In Remembrance

[GraniteStater]

We who like to run a computer program that simulates the conflict of 1861-1865 should take a moment today and remember those who died in it. We who are US citizens should most especially remember the sacrifices made; those of other nations I am sure would wish to acknowledge the tragedy of having to fight a war that perhaps should have been averted if we Americans had listened to the better angels of our nature.

The ways of the Almighty, Providence, or Fate, howsoever you wish to express it, are not our ways, and the highest purposes are sometimes attained by paths not easily seen.

May all the Blue and Gray rest in peace.

[Le Ricain]

For non-Americans, it is probably worth explaining that you are referring to Memorial Day, one of the US' national holidays. The US celebrates the men and women who have served in its armed forces on Veterans Day which corresponds to Armistice Day (Nov 11). On Memorial Day, the US honours its war dead and this is somewhat based on the date ending of the ACW. In Europe both tend to be honoured with the November 11 celebrations.

[slimey.rock]

We who like to run a computer program that simulates the conflict of 1861-1865 should take a moment today and remember those who died in it. We who are US citizens should most especially remember the sacrifices made; those of other nations I am sure would wish to acknowledge the tragedy of having to fight a war that perhaps should have been averted if we Americans had listened to the better angels of our nature.

The ways of the Almighty, Providence, or Fate, howsoever you wish to express it, are not our ways, and the highest purposes are sometimes attained by paths not easily seen.

May all the Blue and Gray rest in peace.

Indeed. Over 600000 deaths that could have been avoided. That kind of bravery should never be tested.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[AndrewKurtz]

The 600,000 deaths could not have been avoided. The conflict was a result of a fatal "birth defect" built into the constitution itself.

In 1860, it had only one way left to be expunged. Blood!

Now, if you look at if from today's viewpoint, who knows how it would have worked out?

For sure however, in 1860, "Four Score and Four Years" of compromise after compromise, drifting further and further apart, the only way to resolve it was Blood, and it could not have been avoided at all at that point.

+1

[slimey.rock]

I'm sorry this is going to take so long, but I've been waiting to make this argument for some time

The 600,000 deaths could not have been avoided. The conflict was a result of a fatal "birth defect" built into the constitution itself.

In 1860, it had only one way left to be expunged. Blood!

Now, if you look at if from today's viewpoint, who knows how it would have worked out?

For sure however, in 1860, "Four Score and Four Years" of compromise after compromise, drifting further and further apart, the only way to resolve it was Blood, and it could not have been avoided at all at that point.

I disagree. You'll notice that when doughface presidents Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan were in office and the southern states were overrepresented in congress, they had no problem with the federal government's encroachment on states rights. In fact the southern states were so scared of loosing their power from the growing population in the north and the new "free states" being admitted into the Union that Franklin Pierce signed the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 allowing Kansas and Nebraska to choose whether they would be free or slave states. The Kansas-Nebraska Act basically rebuked the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which had held the union together by not allowing slavery north of latitude 36 degrees 30 minutes north. But it doesn't end there. After signing the Kansas Nebraska Act, Pierce corrupted the decision making process by installing a pro-slavery government in the territories that were 3/4 antislavery which led to "bloody Kansas." When Buchanan got into office, he did everything in his power to bring Kansas in as a slave state, including bribing members of Congress and bribing Kansas by promising them quick admittance into the Union if they would choose slavery. By doing all of this, Buchanan split the Democratic party in two which resulted in the election of the Republican presidential nominee, Lincoln.

So after all of this, the deep southern states decided to secede. Like me when I'm frustrated with Athena, they just quit . However, the United states of America is not a computer game, you don't just quit because you're loosing. In my opinion, the South's secession was COMPLETELY unjustified. Any of the problems between the North and the South could have been solved democratically, but whether out of ineptness of politicians, or greed for power, or laziness; they weren't.

And even after the states seceded, Lincoln made the problem worse by not allowing the States to secede peacefully. Which could have been done and would have saved those 600000 lives.

[GraniteStater]

Geez, I didn't want to start an argument.

Believe me, if I want to start an argument, I know how to do it

Anyone discussing this subject should read Grant's Memoirs. It is indispensable for this period, especially his observations on secession (which I think that most would find quite novel and penetrating) and his remarks upon Appomattox, which I quote [close paraphrase]:

"I never felt less like exulting at the defeat of a foe who had fought so gallantly and so long against overwhelming odds; who, however, had fought for one of the worst causes, and with the least excuse."

We, the American people, whose Founding is grounded in compomise, found no compromise in 1860. The issue, perhaps fittingly (see Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address), was resolved the way that it was.

May they all rest in peace and find peace with their Maker.

[slimey.rock]

Yes, sorry Granitestater for debating in your thread. This is neither the time nor place. Today of all days is not to say their cause for war was in vain. I just think this world would have been a better place if those men had not died.

[GraniteStater]

Can't argue with that.

[kglorberau]

May God Bless all of the veterans of this great and mighty nation.

Went to visit my Dad today at the National Cemetery in Tahoma, Washington. He was a 30 year veteran of the USAF, starting out on B-17's as a gunner in the "Big War - WW2" bombing Germany. Went on to retire at age 47 after 30 years and (he loved to remind me of this) never worked again!! Use to tell me, "I already served my country for 30 years......what the hell can I do to top that?"

He passed away two years ago at age 82 after being retired for 35 years. My mom and sisters went to just visit and the military had a grand program we didnt even know about. Bands, Flags, singing, big crowd....it was very nice. Kind of makes you wonder what it must have been like after the Civil War with the parades of the Grand Army of the Potomoc, and I think even the Army of Northern Virginia paraded one last time (minus their guns) after the end of the war, didn't they?

Anyway, Remember and pray for all of our veterans, living and dead, who served the United States of America.

KgLorberau

[tagwyn]

AMEN!! t

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Caccio]

Thanks, GraniteStater, I wish I'd noticed this yesterday, when my reply would have been more timely. There are "Sainted Confederate Dead" lying in my family cemetery in Southern Kentucky, and I lost buddies while participating in another Lost Cause in Vietnam. In death, I'm told, there are no friends or foes, just those who died believing they were on the right side. Whether they were right or not is the heavy task of history, but we must always remember the sacrifice they made, because it has made us what we are today, for better or worse.

[husky1943]

I forgot to reply to this thread......

May God Bless all who have ever served their country, no matter what country they served.

[Mortar]

Just wanted to add my perspective to this. I believe our Civil War was an unavoidable conflict in the history of our nation. The 13 colonies that began our nation united for protection while attempting to preserve the freedom of their individual pursuits, as well as to guard their freedoms from the potential tyranny of a centralized government. As the nation, and its population grew (as well as foreign interactions) I believe it became increasingly necessary to form a centalized government (as central government opponent Thomas Jefferson himself must have realized during his presidency). But bringing sovereign states under one law is tricky with such differences as northern and southern states had developed, (slavery being one, but not the only difference). Throughout time there has only ever been one way that ideological conflicts have been settled...and it aint diplomacy!
I believe that the war was the necessary result of this struggle between what we were and were to become, between centralized and sovereign government, between the values each held for their homes and their ways of life. As an American I feel pride for the bravery of the American to fight for his cause, Northern or Southern. An immense lost of life on both sides is undeniable proof of the convictions of both sides to see their cause to victory. I embrace both nations as my country's history. Our fate is forever tied together as that war had shown.

[Prussian Prince]

The Civil War was about States Rights vs. Central Government. The Southern States wanted their rights respected and felt that the Lincoln Administration would not respect these rights. There is a lot of other background but Lincolns election forced the issue.

[Rafiki]

[color="Blue"]Moved to "History Club"-forum, since this is a historical thread[/color]

[Comtedemeighan]

Theres a fire in my soul

[Ian Coote]

They may be long gone,but there definitely not forgotten.

[gchristie]

The 600,000 deaths could not have been avoided. The conflict was a result of a fatal "birth defect" built into the constitution itself.

Gray brings up a very good point. The debate over where states' rights ended and the powers of the federal government began was hotly debated by the conveners at the Constitutional Convention. James Madison's "Virginia Plan" and William Paterson's "New Jersey Plan" (giving states equal rights) encapsulated the two contending positions. Unable to resolve it, the convenors adopted Roger Sherman of Connecticut's Great Compromise, but mostly punted on the issue. A read of the Federalist Papers gives you a window into what that debate sounded like and why it was so difficult to resolve.

Maybe expansionist ambitions south, a la Seward's desire to invade Mexico and southwards, might have unified the two sides and temporarily postponed the matter, but I think the conflict was inevitable.

The Civil War did not completely settle the matter, it continues to play out in state and federal courts and in the Congress, although nobody has been caned over it for a good long time. It is a healthy debate to have, and one that keeps our democracy fresh, and the power of the federal government in check in my opinion (but this later point is one open to debate )

[TheDoctorKing]

The conflict was inevitable because it was a struggle between two incompatible methods of organizing society. In the north, as in western Europe, there had been an industrial revolution that had created a society based on free labor and the power of capital. In the south, there was still a semi-feudal aristocratic social order based on slave labor and personal patron-client ties between masters and both their slaves and their free employees. Capitalism was more efficient, and the southerners knew this. They had a very valuable product, but they knew that their system was ultimately bound for the junkheap. The money power of the north was already taking control of their system. Many plantations in Virginia and Maryland had gone bankrupt in the crash of the 1830s, and many Chesapeake Bay farmers were only keeping going by selling their slaves, the source of their wealth, to planters farther south. Plantations in the Deep South were profitable, but payments on their debts meant that most of the profits were actually reaped by northern banks.

Moreover, the ideology of free labor was dominant in the north, in Europe and even most other places in the Americas. For the southern ruling class, their system was natural and proper and the only way that their society could be organized. But for everybody else in the western world, they could hardly even be considered civilized. Given the southern elite's pretensions to high culture, this must have been especially galling.

The framers of the Constitution set up the federal system as an attempt to permit two systems to function inside one country, but the essential unity of the country under the Constitution ultimately made this impossible. The Constitution established a free trade zone, meaning that capital and goods could flow freely from state to state. This made it easy for northern capital to gain power over southern farmers. On the other hand, if people - slaves - could be considered a "good", then there was no way that northern states could keep slaves out. If you own a tractor in Alabama, and you move up to Massachusetts, it's still your tractor. Massachusetts can't pass the Tractor Freedom Bill and say you have to let your tractor drive around by itself. The southern states had somehow managed to convince themselves and frame their laws such that people were considered exactly the same as tractors (I know, they didn't have any tractors in those days...) The Constitution requires that if one state treats item X as a "chattel", that is, as movable property, then another state must give "full faith and credit" to that treatment.

So, as Lincoln famously said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.

I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided.

It will become all one thing or all the other.

Either the opponents of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new -- North as well as South."

[slimey.rock]

Capitalism was more efficient, and the southerners knew this. They had a very valuable product, but they knew that their system was ultimately bound for the junkheap. The money power of the north was already taking control of their system. Many plantations in Virginia and Maryland had gone bankrupt in the crash of the 1830s, and many Chesapeake Bay farmers were only keeping going by selling their slaves, the source of their wealth, to planters farther south. Plantations in the Deep South were profitable, but payments on their debts meant that most of the profits were actually reaped by northern banks.

This is exactly the reason I'd say the war was avoidable. Clearly slavery was on the decline on border states and while it was expanding in the deep south, I'd bet that in the long run the free market would have abolished slavery on its own.

I'm no proponent of a large federal government, quite the opposite in fact, and I've always idealized the concept and courage it would take to secede, however I think the south did it for all the wrong reasons. I think if the south hadn't been so afraid of loosing control of the federal government (and they still had a large control over congress when they left) the war could have been solved democratically. Like I mentioned in my earlier post, just because you're loosing doesn't mean you can quit.

I think if both sides, especially the south, had not been so adamant about getting their way, the whole thing would have blown over as slavery became impractical.


Just my opinion