US Civil War Myths and Facts

[Bob Hubbard]

The war was effectively over July 5th 1863, though the combat continued until 1865. Some parts of the Deep South are a bit behind current trends to be jokingly referred to as still fighting it though.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

The war was effectively over July 5th 1863, though the combat continued until 1865. Some parts of the Deep South are a bit behind current trends to be jokingly referred to as still fighting it though.

Jokingly?

Please.

When I visited Gettysburg, there is a lot of respect paid to the 'southern version' of the reasons behind the war, and I think they deal with it with sensitivity and understanding. When I visited Appomattox, a pair of Jethros saw my Michigan license plates and offered to kick the crap out of me for defiling sacred ground with my Yankee presence.

I've lived in NC long enough to know that the war never ended there.

 

[arnisador]

Are you sure the actual war is ended and not being carried on like our War of the Roses by other means?

In the North, it's over. In the South...well...

 

[Bob Hubbard]

When your country has been conquered by force of arms, your property stolen, your children killed and your wife raped, sometimes that kind of anger lingers a while.

Sheridan and Sherman if they did what they did then today, would be shot for war crimes. In fact, one of them (Sheridan I believe) admitted then, they should have been shot for it. The Union Gov. of New Orleans allowed, even encouraged his men to rape the women of the town if they failed to bow to them. The burning of Atlanta and the scorched earth policy were blessed at the highest levels of the US government. Lincoln encouraged such acts and reportedly found much amusement in their reports when he and his generals did meet during the war. Documented in 1 or more of the articles I wrote, please refer there for reference.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

When your country has been conquered by force of arms, your property stolen, your children killed and your wife raped, sometimes that kind of anger lingers a while.

Sheridan and Sherman if they did what they did then today, would be shot for war crimes. In fact, one of them (Sheridan I believe) admitted then, they should have been shot for it. The Union Gov. of New Orleans allowed, even encouraged his men to rape the women of the town if they failed to bow to them. The burning of Atlanta and the scorched earth policy were blessed at the highest levels of the US government. Lincoln encouraged such acts and reportedly found much amusement in their reports when he and his generals did meet during the war. Documented in 1 or more of the articles I wrote, please refer there for reference.

I didn't do any of it, nor did my ancestors, who were in Wales at the time. There are winners and losers in all wars. I can't change any of it. But I can notice that in NC, my family is treated with contempt for not having grown up there, and that sucks. I've lived all over, and have never been treated badly based on where I'm from, until I moved to NC. If the sothroners can't get over it, they can kiss my pucker. I cannot wait to get my family out of NC and up to MI with me.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Bill, we're in agreement. I didn't do it either, my family was in Europe until years after the war ended. I haven't encountered any anti-yankee sentiment yet, but I do suspect it'll happen sometime.

 

[Carol]

There are a mix of dynamics in NC. Some sentiments are anti-Yankee, others are more anti-change, for a lack of a better word. People that don't like outsiders because outsiders always change things.

Close in to Raleigh and Charlotte though, not that many seem to care...although I've never tried to live there.

 

[Bruno@MT]

When your country has been conquered by force of arms, your property stolen, your children killed and your wife raped, sometimes that kind of anger lingers a while.

That is true, but it's been a long time ago.
Perpetuating hatred across generations when the underlying cause has gone is pointless. My generation doesn't hate the Germans anymore. There is no point.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

That is true, but it's been a long time ago.
Perpetuating hatred across generations when the underlying cause has gone is pointless. My generation doesn't hate the Germans anymore. There is no point.

I agree. Unfortunately, some have a long memory, something we see in the Mid East where they are still fighting the Crusades.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Claim "Those Damn Rebels fired without warning or reason on Ft. Sumter and started a war!!!"

False.

Until Lincoln called for an invasion army to be raised, Virginia and several others were arguing for a peaceful solution including reunification. Once his call for troops went out, they had no choice but to leave as the principles had been broken. As to firing the first shots, the fort at Ft. Sumter was a US fort, on South Carolina soil. The South offered to buy the fort. They were refused. They offered to pay their portion of the US Federal Debt. Refused. Lincoln also refused to meet with Southern reps, even with 2 associate justices of the USSC trying to help keep peace. CSA General P.G.T. Beaureagard also tried to negotiate a peaceful surrender of the fort (only 2 of the many US forts had not peacefully surrendered by this point), but when Lincoln sent in supplies and reinforcements, he forced the issue. Lincoln wanted his tariff's collected, no matter the cost.

When Lincoln had his war and called for troops, Virginia and 3 other states promptly seceded, and called for their citizens to step forward and defend their countries and rights.


Sidebar:
Interesting how many things were fixed over 100 years ago and thrown away....God is in the first paragraph, line item vetos, gun ownership guaranteed, states rights, etc. Did the right side really win I sometimes wonder......

 

[Tez3]

Bill, being Welsh has it's own issues! The anti English feeling is very strong as it is in Scotland. I was picked on a lot in school in Scotland for being English. Old grudges die hard and these are even older than your Civil War which is comparatively recent compared to the wars and outrages that people still feel strongly about now. The Highland Clearances have consequences both sides of the Atlantic though as do other events here and in Europe. It's all tied up together.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Bill, being Welsh has it's own issues! The anti English feeling is very strong as it is in Scotland. I was picked on a lot in school in Scotland for being English. Old grudges die hard and these are even older than your Civil War which is comparatively recent compared to the wars and outrages that people still feel strongly about now. The Highland Clearances have consequences both sides of the Atlantic though as do other events here and in Europe. It's all tied up together.

I understand that people hold grudges. I suggest that holding a grudge against people who had nothing to do with one's impoverishment, rapine, or ravishment; either directly or via paternal lineage, is both stupid and objectionable.

To wit: I get it that 'southerners' are still ticked off at the way their ancestors were treated. I didn't do it, and don't like being treated as if I did. Southerners who have a problem with that can osculate my nether pucker.

 

[Sukerkin]

Quite so.

The only grudge worth keeping is our divinely given right, as Englishmen, to abhor the French :lol:.

 

[Tez3]

Quite so.

The only grudge worth keeping is our divinely given right, as Englishmen, to abhor the French :lol:.

The French though, not the Bretons who are Celts, or Provancal who aren't French or the Burgundians nor the Basque or the ....LOL!

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Richard Taylor was a Confederate General, the son of former US President Zachary Taylor. He commanded the Army of Tennessee late in the war.

A few passages from Richard Taylor's "Destruction and Reconstruction";

Chapter I. Secession

The history of the United States, as yet unwritten, will show the causes of the "Civil War' to have been in existence during the Colonial era, and to have cropped out into full view in the debates of the several Sate Assemblies on the adoption of the Federal Constitution, in which instrument Luther Martin, Patrick Henry, and others insisted that they were implanted, African slavery at the time was universal, and its extinction in the North, as well as its extension in the South, was due to economic reasons alone.

The first serious difficulty of the Federal Government arose from the attempt to lay an excise on distilled spirits. The second arose from the hostility of New England traders to the policy of the Government in the war of 1812, by which their special interests were menaced; and there is now evidence to prove that, but for the unexpected peace, an attempt to disrupt the Union would then have been made.

The "Missouri Compromise" of 1820 was in reality a truce between antagonistic revenue systems, each seeking to gain the balance of power. For many years subsequently, slaves--as domestic servants--were taken to the Territories without exciting remark, and the "Nullification" movement in South Carolina was entirely directed against the tariff.

Anti-slavery was agitated from an early period, but failed to attract public attention for many years. At length, by unwearied industry, by ingeniously attaching itself to exciting questions of the day, with which it had no natural connection, it succeeded in making a lodgment in public mind, which, like a subject exhausted by long effort, is exposed to the attack of some malignant fever, that in a normal condition of vigor would have been resisted. The common belief that slavery was the cause of civil war is incorrect, and Abolitionists are not justified in claiming the glory and spoils of the conflict and in pluming themselves as "choosers of the slain."

The vast immigration that poured into the country between the years 1840 and 1860 had a very important influence in directing the events of the latter year. The numbers were too great to be absorbed and assimilated by the native population. States in the West were controlled by German and Scandinavian voters, while the Irish took possession of the seaboard towns. Although the balance of party strength was not much affected by these naturalized voters, the modes of political thought were seriously disturbed, and a tendency was manifested to transfer exciting topics from the domain of argument to that of violence.

Chapter XIV. Criticisms and Reflections

Aggrieved by the action and tendencies of the Federal Government, and apprehending worse in the future, a majority of the people of the South approved secession as the only remedy suggested by their leaders. So travelers enter railway carriages, and are dragged up grades and through tunnels with utter loss of volition, the motive power, generated by fierce heat, being far in advance and beyond their control.

We set up a monarch, too, King Cotton, and hedged him with divinity surpassing that of earthly potentates. To doubt his royalty and power was confession of ignorance or cowardice. This potent spirit, at the nod of our Prosperos, the cotton-planters, would arrest every loom and spindle in New England, destroy her wealth, and reduce her population to beggary.

Extinction of slavery was expected by all and regretted by none, although loss of slaves destroyed the value of land. Existing since the earliest colonization of the Southern States, the institution was interwoven with the thoughts, habits, and daily lives of both races and both suffered by the sudden disruption of the accustomed tie. Blockaded during the war, an without journals to guide opinion and correct error, we were unceasingly slandered by our enemies, who held possession of every avenue to the world's ear.

During all these years the conduct of the Southern people has been admirable. Submitting to the inevitable, they have shown fortitude and dignity, and rarely has one been found base enough to take wages of shame from the oppressor and malinger of his brethren. Accepting the harshest conditions and faithfully observing them, they have struggled in all honorable ways, and for what? For their slaves? Regret for their loss has neither been felt nor expressed. But they have striven for that which brought our forefathers to Runnymede, the privilege of exercising some influence in their own government. Yet we fought for nothing but slavery, says the world, and the late Vice-President of the Confederacy, M. Alexander Stephens, reechoes the cry, declaring that it was the corner-stone of his Government.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Slavery Myths

• 75% of white Southern families did not own slaves
• Half of all slave owners only owned 1-5 slaves
• Fewer than 1% of slave owners owned more than 50 slaves
• About 10% of blacks in the Upper South were freemen and made livings as laborers and tradesmen.
• 2% of blacks in the Deep South were free, and often had wealth and owned slaves themselves.
• Before Nat Turner's Rebellion, there were 3x more anti-slavery groups in the South than the North
• John Brown, sung and praised as a hero, was little more than a murderer and a terrorist.

 

[Tez3]

It's a bit wrong about Runnymede though, the Barons weren't doing it for the peoples freedom, they had no intentions of allowing the common people to have anything, it was purely for their own gain. It was designed to protect the privileges of the barons and to limit the power of the king. There had been previous documents in the same vein and what is known as the Magna Carta is in fact one of many following on with many edits.
That the Magna Carta is the great freedom giver under law is one of the biggest myths going, it was a start though.

 

[tshadowchaser]

to add a light note to what I feel would/will be an interesting topic

My son has always claimed that my wife had a porch door chair seat at pickets charge. Not that he thinks her memory is that old but just that she talks like she was there at times

I am all in favor of a thread(s) on the civial war or the crusades

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Secession Myth
The popular myth is that secession was illegal, and that Lincoln was merely enforcing the law. This is untrue. Until the end of the war, secession was in fact legal, and ol' "Honest Abe" wasn't against breaking the law when it suited his purposes.


Background:

Fact: The Revolutionary War was ended by the Treaty of Paris, signed on September 3, 1783, ratified by the Congress of the Confederation on 14 January 1784 and by the King of Great Britain on 9 April 1784.

This treaty stated thusly:

Article 1:
His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.

The treaty was with each of the states as separate nations.

After the war these 13 independent nations formed a Confederation and banded together under the Articles of Confederation. 6 years later, they reorganized under the current Constitution.

In order to do so they had to first secede from their Confederation.
(Articles of Confederation)

Preamble

To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting.

Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.

Please note, perpetual.

So, it seems secession was legal then.

In the years leading up to the US Civil War (more accurately called Lincoln's Tariff War), numerous states in fact did threaten to secede, with the opinion being that they would be crazy to do so, not that it was wrong to do so.

Who seceded?
13 English Colonies were granted their independence after fighting a war with England.
Texas succeeded from Mexico.
California too succeeded from Mexico.

In the early 1800's the New England states threatened to succeed. They were ultimately placated and remained within the Union.


So, the -idea- of secession as a legal option was there.

In addition:
In his 1801 First Inaugural Address one of the first things Thomas Jefferson did was to support the right of secession. "If there be any among us who wish to dissolve the Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed, as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."

The leader of the New England secessionists was Timothy Pickering of Massachusetts, who had served as George Washington’s chief of staff, his secretary of war and secretary of state, as well as a congressman and senator from Massachusetts. "The principles of our Revolution point to the remedy – a separation, the people of he East cannot reconcile their habits, views, and interests with those of the South and West."

"The Eastern states must and will dissolve the Union and form a separate government," announced Senator James Hillhouse.

The New England secession movement gained momentum for an entire decade, but ultimately failed at the Hartford Secession Convention of 1814. Throughout this struggle, wrote historian Edward Powell in Nullification and Secession in the United States, "the right of a state to withdraw from the Union was not disputed."

After the war Jefferson Davis was imprisoned but was never tried for treason, and for good reason: The federal government knew that it had no constitutional case against secession.

Oh, and that Lincoln guy? He was all for it, when it suited his purposes.
West Virginia.

There is this particular clause in the US Constitution:

Article IV, Section 3. New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

But, West Virginia was formed from Virginia. What gives?
Well, see, Lincoln held that the states had rebelled, not seceded, a technical difference, and the USSC decided in 1870 to allow the illegal act.

But what of the Generals? Surely they saw it differently, at least the Northerners right?

Most of the top military commanders in the war (on both sides) were educated at West Point, where the one course on the U.S. Constitution was taught by the Philadelphia abolitionist William Rawle, who taught from his own book, A View of the Constitution. What Ulysses S. Grant, Robert E. Lee, and others were taught about secession at West Point was that to deny a state the right of secession "would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed."

But, surely it was illegal, right?

Nothing in the US Constitution specifically states this. In fact, there had been repeated attempts to add such a "No Way Out" clause, the most recent (prior to the war) was proposed 2 days before Lincolns coronation, (after 7 states had already left btw) by Senator James R. Doolittle of Wisconsin that said 'No State or any part thereof, heretofore admitted or hereafter admitted into the Union, shall have the power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States.'.

If this was already forbidden, there would be no reason for such an amendment. Stephen Douglas argued that Article VI already stated this, however neither AIV or AVI specify an exit clause, nor deny they ability to exit.

Several months earlier, Reps. Daniel E. Sickles of New York, Thomas B. Florence of Pennsylvania and Otis S. Ferry of Connecticut proposed a constitutional amendment to prohibit secession.

The fact is, until the end of the war, the idea of a state breaking off and going it's own way, while thought of as a stupid move, was seen as a right. The the Constitution's 10th Amendment affirms that any power not granted to the Federal Government is retained by the States and by the People. Since no where in the USC does it state a state cannot leave, it seems that right is still there.


Even today, there are active secession movements at all levels across the US. Many violate parts of the USC, as they seek to divide states into new entities. Others seek to split counties, cities, or other regional borders. A few seek to split off from the US and form independent nations. How smart that might be in the current world climate is debatable.



Sources:
Wikipedia
Dr. Thomas J. DiLorenzo
Articles of Confederation
US Constitution
Treaty of Paris
lewrockwell.com

 

[arnisador]

Secession Myth
The popular myth is that secession was illegal, and that Lincoln was merely enforcing the law. This is untrue. Until the end of the war, secession was in fact legal

There was no constitutionally prescribed means of seceding, making it difficult to do so and hence making any argument about its legality conjectural and very much open to debate. This is telling, because the framers did foresee the possibility of insurrections and rebellions and put language in the document relating to those situations. How could it be that insurrection and rebellion were explicitly provided for, but not secession? Without such a provision, how could one distinguish between these cases--secession or rebellion? That some people had contrary opinions on the matter is irrelevant: Until tested in court, it's just theory (or less). Anything other than Texas vs. White is just talk. That is unequivocally our system--the Supreme Court settles matters between states. It did so, and came down solidly against a right of secession.

On the theory side though, it's been argued that the rejection of the confederation in favor of the current Constitution was precisely a rejection of the loose form of states-rights-heavy govt. the confederation represented (e.g. Akhil Reed Amar in America's Constitution: A Biography). The Constitution is a contract between the States--at the time, equal partners--and like all such agreements may be changed only by consent of all the parties.

The Constitution describes itself as for forming "a more Perfect Union". As Texas v. White says, if the previous union was perpetual, and this one was more perfect than that, what are we to make of this? The intentionally and noticeably stronger language in the Constitution has been frequently remarked upon in this regard. There's Article 1, Section 10: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." This was certainly violated by the seceding states. The individual states themselves lacked laws indicating how they might decide to secede, and who was authorized to deliver such news to the federal govt.--they used ad hoc methods. It's unclear whether their own methods were internally justified.

The Federalists (in their Federalist Papers) rejected the notion of a right of unilateral secession being found in the document during the arguments for adoption. James Madison, post-Nullification Crisis, stated that there was no right of secession--and as the document's main author, he would have known better than any what was in the mind of the framers of the Constitution.

You often conflate the ideas of secession and revolution/rebellion. Many of the founders and other major figures--including James Madison, Andrew Jackson, and James Buchanan--agreed that rebellion was an appropriate option against a govt. that lacked moral authority while explicitly denying a right of secession. They felt that a revolution could be justified but that a legal right of secession did not exist. That's an important difference.

In the early 1800's the New England states threatened to succeed. They were ultimately placated and remained within the Union.


So, the -idea- of secession as a legal option was there.

That's the idea of it as a bargaining chip. Until they tried to secede, it's all talk.

In his 1801 First Inaugural Address one of the first things Thomas Jefferson did was to support the right of secession. "If there be any among us who wish to dissolve the Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed, as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."

I'm reading that exactly opposite of how you are: He says to not "disturb" (physically molest) those people with this "error of opinion" (namely, that secession is appropriate) but rather to "combat (their views with) reason".

After the war Jefferson Davis was imprisoned but was never tried for treason, and for good reason: The federal government knew that it had no constitutional case against secession.

What's your source for saying that's why they didn't prosecute? The federal govt. knew that it had to re-integrate the Southern states into society and that trials would likely be divisive and counterproductive.

The fact is, until the end of the war, the idea of a state breaking off and going it's own way, while thought of as a stupid move, was seen as a right.

As indicated above, not so. Some thought it was but the people involved with writing and arguing in favor of the Constitution did not.

As an aside, from Wikipedia:

Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens said that slavery was the chief cause of secession in his Cornerstone Speech shortly before the war. After Confederate defeat, Stephens became one of the most ardent defenders of the Lost Cause. There was a striking contrast between Stephens' post-war states' rights assertion that slavery did not cause secession and his pre-war Cornerstone Speech. Confederate President Jefferson Davis also switched from saying the war was caused by slavery to saying that states' rights was the cause. While Southerners often used states' rights arguments to defend slavery, sometimes roles were reversed, as when Southerners demanded national laws to defend their interests with the Gag Rule and the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850. On these issues, it was Northerners who wanted to defend the rights of their states.


Almost all the inter-regional crises involved slavery