sorry.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Had the South won, its fair to say slavery as an institution would have continued for many year, and its debatable as to what the status of "civil rights" would have been.

Its also interesting to think about the connotations of WW II in this scenario (if you assume a WW II would still have happened, which seems to me a reasonable expectation) - the South would have been more natural Axis allies in their quest to create a second front on the American mainland - more so than Japan.

I don't think that slavery could have continued for much longer. The South were rapidly losing trading partners because of slavery, and eventually it would have become economically inviable. It would have eventually ended, but you are right on the civil rights front. The rights of Blacks and other minorities would have been "slave-like" forever if the "states-rights" agenda would have continued. I've always been torn on the states right/ federalization issue. I think in todays world, states rights no longer is even a viable option.

[st.cronin]

I don't think slavery would have lasted long in the South, had they won the war. Maybe a generation, at most - there was already significant abolitionist thinking among the intelligensia of the CSA, for a variety of ethical and economic concerns.

It's certainly possible that it would have lasted; it's also possible that it would have been abolished in such a way that racism would not be an issue in this continent. I don't really think anybody has any way of knowing.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I don't think slavery would have lasted long in the South, had they won the war. Maybe a generation, at most - there was already significant abolitionist thinking among the intelligensia of the CSA, for a variety of ethical and economic concerns.

It's certainly possible that it would have lasted; it's also possible that it would have been abolished in such a way that racism would not be an issue in this continent. I don't really think anybody has any way of knowing.

Can we concede that as of 1865, given a Southern victory, slavery would have continued in the South ? You cite a generation as a short term prognosis - is it then fair to see slavery would in all likelyhood have continued up until the start of the 20th century (30 years roughly, one generation?) ?

[Honolulu Blue]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Look at any contested election since 1860. The "Old South" votes for one candidate, the "Union" votes for the other. Regardless of the party.

There are some exceptions, but generally it's the rule: http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/

Thanks for the site.

I think we're arguing about the same thing. I say the South supported Democrats until '64 and Republicans after that - which is absolutely true, with the exceptions of locally appealing independents. You say there's a split between what the "Old South" does and the "Union". This is less true:

* Both North and South voted for FDR in all four elections
* Both North and South voted for Tricky Dick in '72
* Both North and South voted for Reagan in '80 and '84

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Can we concede that as of 1865, given a Southern victory, slavery would have continued in the South ?

I'm not sure I'd say it had a 30 year timeline left in it (I'd probably be more of a mind to argue that it would have varied from state-to-state, as little as 5 years to as many as 25 or 30), but FWIW, I wouldn't take issue at all with stipulating that it wouldn't have ended immediately at the conclusion of the war.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Can we concede that as of 1865, given a Southern victory, slavery would have continued in the South ? You cite a generation as a short term prognosis - is it then fair to see slavery would in all likelyhood have continued up until the start of the 20th century (30 years roughly, one generation?) ?

I don't. I'd say no more than 10 years.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Can we concede that as of 1865, given a Southern victory, slavery would have continued in the South ? You cite a generation as a short term prognosis - is it then fair to see slavery would in all likelyhood have continued up until the start of the 20th century (30 years roughly, one generation?) ?

I will concede that if you like, simply because I think it's a moot point, but I can think of any number of scenarios under which it would have gone away faster (or slower) than that.

I think the Civil War was our counter-Revolution; and that it's implications were American Empire. Slavery was the issue of the day, it could as easily have been about immigration or taxation, but it was an inevitable conflict (although not inevitably a war).

[Tigercat]

The Civil War was part II of the American Revolution. It was not intially dedicated to slavery, but to deciding under what conditions the union could be devided under.

Thankfully, the union decided it was not right for division after an election loss or over the desire to continue slavery indefinitely.

Slavery was the fuel for the Civil War, but it was NOT the engine that drove it into motion. That engine was the nature of our federal government. An issue that Lincoln states himself in more speeches than he talks about slavery being important to the war.

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I think the Civil War was our counter-Revolution; and that it's implications were American Empire. Slavery was the issue of the day, it could as easily have been about immigration or taxation, but it was an inevitable conflict (although not inevitably a war).

Dola, I much agree with this.

[tanglewood]

As a non-American European...

1. Almost 150 years after its ending, what’s your personal stance on the Civil War as a key event in American history? The question is intentionally open-ended. If you are African American I'd be particularly interested in hearing your opinion.

The US Civil War irrevocably changed the political landscape of the US. As flere pointed out it is the root of the essential North/South divide still present in US politics to this day. Ultimately howver, beside that somewhat minor point, the US Civil War ultimately changed very little, as Black Americans moved from literal slavery to merely technical slavery. It was the lack of Federal intervention in the South immediatley after the Civil War that caused the collapse of reconstruction and then the sheer incompetence of decisions such as Plessy vs Ferguson that lead to very little changing for Black Americans in the United States until at least the Civil Rights Act, and realistically the sentiment still lurks in the deepest channels of the American psyche. It has taken 150 years of gentle progress since the abolition of slevery for Black Americans to attain anything even resembling equality in US society. It could be argued that the ACW was the ultimate cause of such progress, but I believe that such a shift would have eventully occured regardless. In the end it has been Black American's own efforts in the 1950s-present that has caused improvement in their situation, not any federal bill or decree.

2. Why do you think there are many Americans who still deny that slavery was the principal cause of the war? This is not meant to anger those of you who feel that way, but from a scholarly perspective that viewpoint is definitely now in the minority.

I can only attribute it to denial. I agree with whoever said that people don't want to see their ancestors as 'the bad guys' (although modern Germany has shown this certainly is possible). Any argument over what lead to the US Civil War other than slavery ultimately leads back to slavery any case. Economics? The main, indeed almost sole, economic difference was that the South was so structured around slave-driven plantations and the North was on the way to industrialisation. Federal power? The federal power that the South was attempting to resist was the North's (percieved) effort to ban slavery! Essentially, if the rich white slave owners, who dominanted the politics of the South, had not felt threatened by the possibilty of slavery being removed from them there would have been no impetus for a civil war.

3. What, if anything, do you think Americans can learn from the Civil War?

I think that the still present pride in Confederate history is bizzare and to a large extent, most repugnant and would hope it would dissapear as the event becomes more removed and disassociated from present Southerners. I would also hope that Americans can finally accept that slavery and persecution of Black Americans is an integral part of their history and an intrinsic part of what it is to be American. Only by universal recognition of this fact can the subversive strains of society who, conciously or otherwise, draw upon it for their dangerous means be eradicated.

4. Do you visit Civil War battlefields and related sites, and if so, why?

No I never have, and not sure if I ever would. I find battle sites generally uniteresting and not necessarily educationally worthwhile visiting them. A part of me also finds the fetishising of such sites, especially those of Nazi, Confederate or other 'bad guy' victories, disconcerting.

5. Can you give a brief explanation of Reconstruction and its implications on American history?

Reconstruction governments were no more or less efficient or corrupt than the White governments before the Civil War. However they were infinitley more desirable as they were more representative of the population, ergo more democratic. However as they were of an entirely artifical construction they could never have hoped to survive without federal support, which was of course almost non-existent and in any case promptly removed. That a few reconstruction goverments lasted almost 30 years is a testament to how succesfully popular democractic goverments can resist in the face of attack. The blatant lies, both in academia and in popular society, that shaped the American public's view of reconstruction are nothing short of disgraceful and among the lowest point of American history.

[Jas_lov]

Originally Posted by Honolulu Blue

Thanks for the site.

I think we're arguing about the same thing. I say the South supported Democrats until '64 and Republicans after that - which is absolutely true, with the exceptions of locally appealing independents. You say there's a split between what the "Old South" does and the "Union". This is less true:

* Both North and South voted for FDR in all four elections
* Both North and South voted for Tricky Dick in '72
* Both North and South voted for Reagan in '80 and '84

Not to get between you guys, be he did say every contested election. the elections you have mentioned were landslides where one candidate (Hoover, Carter) was substantially weaker than the stronger candidate such as FDR and Reagan. I think it's hard to argue that they don't vote differently in cases where it's somewhat of a question as to who will win, to this day even as the Union plus California voted for Gore and Kerry and the South and Midwest voted for Bush.

[Tigercat]

Anyone who thinks that slavery didn't play a large role in the Civil War is crazy.

The problem comes with the implications that the Civil War was intiated and meant to be a war of moral correction against the evils of slavery. Which is just plain wrong, and puts both sides and the entire war into the wrong historical perspective.

[Honolulu Blue]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

Not to get between you guys, be he did say every contested election. the elections you have mentioned were landslides where one candidate (Hoover, Carter) was substantially weaker than the stronger candidate such as FDR and Reagan. I think it's hard to argue that they don't vote differently in cases where it's somewhat of a question as to who will win, to this day even as the Union plus California voted for Gore and Kerry and the South and Midwest voted for Bush.

Fair point. I could split hairs and say that every election was "contested" because there was a Democrat and a Republican in each of them, but I won't.

I hereby withdraw my criticism. I still think we're saying the same thing two different ways.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

It was more symptom than cause IMO. For slavery to have been the root cause, it would have had to have been enough to start the war without any economic impact. I don't believe it would have been, i.e. in the absence of economic implications, slavery in & of itself isn't an issue worth the cost of war.

Further, I don't believe that economics were the sole/primary cause of the War either. Ultimately, I believe that comes down to a much simpler or baser issue: Who has the power to make the rules.

I don't understand this at all. Slavery's economic impact is WHY the south wanted to keep it. They weren't keeping slaves around for kicks, they were keeping them around because they could make more money with them. Of course, if you divorced slavery from economics, it wouldn't cause a war. Similarly with your second paragraph, the decisions that the South had problems with were economic (slavery, tariffs, etc).

"Who has the power to make the rules" is so general that it can be cited as the cause for nearly every war ever conducted.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I don't understand this at all. Slavery's economic impact is WHY the south wanted to keep it. They weren't keeping slaves around for kicks, they were keeping them around because they could make more money with them. Of course, if you divorced slavery from economics, it wouldn't cause a war. Similarly with your second paragraph, the decisions that the South had problems with were economic (slavery, tariffs, etc).

"Who has the power to make the rules" is so general that it can be cited as the cause for nearly every war ever conducted.

But the cost of keeping up slavery was quickly catching up with the cost ending slavery. European powers were growing more and more anti-slavery, and without trading partners the South would have had to give up slavery in order to survive.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

I am always amazed at the contradiction between the Revolutionary War and the Civil War (or the War Between the States; War of Northern Aggression.)

No where in the constitution was it written that once a member of the Union you could not leave it. Repugnant as the reason for the South's wanting to succeed was (slavery, pure and simple) the principle that allowed the New England colonies to split from British rule was pretty much the same one the South used as its model to split from the north and one the north deemed fit to deny for its own interests.

Yes. On the other hand, the war's been fought, and the issue decided.

[Bubba Wheels]

I am always amazed at the contradiction between the Revolutionary War and the Civil War (or the War Between the States; War of Northern Aggression.)

No where in the constitution was it written that once a member of the Union you could not leave it. Repugnant as the reason for the South's wanting to succeed was (slavery, pure and simple) the principle that allowed the New England colonies to split from British rule was pretty much the same one the South used as its model to split from the north and one the north deemed fit to deny for its own interests.