The War of Northern Aggression (U.S. Civil War).

[pknox]

rmcrobertson:

Doing a Google search for Catton, I've been able to find:

The Civil War
Mr. Lincoln's Army (I've also seen it listed as Mr. Lincoln's War, not sure if it is in fact the same book)
Glory Road
A Stillness at Appomattox

I believe the last three are also referred to as the The Army of the Potomac trilogy.

Is this the complete list? If not, could you please post a list of any of Catton's relevant titles I may have missed? Sounds like they could be an interesting source to check out.

 

[arnisador]

Originally posted by Kaith Rustaz
I believe the authors reference is to the idea that the North fought to free the slaves.

Ah, OK, I get it--the simplistic belief that the Civil War was entirely about the issue of slavery. . Indeed, the situation was considerably more complex than that. I do believe that many indivduals volunteered for that reason, but the Secession was an affront and an economic danger to the other States.

The south wanted strong states, weak national. The north wanted weak states, and a strong national.

Yes, a fair summary of the situation!

 

[arnisador]

Originally posted by OULobo
I disagree, in a sense that is what the war was about, federal authority. The federal government made a proclamation under the assumption that the union was still whole and the southern states were included. Now just because someone or some group decides that they are autonomous doesn't neccessarily make it so. Ask the Basques, the Zapatistas, the Moros, Texans, ect. As history seems to show, sovereignty is earned, soemtimes by diplomacy, usually by violence. Unfortunatly for the South, they lost their bid. The trick seems to be enforcing your proclamations and laws. Again in some ways the North went to war to enforce these laws, and by winning succeeded in enforcing said laws and proclamations. I know it sounds like might makes right, because essentially that's what it is.

It sounds like the winners write the history, which is the case. I agree--he was stating that he didn't recognize the Secession and so his orders still applied to the Southern States.

We have Separatists today who protest that our laws can't be used to arrest and prosecute them. They get arrested and prosecuted.

 

[arnisador]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Sorry, folks, and sure there were other causes. But it's utterly ridiculous to argue that the Civil War ("War of Northern Aggression," my foot, but I can see why the name came about, what with the Union attacking the perceful Confederacy at Fort Sumter...wait a minute...) had nothing to do with slavery.

Among the causes of the War were:
1) political arguments over whether new states would be slave or free;
2) skirmishes in Kansas, same issue;
3) John Brown
4) "Uncle Tom's Cabin."

Wait--were those causes of the War, or causes of the Secession? The War itself was due to the Northern States' decision not to recognize the Southern States' right to secede. This is not to say that I would blame the North for the War, but rather that I think we should make a distinction between what made the Southern States want to secede and what made the Northern States decide that that wasn't OK.

For the latter, slavery was an issue but not the whole or even necessarily the biggest issue. For both, the questionof States' rights was a big issue.

 

[OULobo]

Originally posted by arnisador
We have Separatists today who protest that our laws can't be used to arrest and prosecute them. They get arrested and prosecuted.

That's a great comment. :rofl:

 

[rmcrobertson]

Yeah, those are pretty much the Catton books I know. There's one called something like, "The Gathering Storm," and "The Civil War," is, if memory serves, a one-volume condensed version.

When I was a kid, my Scout troop went to Gettysburg a lot, and I fished on Little Antietam and Antietam creeks. In Church camp, we stayed outside Harper's Ferry...

Scouting and church camp have mostly worn off, and now as a bit of a Commie rat, I certain see that the War was about economic systems clashing. But I really dislike the glorification of Lee and the rest. If they'd had real guts and real brains, they'd have done something hard--stood up and told the home folks they were wrong, and refused to support a war whomped up by a group of aristocrats, bankers, and yahoos.

Want a real hero? I vote for Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain...but then, he was kinda an English teacher...

 

[pknox]

I went to Gettsyburg in college, and it was pretty amazing. I definitely was impressed by the wall being a lot lower than I thought it would be...I could almost imagine troops crouching so as to stay as much behind it as possible when firing. I was also shown pictures of how medical procedures were done on the battlefield, and got to tour some of the buildings were the medical operations were performed. Pretty gruesome stuff - things like piles of arms outside of barns being used for limb replacement. Quite a few people evidently went home with two left arms or a black and a white one. I also hadn't realize that there were hills around the battlefield, and had never really thought how that would effect strategy until I saw it. I would love to check out Antietam and Harper's Ferry one day. I'd also like to do Chancellorsville and Chickamauga if I ever get a chance. I guess I'll put them on my list.

 

[OULobo]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
But I really dislike the glorification of Lee and the rest. If they'd had real guts and real brains, they'd have done something hard--stood up and told the home folks they were wrong, and refused to support a war whomped up by a group of aristocrats, bankers, and yahoos.

Amen. Lee was the consumate gentleman, but despite his convictions against slavery, continued to fight the North. I can partially forgive him because he always stated that he went to war with a heavy heart and only went to protect his home, but there is a point where things need to be given priority. Lee is know as one of, if not the, best, strategist in the war, almost winning despite fewer resources and men, but at the moment of truth he stumbled and made some of the most lame tactical combat decisions in the war.

 

[pknox]

Originally posted by OULobo
but at the moment of truth he stumbled and made some of the most lame tactical combat decisions in the war.

A la Pickett's Charge. I'm really not sure what else he could have done, though. If he hadn't taken the reins, his brethren surely would be going off to slaughter. I believe that he knew in his heart that even with him at the helm it was going to be difficult, but without him, hopeless. He just tried to do the best he could with what he had. I think he also realized that the primary issue was not slavery (that was just something that was easier to use as an explanation) but instead economic and political sovereignty, which he most likely would have supported, considering his economic position as a relatively wealthy landholder.

 

[Andi]

Just reading through the Confederate constitution.

Article I, Sec 2 (2) No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained the age of twenty-five years, and be a citizen of the Confederate States, and who shall not when elected, be an inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

Sec 3 (3) No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained the age of thirty years, and be a citizen of the Confederate States; and who shall not, then elected, be an inhabitant of the State for which he shall be chosen.

Article II Sec 1 (3) The electors shall meet in their respective States and vote by ballot for President and Vice President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same State with themselves;

This caught my eye, particularly the bit that says you can't live in the same state you represent. What's that all about? Was it something peculiar to the South or is it still in the US constitution? A one-go 6 year term as president sounds good though. Wish we had that here! Come in, Mr Blair, your time is up.

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Sorry, folks, and sure there were other causes. But it's utterly ridiculous to argue that the Civil War ("War of Northern Aggression," my foot, but I can see why the name came about, what with the Union attacking the perceful Confederacy at Fort Sumter...wait a minute...) had nothing to do with slavery.

Among the causes of the War were:
1) political arguments over whether new states would be slave or free;
2) skirmishes in Kansas, same issue;
3) John Brown
4) "Uncle Tom's Cabin."

Pardon my ignorance. John Brown? Uncle Tom's Cabin?? What's that mean? Any useful links you could throw at me or an explanation would be great.

 

[arnisador]

An abolitionist, best known for the raid on Harpers Ferry:
http://www.wvculture.org/history/jnobrown.html

Uncle Tom's Cabin is an anti-slavery novel by Harriet Beecher Stowe:
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/STOWE/stowe.html

 

[Andi]

Cheers for that mate.