The Gettysburg Address

[Henry]

In a "civil war", the fractions involved are seeking control over the central government in effort to control the other factions.

The seceding States were not seeking to control other States. They were simply walking away.

It was not a civil war. It was a war of northern aggression.

 

[Hawkeye]

In my opinion the ACW was a regional, economic conflict as opposed to a true Civil War. I think the South could have achieved a negotiating position for independence if they had aboloished slavery and then pushed GB, or other European powers for recognition. Britain was not going to recognize hte Confederacy as long a slavery existed but maybe if it was abolished or pledged to be abolished... Of course, we will never know.

 

[sloughfoot]

ul negotiations"and compromises had been ongoing for decades before war broke out. The South was not haply with the status quo and were determined for slavery to expand into new territories. The gulf between northern and southern beliefs was unbridgeable. War was inevitable. The real crime,IMO, was southern leaders continuing to fight a losing war long after there was no Hope of winning.
It has become popular in modern times to say the war was not about slavery, and in a very abstract sense this is true. However, study of newspapers of the time, personal correspondence from both sides and public speeches shows that slavery was most certainly the major instigator. The south was in the wrong and THEY flatly refused compromise. In the end it brought about what they feared most, abolition, much sooner than if they had settled for what the north offered. Once war was unavoidable, death is the only thing that will end it.

The point of the bayonet undoubtedly taught them how wrong they were. What modern issues require the use of military force and the point of the bayonet?

That is really my bottom line. I just cannot reconcile the use of force to force anyone's will on another free citizen.

A democratic republic is sometimes messy and doesn't produce ideal results, but the bullet box is never preferable over the ballot box. Amongst a citizenry supposedly free and equal.

 

[poptab]

As someone who has taught Civil War history at the small college level, and who is still a licensed battlefield guide at both Gettysburg & Antietam, I am constantly amazed at how poorly educated our citizens are regarding the American Civil War. I don't think you could have developed such a warped misunderstanding of the issues of the day on your own; someone with an agenda has obviously influenced you during your youth.


The agriculturally based South had legitimate grievances with the practices of the industrialized North that had grown to dominate Congress by the 1850's. Slavery was not an overwhelmingly important reason for the eventual conflict but it was a stick that helped to stir the pot. Stated differently, the American Civil War would have occurred for the reasons it did even if slaves had never been brought to these shores. The issue was used by both sides for posturing and propaganda, both before and during The Conflict.


If you want a villian, Lincoln is not the best candidate. That honor is reserved for Jefferson Davis and Robert. E. Lee. Davis & Lee had the choice to fight a military battle or a battle of recognition (if you don't understand the lay of the land in 1860 regarding world politics, the notion of a "battle of recognition" probably won't make any sense to you. There is no correlation in today's world.) James Longstreet understood this very well and, had he been in command of the Army of Northern Virginia, the South would have won the independence they claimed to want (for a while at least.) There was no need for a military victory. I think Davis understood this and I am sure Lee did. Neither man was willing to put their DESIRE for a fight ahead of their stated objective of independence. You want a villian? There's your best candidates.

Lincoln? The politics of the 1860's left him no other course than the one he took. There's no denying that Lincoln was inept as a wartime President but to say that his intentions were incorrect or dishonorable is to say that you have no true understanding of the political period or the variables that were in play. Educate yourself and from better sources than those you have already experienced.

Ever read Spooner?

 

[rob63]

Funny how people justify deadly force being used against neighbors and fellow citizens to make them come into line with their way of thinking.

You really think there is justification for deadly force should be used by the Federal government against citizens?

It is very telling that you offer no evidence or even arguments. You simply accuse others of holding beliefs that they did not state or imply. As stated by others, you have apparently fallen victim to propaganda put out by writers that are the other side of the same coin that is Howard Zinn. People who use bits and pieces of history to advance an agenda while ignoring all of the evidence to the contrary. I'm guessing from what you have written that you are familiar with Thomas DiLorenzo, an economics professor who pretends to write history.

The Civil War is a very interesting period and Lincoln is a fascinating personality amongst a large group of amazing characters. He took office in the middle of a crisis that has never been seen before or since in this nation. He did many things that can be questioned and argued about, the suspension of habeas corpus being uppermost in my mind. However, he did not cause the crisis he faced and he did not call for an army until after the first shots had already been fired. Lincoln faced a very difficult decision regarding what to do about the seceded states. If he simply let them go then that would have been the end of the U.S. as eventually everyone would secede rather than compromise on any issues. If you would like to argue that would have been best, then feel free, I may even agree with you on some points, but please stop with the inflammatory accusations.

 

[Principal Skinr]

Likewise, there is far, far more to the story than what you relate. Slavery comes to mind. Here are copies of the exact documents that the Southern states issued to explain why they were leaving the Union. Don't take my word for it, read what they said about it:
Declaration of Causes of Secession

Of course, there wasn't any tyranny in the Confederate states, at all, and if slavery was the issue, they would have written about that in great detail and offered an eloquent defense for it, right? if everyone had just read this and taken their word for it, we could have either avoided this misunderstanding, or we could have known what a dictator and power hungry tyrant Lincoln really was. Slavery must have been a big hoax, just like the Holocaust.

 

[spec4]

In a "civil war", the fractions involved are seeking control over the central government in effort to control the other factions.

The seceding States were not seeking to control other States. They were simply walking away.

It was not a civil war. It was a war of northern aggression.

I love it! "Northern Aggression". So if the North was the aggressor, why did they not fire the first shots? As I understand the word, it refers to the person who starts the conflict. Who can say that cooler heads, in negotiation, couldn't have worked out a compromise?

 

[indiucky]

To the OP's original question the Battle of Gettysburg took place over the weekend of the Fourth of July and the Gettysburg Address is often read over the weekend to remind others of the great sacrifices that the people of this Country have made in the past to insure that "This Nation....shall not perish from the Earth..."

It was read at the dedication of a cemetary for the fallen and it is very well written....

 

[Henry]

I love it! "Northern Aggression". So if the North was the aggressor, why did they not fire the first shots? As I understand the word, it refers to the person who starts the conflict. Who can say that cooler heads, in negotiation, couldn't have worked out a compromise?

There was a well established history of southern states attempting to negotiate peacefully prior to the military conflict, particularly in South Carolina. The response to the 1828 and 1832 Tariff Acts is but one example.


"In personal or national conflicts, it is not he who strikes the first blow, or fires the first gun that inaugurates or begins the conflict. Rather, the true aggressor is the first who renders force necessary."

Under your "he who fires the first shot is the aggressor" theory, would you be the aggressor for firing upon an armed man breaking into your home? Or would you wait until he first fired upon you in order to be a defender of your home?

Lincoln Provoked the War

Do some of your own research.


BTW, it is also worth noting that not a single person was killed at Ft. Sumter.

 

[lj98]

In a "civil war", the fractions involved are seeking control over the central government in effort to control the other factions.

The seceding States were not seeking to control other States. They were simply walking away.

It was not a civil war. It was a war of northern aggression.

That's a convenient definition.
Also, regarding the "peaceful" abolition of slavery elsewhere, you may wish to exclude Haiti from your list as well as most of Latin America, where the abolition of slaves was the direct result of a series of wars for independence.

 

[Henry]

Thank you ij98 for your correction regarding Haiti. You are correct. It encouraged me to go back and review my notes.

Here are some examples of peaceful abolishment of slavery in the period leading up to the war of northern aggression:

Argentina 1813
Columbia 1814
Chile 1823
Central America 1824
Mexico 1829
Bolivia 1831
Uruguay 1842
French and Danish Colonies 1848
Ecuador 1851
Peru 1854
Venezuela 1854

The British, Spanish, French and others ended slavery peacefully as did Northern States where slavery had existed for over 200 years (ie before they were even States).

As far as the definition, it is not one of convenience but one of fact. The seceding States were not attempting to take over governance of others. They were attempting to secede, to walk away. It was not a civil war.

 

[rob63]

There was a well established history of southern states attempting to negotiate peacefully prior to the military conflict, particularly in South Carolina. The response to the 1828 and 1832 Tariff Acts is but one example.


"In personal or national conflicts, it is not he who strikes the first blow, or fires the first gun that inaugurates or begins the conflict. Rather, the true aggressor is the first who renders force necessary."

Under your "he who fires the first shot is the aggressor" theory, would you be the aggressor for firing upon an armed man breaking into your home? Or would you wait until he first fired upon you in order to be a defender of your home?

Lincoln Provoked the War

Do some of your own research.


BTW, it is also worth noting that not a single person was killed at Ft. Sumter.

You do realize that you are quoting what Alexander Stephens, the Vice-President of the Confederacy, said after the war to try to blame it on the North as your evidence?

Yes, there were disputes over tariffs, but Stephens himself blamed it on slavery at the beginning of the war.

Alexander Stephens, Vice-President of the Confederate States of America from a speech given in Savannah on the new Confederate constitution:

"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity."

- Alexander Stephens, March 21, 1861

If you are going to rely only upon what the Confederate leaders said after the war was over, then I don't really know what to say to you other than that you are being willfully ignorant.

 

[jamil]

 

[jamil]

You do realize that you are quoting what Alexander Stephens, the Vice-President of the Confederacy, said after the war to try to blame it on the North as your evidence?

Yes, there were disputes over tariffs, but Stephens himself blamed it on slavery at the beginning of the war.

Alexander Stephens, Vice-President of the Confederate States of America from a speech given in Savannah on the new Confederate constitution:

"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity."

- Alexander Stephens, March 21, 1861

If you are going to rely only upon what the Confederate leaders said after the war was over, then I don't really know what to say to you other than that you are being willfully ignorant.

Dude, don't bother. Once confirmation bias has set in all they hear when you point out contrary evidence is .

 

[rob63]

Dude, don't bother. Once confirmation bias has set in all they hear when you point out contrary evidence is .

I know, but Henry has an interesting point if we can get past what the South was fighting for. The South largely fell victim to their own fears, they were convinced that the election of Lincoln would be the end of slavery. It is why they seceded and it is what they were defending.

I assume we all agree that slavery is repugnant and no one here is defending it. Leaving the moral question of slavery aside for a minute leaves Henry's question of whether Lincoln should have simply let the South secede and abandoned Ft. Sumter? Was it worth a war to preserve the union? Lincoln was very clear about his reasoning; "Shall the Union and shall the liberties of this country be preserved to the latest generations?" In other words, he knew that once secession was established then there could no longer be a country because every dispute would be settled by secession. It is the essence of the Gettysburg Address that was the beginning of the thread; can such a country survive? Lincoln was very adamant about saving the Union, he would have agreed to a lot to keep it. Was this a reasonable viewpoint? For those who insist he was a blood-thirsty tyrant, keep in mind that no one on either side thought the war would be long or bloody and obviously the long lines of volunteers in the North agreed with his viewpoint.

One problem with arguing that he should have let them go is the way in which they attempted to secede. The constitution provides a way for a state to join the union, but not one for leaving it. A possibility may have been if they had simply used the reverse of the process to join; put it to a vote in Congress. Unfortunately, we cannot know whether that would have worked because they didn't try it. Instead they did it unilaterally and began seizing federal property, which only inflamed passions in the North. Imagine our reaction if Germany or some other country began seizing all of our military bases in their country. You can argue that we shouldn't be there, but there is no doubt they would be better off to ask us to leave rather than just seizing the property as the South did. Ft. Sumter became the flashpoint precisely because it was difficult to seize since it was surrounded by water.

Henry asked "Under your 'he who fires the first shot is the aggressor' theory, would you be the aggressor for firing upon an armed man breaking into your home? Or would you wait until he first fired upon you in order to be a defender of your home?" A better analogy would be: your wife wants a divorce and she begins taking some of the property before the divorce has been settled. You try to keep some of the property and she shoots at you. Plus, you didn't agree to the divorce, nor do you think it is legal in the first place.

Another related question: Is there a moral obligation to help others in need? If your neighbor is holding someone as a slave, should you intervene or take the attitude that it is none of your business and let it go? What if the neighbor demands that you return the slave if he escapes? Still none of your business?

I'm not much of a fan of intervention as a general rule, but I'm not a fan of ignoring someone in need either, especially if he ends up on my doorstep.

 

[lj98]

It's no use arguing. He's got his set of talking points (err notes), all too familiar, that holds the Confederate States as some bastion of freedom and Lincoln as the ultimate tyrannical dictator.
He is right about one thing though. No one died at Fort Sumter. The Confederacy should have taken that as a clue to the overall ineptness of their military prowess and spared the nation 4 years of bloodshed.

 

[poptab]

Is embargoing the southern ports not an act of war?

 

[actaeon277]

Fort sumter shelled April 12-14.
Blockade April 16.

 

[actaeon277]

Unless youre counting the tarriffs on manufactured goods.
The south didnt want the tarriffs. They could exchange cotton for goods.

 

[Henry]

No. A better analogy would be a wife, who has long been mistreated by her abusive husband, decides to exercise her right to walk away from the abusive marriage. She takes with her property that was hers prior to the marriage. She then attempts to meet with the abusive husband to pay her portion of debt incurred during the marriage as well as pay renumeration for any property the abusive husband claimed was not hers.


Instead of meeting with the wife to discuss such arrangements, the abusive husband beats the wife to death and is hailed as a hero for saving the marriage.


Jefferson Davis appointed a number of peace commissioners, in conformity with a resolution of the Confederate Congress, whose mission was to travel to Washington DC in March 1861 before the provocations at Ft. Sumter, and offer to pay for any Federal property on Souther soil as well as the Souther portion of the national debt. Lincoln refused to even see them or acknowledge their existence. (So too did the Union Secretary of State Seward.) Napoleon III of France offered to mediate the dispute but was also rebuffed by Lincoln, who refused to meet with him.


Also, it should be noted that US Constitution is a set of restrictions upon the central government. All powers not delegated to the central government were reserved by the States, including the power to secede. If that was not the intent, it should have been addressed, and properly so, through the amendment process for those States still party to the agreement.