User avatar
Durk
Posts: 2306
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 4:36 am
Location: Wyoming

Fri Jun 13, 2014 4:10 am

GraniteStater wrote:That would be very interesting to read, seeing as the South's 'GDP' didn't regain the level of 1860 until the 1920s.

The political and social aspects, of course, are not as amenable to quantification.


It was interesting. He wrote at the time of the Civil War centennial, making the argument that until the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, the South was still trapped in the past. But the war allowed for a new south, the one we know now.

Rod Smart
Colonel
Posts: 312
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2014 3:32 pm

Fri Oct 24, 2014 3:41 pm

I'm a little late to the party, as you've already covered the possibilities of Confederate victory in '61, '62, '63, and '64

I'd add another one people don't think about often enough.

The CSA had a chance to win the war in 1865. When the Southern Armies lost, the generals asked that their men put down their guns and return home. What if they didn't? What if Lee and Forrest had asked that their guys take to the hills and keep killing bluecoats?

As we've seen from recent history (Vietnam, Afghanistan x2), a sustained guerrilla operation CAN defeat a superior force.




We should thank our historical ancestors that Lee, Davis, Johnston, etc were done fighting and ready for a peace. 'Cause 10 years of countrywide bushwacking shenanigans could have forced a VERY different outcome.

User avatar
ohms_law
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 725
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:42 pm
Location: Syracuse, NY

Fri Oct 24, 2014 3:58 pm

Well, first off, I wouldn't have counted that as "victory". The Confederacy would be just as dead.
A Confederate guerrilla campaign following the war would have made reconstruction much tougher (especially following the assassination of Lincoln, which I'd assume would have still happened), both in the length of time that it took and the budgetary costs. Other than that, though... there'd have been a very key difference between an "insurgency" of former Confederates and what happened in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The Confederate States were still a part of the United States itself.
I could see a much expanded "wild, wild west" type of situation going on for an extra decade or two (right up until WWI broke out?), but other than that...

Aditia Holdem
Conscript
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2014 4:21 pm

Sat Dec 20, 2014 7:55 pm

I have not read everything posted, but I think the answer to the Original Question has to be solid ''No''. I think the following reasoning contribute to that answer:

- War Aims: Because the reason for war for the North was restoration of the Union, any negotiated peace would have been seen as defeat for the Union and victory for the Confederacy. For this reason the South would have had to win a complete victory over the North.
- Winning a complete victory over the North means that the Confederacy would have to be able to be in a position where they could threaten the destruction of the North as nation. I think the comparative economies, more or less equal scientific advancement, strategic depth of the union, and the limitation in mobility of armies of that time, completely prevent the Confederacy to ever be able to get into that position.

Now, the North's will to fight could have of course theoretically been broken, but judging from what actually happened: the will to fight in the North was unbreakable for the South, judging from the lack of revolution/rebellion in the North after serious military setbacks (you can debate whether or not military setbacks are even relevant to a nation's will to fight when the civilian population is not suffering). I am no expert, but I don't think the North even had to dedicate their complete economy to the war, whereas the South's economy was collapsing under the pressure.

User avatar
Mickey3D
Posts: 1569
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 9:09 pm
Location: Lausanne, Switzerland

Sat Dec 27, 2014 12:47 am

Aditia Holdem wrote:For this reason the South would have had to win a complete victory over the North.


I don't think a complete victory was needed by the South : war weariness in the North was sufficient and nearly happened in 1864 when the democrats proposed McClellan as opponent to Lincoln for the presidential race.

A foreign recognition could have been another mean but very difficult after the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation of 1862.

User avatar
Le Ricain
Posts: 3282
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 12:21 am
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland

Sat Dec 27, 2014 1:47 pm

Election of McClellan in 1864 would not have necessarily ended the war in favour of an independent CSA, as has been commonly assumed. The Democratic party was divided into two groups. One group. led by Vallandigham, wanted peace and a possible union. The other side wanted union with a possible peace. McClellan was a member of this second group. Prior to his nomination, McClellan attempted to bridge the gap between the two groups by proposing an armistice to be followed by renewed fighting if negotiations on reunion failed. This is hardly a ringing endorsement of peace-at-all costs.

In the end, McClellan rejected the Vallandigham peace plank altogether in his letter accepting the nomination as President. His goal was to change the management of the war in order to achieve union.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

'Nous voilà, Lafayette'

Colonel C.E. Stanton, aide to A.E.F. commander John 'Black Jack' Pershing, upon the landing of the first US troops in France 1917

User avatar
Mickey3D
Posts: 1569
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 9:09 pm
Location: Lausanne, Switzerland

Sat Dec 27, 2014 7:24 pm

Thanks a lot for the details you bring.

Le Ricain wrote:This is hardly a ringing endorsement of peace-at-all costs.


This is not an endorsement but clearly the peace without Union was no more a taboo subject for a presidential platform. We will never know for sure, but my two cents are that you would need strong arguments to convince people to go back for war after an armistice when everybody is fed up with endless list of missings without tangible results.

User avatar
Le Ricain
Posts: 3282
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 12:21 am
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland

Sun Dec 28, 2014 11:59 am

Mickey3D wrote:Thanks a lot for the details you bring.



This is not an endorsement but clearly the peace without Union was no more a taboo subject for a presidential platform. We will never know for sure, but my two cents are that you would need strong arguments to convince people to go back for war after an armistice when everybody is fed up with endless list of missings without tangible results.


I agree with you completely. Resuming hostilities after an armistice would be difficult. I think that this is why McClellan dropped the notion completely from his acceptance letter. He may have also reasoned that the 'peace with possible union' folk were going to vote Democratic anyway.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]



'Nous voilà, Lafayette'



Colonel C.E. Stanton, aide to A.E.F. commander John 'Black Jack' Pershing, upon the landing of the first US troops in France 1917

aariediger
Sergeant
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 11:14 pm

Wed Jan 21, 2015 1:56 am

You analysis is a very interesting read. But what if the roles were reversed? If Grant would play Black, wouldn't he also have tried longer chances as Foote believes?
Grant had more material, so the style he chose was the blunt attack with rooks and Queen, while Lee had to try different things. but it could have been reversed.


Again, let's not confuse tactics and strategy. Grant's tactics may in fact be somewhat blunt, but his strategy in nearly all his campaigns was 'get in the rear and cut their rail supply.' In '62, when A Johnston was holed up in Bowling Greene, Grant moves not directly on his army, but indirectly, on Ft Henry and Donaldson guarding his rear aka Nashville and the river. With the forts taken down, Johnston could have been cut off by gunboats floating upstream, so he gave up Bowling Greene without a fight. When the Union wants to continue down the Mississippi and Memphis is in their way, Grant marches on Corinth, the rail center to the rear. If Corinth falls, Memphis is untenable. Now, Grant more or less gets ambushed on the way, but Corinth does fall, and Memphis follows. Next up down river is Vicksburg, where Grant again sees the key isn't the city itself, but Jackson, where the railroad runs through. Same thing in '64, Grant wants to take Richmond, not directly, but by cutting the rail lines running into the city, by taking Petersburg. Again, as at Shiloh, Grant runs into some trouble along the way, but the strategy is sound. Lee remarked that we must stop this army of Grant's before it reaches the James River, when they get there it will become a siege, and then it will be only a matter of time.

Now, let's get away from the hard book learning and into pure speculation, just for fun. Just my opinions, no facts. How would Grant and Lee have faired had they switched places for some of their most important campaigns? Well, I think Grant would have struggled in '64, he was not a great defensive fighter. I think Lee might have done better during the defensive campaign around Corinth, when Van Dorn and Price were making trouble. Grant might have been able to get a 'kill' on the AoP in the Peninsula campaign, and for that matter, perhaps at 2nd Manassas and Chancellorsville too. His destruction of the AoNV in the spring of '65 is really a masterful display of effective pursuit. Lee might have been able to put a bigger hurt on Bragg at Chattanooga, and pushed Sherman to turn his flank. Grant might have lost Hill's whole corps at Gettysburg before turning his other two south, but I think he would have retreated before Antietam started. Lee might have avoided being surprised at Shiloh, but he kind of was at Gettysburg, so who knows, or maybe he would have given A Johnston a scare, hitting him mid march like in the Wilderness. Lee might have pushed through the Wilderness and into the open on the day of May 4th, and avoided the battle of the Wilderness entirely. If Grant had launched Pickett's charge, it would have come at 4:00 am in the dark, and they would have charged at a run, with bayonets fixed.

DaddyRess
Private
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2015 9:05 pm

Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:12 am

I have often wondered what if Stonwall Jackson had not been shot? I feel that had he been at Gettysburg that Lee could of won and likely routed the Union army. Maryland being a slave state and having a strong Pro CSA stance it could of caused the state to finally succeeded from the union. As it is often said that the only thing that kept Maryland in the Union was the fact that it was nearly under marshal law.

Or had Lee won at Gettysburg, i doubt he would head to DC, but he could of marched on Baltimore, which was a pro south city. There he could of supplied and found more support for the Confederate cause.

lovilfoy
Civilian
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 4:02 pm
Location: Ðîññèÿ
Contact: Website

Could the South have won the Civil

Mon Jul 11, 2016 3:51 am

If people just admitted that slavery was the overriding motivation for the Civil War, then we can move on. They werent fighting over tariffs in Bleeding Kansas or John Browns Raid.

Then theres Howard Zinn who believes that the Civil War was a plot by capitalists to prevent a "peoples revolution". Thats a whole new level of crazy.

User avatar
Durk
Posts: 2306
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 4:36 am
Location: Wyoming

Mon Jul 11, 2016 4:28 am

I have slipped a similar comment in before, but my mentor on the American Civil War, E. B. 'Pete' Long wrote a book called, "Why the South Won the War." He explains how the South was freed from its legacy of slavery and anti-importation to develop industry and begin to join the industrial world.

Winning has many interpretations.

User avatar
tripax
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 777
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2013 9:58 pm

Mon Jul 11, 2016 10:31 am

Durk wrote:I have slipped a similar comment in before, but my mentor on the American Civil War, E. B. 'Pete' Long wrote a book called, "Why the South Won the War." He explains how the South was freed from its legacy of slavery and anti-importation to develop industry and begin to join the industrial world.

Winning has many interpretations.


Indeed, I like that perspective. I would add that southern people did much to win the war for the Union as well, with many Union generals having strong southern ties or even being born in the south, many important abolitionists coming from southern states (for instance, I've been recently reading about the Grimke's), and 100,000+ people enslaved in the south at the outset of the war joining the Union Army as soon as allowed to fight for southern freedom from slavery.
Across the South, we have a deep appreciation of history -- we haven’t always had a deep appreciation of each other’s history. - Reverend Clementa Pinckney

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5549
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Tue Jul 12, 2016 9:56 am

So, the secret, conspiratorial strategy of the Confederacy all along, was to lose the war to gain an overthrow of the Southern Way of Life?

To understand history, the first thing you have to do away with, is using the outcome of events to how they came about. You MUST consider what the people knew and thought at the time, and that at that time, the results of coming events was not known to anybody; every possible outcome still existed.
Image

User avatar
tripax
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 777
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2013 9:58 pm

Thu Jul 21, 2016 9:53 pm

I'm not sure if that reply is directed at me or someone else. I don't read anyone as saying that the Confederacy had a secret strategy to win by losing. I think Durk could be read as saying that there was a lot of economic value to the Confederacy losing the war in spite of whatever goals Confederate leaders had in mind when waging the war. I was saying that a lot of people living in the south agitated to bring about the war and then fought for the end of slavery and ultimately for the Union during the war. I agree that people at the time did not know the future and I don't if anyone with political power in southern states supported rebellion and war with a goal of losing to win.
Across the South, we have a deep appreciation of history -- we haven’t always had a deep appreciation of each other’s history. - Reverend Clementa Pinckney

User avatar
GraniteStater
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1778
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 5:16 am
Location: Annapolis, MD - What?

Fri Jul 22, 2016 12:33 am

lovilfoy wrote:If people just admitted that slavery was the overriding motivation for the Civil War, then we can move on. They werent fighting over tariffs in Bleeding Kansas or John Browns Raid.

Then theres Howard Zinn who believes that the Civil War was a plot by capitalists to prevent a "peoples revolution". Thats a whole new level of crazy.


In quantum mechanics, the Zinn level of chromatic hyperextensibility is, indeed, known as a entire sphere of crazy.
[color="#AFEEEE"]"Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable!"[/color]
-Daniel Webster

[color="#FFA07A"]"C'mon, boys, we got the damn Yankees on the run!"[/color]
-General Joseph Wheeler, US Army, serving at Santiago in 1898

RULES
(A) When in doubt, agree with Ace.
(B) Pull my reins up sharply when needed, for I am a spirited thoroughbred and forget to turn at the post sometimes.


Image

User avatar
ERISS
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1962
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 10:25 am
Location: France

Fri Jul 22, 2016 10:03 am

lovilfoy wrote:Howard Zinn who believes that the Civil War was a plot by capitalists to prevent a "peoples revolution".

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#Howard_Zinn.27s_perspective
I don't understand why the map and the speeches of Lincoln go against Zinn. I don't say that Zinn is true (I don't well know what he wrote about ACW), but this does not show he is false.
If speeches and writings are evidence of facts, then much dictators are freedom saints: as far as I know, Lincoln did nothing against wage work.

khbynum
Major
Posts: 223
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 8:00 pm

Fri Jul 22, 2016 3:19 pm

In the decades following WWII, watching the quick and dramatic recovery of the German and Japanese economies, some wags argued that the best way to ensure your country's future prosperity was to lose a war with the United States. I really don't think it worked for the Confederacy.

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5549
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Fri Jul 22, 2016 3:26 pm

tripax wrote:I'm not sure if that reply is directed at me or someone else.
8<


Actually at the both of you and the conjecture that the results of an event directly indicates the cause of the event.

If you want to know the cause of an event, you must determine the factors which made the event possible.

Here's my hypothesis of what caused the American civil War:

1. Regional economics.
2. Differences in world views.

And I will conjecture that the regional economic differences were based on world views.

The charters of the 'northern colonies', to the greatest extent were based on private persons, with little or no means, being able to work for a period of time, after which they would be paid a substantial amount of money and allocated enough land on which they could build a viable existence. At this time, they were also considered to have equal social status with all other free citizens of the colony.

This situation drew on populations in Great Britain and Europe who were in agreement with it.

In the southern colonies, the charters were conceived to attract the 'lesser' sons of British aristocracy. In Great Britain there was a large body of sons of lower royals, who could not expect to be able to advance their social and economical stati. First sons inherited their father's land and rank; later sons might inherit some small parcel of land and some money, but had no outlook on advancement.

The charters of the southern colonies, allowed these 'lesser sons' to purchase the rights to large parcels of land for relatively low prices, with the requirement that they produced certain agricultural products, such as tobacco. And when they migrated to the colonies, they took their culture of royalty, with them. They had no royal titles, but they did have land and status.

So the culture in the southern colonies was a mirror of the British nobility, with a caste system replacing the nobility titles.

Therefore, the economy in the northern colonies, and later the norther states, grew on the basis of individual enterprise and wage labor, while the southern colonies grew more and more to depend on the labor of slaves to produce profits, and this very successfully.

These two systems clashed in that they were mutually exclusive and culturally opposed to each other.

I do not believe there were and conspiracies on one side or the other. There were obvious tendencies to pull in specific political directions, which caused conflict between the north and south. But I am open to evidence of orchestrated action, which might be considered conspiracy. What ever you wish to call it, the point is evidence and not conjecture.
Image

User avatar
ERISS
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1962
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 10:25 am
Location: France

Fri Jul 22, 2016 5:19 pm

Captain_Orso wrote:The charters of the 'northern colonies', to the greatest extent were based on private persons, with little or no means, being able to work for a period of time, after which they would be paid a substantial amount of money and allocated enough land on which they could build a viable existence. At this time, they were also considered to have equal social status with all other free citizens of the colony.
This situation drew on populations in Great Britain and Europe who were in agreement with it.

They were not so in agreement: they often rather flee the european old aristocracy systems or the new bourgeois system. There was hope in 'private' America like there was hope in bolshevik Russia.
Soon they saw American leaders chose the bourgeois european system of replacing royal aristocrats by bourgeois ones. It greatly succeded for the steal (allocation) of the native american land (bolsheviks had not these new lands, or these lands taken long ago by the empire were already (re)allocated to russians).

User avatar
GraniteStater
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1778
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 5:16 am
Location: Annapolis, MD - What?

Fri Jul 22, 2016 5:38 pm

Captain_Orso wrote:Actually at the both of you and the conjecture that the results of an event directly indicates the cause of the event.

If you want to know the cause of an event, you must determine the factors which made the event possible.

Here's my hypothesis of what caused the American civil War:

1. Regional economics.
2. Differences in world views.

And I will conjecture that the regional economic differences were based on world views.

The charters of the 'northern colonies', to the greatest extent were based on private persons, with little or no means, being able to work for a period of time, after which they would be paid a substantial amount of money and allocated enough land on which they could build a viable existence. At this time, they were also considered to have equal social status with all other free citizens of the colony.

This situation drew on populations in Great Britain and Europe who were in agreement with it.

In the southern colonies, the charters were conceived to attract the 'lesser' sons of British aristocracy. In Great Britain there was a large body of sons of lower royals, who could not expect to be able to advance their social and economical stati. First sons inherited their father's land and rank; later sons might inherit some small parcel of land and some money, but had no outlook on advancement.

The charters of the southern colonies, allowed these 'lesser sons' to purchase the rights to large parcels of land for relatively low prices, with the requirement that they produced certain agricultural products, such as tobacco. And when they migrated to the colonies, they took their culture of royalty, with them. They had no royal titles, but they did have land and status.

So the culture in the southern colonies was a mirror of the British nobility, with a caste system replacing the nobility titles.

Therefore, the economy in the northern colonies, and later the norther states, grew on the basis of individual enterprise and wage labor, while the southern colonies grew more and more to depend on the labor of slaves to produce profits, and this very successfully.

These two systems clashed in that they were mutually exclusive and culturally opposed to each other.

I do not believe there were and conspiracies on one side or the other. There were obvious tendencies to pull in specific political directions, which caused conflict between the north and south. But I am open to evidence of orchestrated action, which might be considered conspiracy. What ever you wish to call it, the point is evidence and not conjecture.


I'd have to do some investigating and re-reading myself; I'm not quite sure the charters or founding situations played that great a role in the evolution of society in a dozen or so different polities.

New York, for instance, was Dutch originally. New Jersey was not English to start with, either. Maryland's conception was somewhat unique. Georgia was almost insignificant even up to the War for Independence. New Hampshire squabbled with Massachusetts about its grants, and was part of Mass. briefly; all of New England was briefly under a single governor. Delaware was part of Pennsylvania for a while.

I won't gainsay you at this point, merely caution against overly broad conclusions. Still, by the early 19th century, it was clear that two different 'ways of life' had sprung up.
[color="#AFEEEE"]"Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable!"[/color]

-Daniel Webster



[color="#FFA07A"]"C'mon, boys, we got the damn Yankees on the run!"[/color]

-General Joseph Wheeler, US Army, serving at Santiago in 1898



RULES

(A) When in doubt, agree with Ace.

(B) Pull my reins up sharply when needed, for I am a spirited thoroughbred and forget to turn at the post sometimes.





Image

User avatar
ERISS
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1962
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 10:25 am
Location: France

Fri Jul 22, 2016 6:03 pm

ERISS wrote:They were not so in agreement: they often rather flee the european old aristocracy systems or the new bourgeois system. There was hope in 'private' America like there was hope in bolshevik Russia.

Maybe that's why there were so much americans (and others) in the Durruti collumns (Spain 36): there was hope (and creation for some months) here for a new system. As usual, bourgeois (Spain stalinists or republicans) profited of this anarchist propaganda to rather invite foreign people in their military. Later, once Durruti dead, they'll continue to put false words in Durruti mouth to attract people, collect Durruti influence.
The first international brigades were anarchist, not republican (bourgeois or communist).

User avatar
tripax
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 777
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2013 9:58 pm

Fri Jul 22, 2016 7:03 pm

I agree with GraniteStater that the charters themselves were not necessarily the cause of southern society becoming what it was, although I'm not sure. I think I remember reading a more optimistic view of those charters as being used to justify what southern society was by 1860 by pro-slavery elites of that era. I think, Dabney, of whom I posted a criticism of earlier, defends slavery using a perverted version of the history Captain_Orso presented above - but I don't mean to associate Captain_Orso's thoughtful answer with that of Dabney.

As a side note before I go further, I think many would agree that slave ownership played a bigger role in how many people in southern states defined the elite in their society than some of the last few replies imply.

Actually at the both of you and the conjecture that the results of an event directly indicates the cause of the event.


My position above was that some of the results of the event (war) benefited slaves and many others who who born and lived in southern states in 1861. The Confederate Government did not achieve its political and war aims, but many citizens and residents benefited, at least temporarily, from the Union victory - as many Union political and military leaders intended.

Your paradigm suggests that it is better to be able to pair a result with a cause of the war or goal of combatants at the outset of the war. I don't know if this is true, but I think it is very valuable to remember that actions of people born in southern (and northern) states who sought abolition were important causes of the war.

I think that many slaves and abolitionists in the south intended that their agitation lead to a general uprising and ultimately emancipation/abolition. I think Denmark Vesey, Nat Turner, and John Brown (who was not so southern, but was influenced by many southern and northern abolitionists) all intended that their uprisings lead to more widespread action and ultimately to emancipation/abolition. I think fear of further uprisings was paired with fear of abolition imposed by the federal government in many successionists' minds. While Lincoln, in his rhetoric, tried to separate the war in 1861 and 1862 from the slave uprisings that preceded it, many abolitionists who did much to support the war and many pro-slavery advocates saw the war as a part of the longer struggle. After the Emancipation Proclamation, while Lincoln still did not usually speak of the war as a continuation of the struggle of L'Ouverture, Vesey, Turner, and Brown, I think it is legitimate to think of that Proclamation and the arming of former slaves as joining the civil war with the long history of peaceful and violent anti-slavery struggle in North America and especially in the US.

I don't think we are really disagreeing here. I'm actually making the same argument I made recently when talking with 1stVermont, which is that the South included slaves, abolitionists, and other groups who did not support very many goals of the Confederate political and military leadership.

One of the reasons, by the way, I'm pushing this argument so much is that I may soon be moving to a more southern local and I think that there is a lot of angst about what makes a person a true southerner today. I am trying to figure out if I'm wrong and how to clarify my argument in case I have to make it without the veil of anonymity.
Across the South, we have a deep appreciation of history -- we haven’t always had a deep appreciation of each other’s history. - Reverend Clementa Pinckney

User avatar
GraniteStater
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1778
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 5:16 am
Location: Annapolis, MD - What?

Fri Jul 22, 2016 8:46 pm

As an aside, something of which the Commonwealth of Massachusetts can be justly proud: Massachusetts was the first polity in history to absolutely abolish slavery, unconditionally, within its jurisdiction.

It was a court case. A black man sued for his freedom and the court found that the state constitution implied by language in it that no person in Massachusetts could be held as property, nor could any person be deemed property. 1781 or thereabouts.

The very first polity in recorded history which absolutely forbade the enslavement of one human being by another.
[color="#AFEEEE"]"Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable!"[/color]

-Daniel Webster



[color="#FFA07A"]"C'mon, boys, we got the damn Yankees on the run!"[/color]

-General Joseph Wheeler, US Army, serving at Santiago in 1898



RULES

(A) When in doubt, agree with Ace.

(B) Pull my reins up sharply when needed, for I am a spirited thoroughbred and forget to turn at the post sometimes.





Image

hanny1
Captain
Posts: 158
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 11:57 am

Mon Oct 03, 2016 11:48 am

ERISS wrote:They were not so in agreement: they often rather flee the european old aristocracy systems or the new bourgeois system. There was hope in 'private' America like there was hope in bolshevik Russia.
Soon they saw American leaders chose the bourgeois european system of replacing royal aristocrats by bourgeois ones. It greatly succeded for the steal (allocation) of the native american land (bolsheviks had not these new lands, or these lands taken long ago by the empire were already (re)allocated to russians).


Because the good Captain was refering to every colony in the continent being formed by and with certain inherent legal rights and privaliges, the mose central being those of the UK rights of Englishmen, one of which is the right of the people to remove/replace the Monarch if it does not govern acording to the laws of the land.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Gah0RdbHKmYC&pg=PA74&lpg=PA74&dq=The+Charter+of+James+I+contained+a+15th+Article+which+was+never+superseded+and+was+confirmed+and+confirmed+on+various+occasions.+...+not+only+as+defined+in+the+year+1606,+but+as+augmented+in+later+constitutional+embellishments,+including+.&source=bl&ots=-FSKi0-xXL&sig=BbYjmKvPTHVKDns2bZYvF2Noa2w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi7wLGDur7PAhXjJMAKHWLJB1QQ6AEIIzAA#v=onepage&q=The%20Charter%20of%20James%20I%20contained%20a%2015th%20Article%20which%20was%20never%20superseded%20and%20was%20confirmed%20and%20confirmed%20on%20various%20occasions.%20...%20not%20only%20as%20defined%20in%20the%20year%201606%2C%20but%20as%20augmented%20in%20later%20constitutional%20embellishments%2C%20including%20.&f=false

hanny1
Captain
Posts: 158
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 11:57 am

Mon Oct 03, 2016 11:59 am

GraniteStater wrote:As an aside, something of which the Commonwealth of Massachusetts can be justly proud: Massachusetts was the first polity in history to absolutely abolish slavery, unconditionally, within its jurisdiction.


Not bad history, not even history.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline

It was a court case. A black man sued for his freedom and the court found that the state constitution implied by language in it that no person in Massachusetts could be held as property, nor could any person be deemed property. 1781 or thereabouts.


There wwere 3 State SC casses, they found that indentured servitude was ok, slavery not, Mass never abolished slavery which was legal( "There shall never be any bond slaverie, villinage or captivitie amongst us unless it be lawfull captives taken in just warres, and such strangers as willingly selle themselves or are sold to us. And these shall have all the liberties and Christian usages which the law of God established in Israell concerning such persons doeth morally require. This exempts none from servitude who shall be judged thereto by Authoritie.") in the state untill the 13th amendment made its indentured servants, a very small number btw, for life free.http://www.masshist.org/education/loc-slavery/essay.php?entry_id=504
1641 Massachusetts becomes the first colony to legalize slavery. This is done through the passage of the Body of Liberties. Under section 91 it states:
There shall never be any bond slavery, villeinage, or captivity amongst us unless it be lawful captives taken in just wars, and such strangers as willingly sell themselves or are sold to us. And these shall have all the liberties and Christian usages which the law of God established in Israel concerning such persons cloth morally require. This exempts none from servitude who shall be judged thereto by authority.
http://www.constitution.org/bcp/mabodlib.htm
(This became part of the Articles of New England Confederation, with this, this legalizes the slave trade in Massachusetts and eventual the rest of New England.)

Under the US Constitution slavery was legal over the entire union, makeing any state law to the contary, inferior.

The very first polity in recorded history which absolutely forbade the enslavement of one human being by another.


fact free nonsense, otoh, its was the first US state to make slavery legal, and thats what is taught to pupils, maybe you should attend a school?

User avatar
GraniteStater
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1778
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 5:16 am
Location: Annapolis, MD - What?

Re: Could the South have won the Civil War?

Sun Feb 26, 2017 4:28 pm

Mr. hanny1,

Try not to be insulting. Try to understand that other people may be just as well informed, if not better.

Try to reason. Your reasoning here is poor.

Under the US Constitution, slavery could be legal, if a State enacted it as such. That didn't enjoin it on a polity.

Go to Wikipedia and look for 'History of slavery in Massachusetts' See the discussion under Quock Walker vs. Jennison, viz.:

There were three trials related to these events, two civil and one criminal. These took place during the American Revolutionary War, when language about the equality of people was in the air and after the new Massachusetts constitution had been passed in 1780. The civil cases were : Jennison v. Caldwell (for "deprivation of the benefit of his servant, Walker"), apparently heard and decided first, and Quock Walker v. Jennison (for assault and battery),[5] both heard by the Worcester County Court of Common Pleas on June 12, 1781.
Jennison v. Caldwell
In the first case, Jennison argued that Caldwell had enticed away his employee Walker. The court found in his favor and awarded him 25 pounds.

Quock Walker v. Jennison
In a 1781 case involving slave Quock Walker in Worcester County Court of Common Pleas, Chief Justice William Cushing instructed the jury as follows:

"As to the doctrine of slavery and the right of Christians to hold Africans in perpetual servitude, and sell and treat them as we do our horses and cattle, that (it is true) has been heretofore countenanced by the Province Laws formerly, but nowhere is it expressly enacted or established. It has been a usage – a usage which took its origin from the practice of some of the European nations, and the regulations of British government respecting the then Colonies, for the benefit of trade and wealth. But whatever sentiments have formerly prevailed in this particular or slid in upon us by the example of others, a different idea has taken place with the people of America, more favorable to the natural rights of mankind, and to that natural, innate desire of Liberty, with which Heaven (without regard to color, complexion, or shape of noses-features) has inspired all the human race. And upon this ground our Constitution of Government, by which the people of this Commonwealth have solemnly bound themselves, sets out with declaring that all men are born free and equal – and that every subject is entitled to liberty, and to have it guarded by the laws, as well as life and property – and in short is totally repugnant to the idea of being born slaves. This being the case, I think the idea of slavery is inconsistent with our own conduct and Constitution; and there can be no such thing as perpetual servitude of a rational creature, unless his liberty is forfeited by some criminal conduct or given up by personal consent or contract ..."[6]

The jury freed Walker. Because Justice Cushing held that perpetual servitude is unconstitutional under the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, no further action by the Great and General Court (the formal name of the Massachusetts state legislature) was needed to end slavery in Massachusetts.
The Walker case was opened by the attorney considering the question of whether a previous master’s promise to free Walker gave him a right to freedom after that master had died. Walker's lawyers argued that the concept of slavery was contrary to the Bible and the new Massachusetts Constitution (1780). The jury voted that Walker was a free man under the constitution and awarded him 50 pounds in damages.

Both decisions were appealed. Jennison's appeal of Walker's freedom was tossed out in September 1781 by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, either because he failed to appear[7] or because his lawyers did not submit the required court papers.[5][8] The Caldwells won the other appeal; a jury concurred that Walker was a free man, and therefore the defendants were entitled to employ him.

Commonwealth v. Jennison
In September 1781, a third case was filed by the Attorney General against Jennison, Commonwealth v. Jennison, for criminal assault and battery of Walker. In his charge to the jury, Chief Justice William Cushing stated, "Without resorting to implication in constructing the constitution, slavery is…as effectively abolished as it can be by the granting of rights and privileges wholly incompatible and repugnant to its existence." This has been taken as setting the groundwork for the end of slavery in the state.[8][9] On April 20, 1783, Jennison was found guilty and fined 40 shillings.[5]

*****

Try desperately not to be an insufferable, sophomoric instigator, my dear sir. Your pattern here on these forums reminds me of an ill-behaved 14 year old who has read a book or two and thinks he has acquired wisdom.

User avatar
GraniteStater
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1778
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 5:16 am
Location: Annapolis, MD - What?

Re: Could the South have won the Civil War?

Sun Feb 26, 2017 10:39 pm

Against my better judgment, I will give you an atom of leeway, before I state my concrete response.

* Read the bolded part from my Wiki quote. Did you think I went off just that? Do you not suppose that a poster here may have done reading on a subject well before he quotes Wikipedia? To be perfectly clear, I've seen it stated in more than one place: Massachusetts was the first polity to absolutely forbid slavery within its jurisdiction.

* Perhaps you have trouble with what 'enjoins' means. Just because the US Constitution from 1787 to 1865 did not prohibit slavery does not mean that the several States could not forbid the practice, which several did, not to mention the Northwest Ordinance. To assert that the Federal Constitution prohibited the prohibition of slavery, as you seem to clearly claim here, is arrant nonsense. One of the very issues leading to the war was the Dred Scott decision, which the anti-slavery forces saw as implying that no State could prohibit a slave holder bringing his 'property' into the State and retaining his 'servant' in bondage.

*****

And that's all you get. As stated above, your approach to discussions on these forums in somewhat lacking in decorum, imho. You jump into this thread to differ over a historical fact, but indulge in invective and even insult right away.

khbynum and I (and others) had a very, very vigorous discussion over the causes of the war and most certainly were disagreeing in the strongest and most unmistakable terms, but we did not insult each other or engage in your childish nonsense.

Yes, I am reporting you to the mods.

User avatar
Durk
Posts: 2306
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 4:36 am
Location: Wyoming

Re: Could the South have won the Civil War?

Mon Feb 27, 2017 2:36 am

I rarely get involved in disputes where one of the disputants is woefully absent a factual basis. GraniteStater is spot on in his comments, as the Massachusetts Court system says:

In 1780, when the Massachusetts Constitution went into effect, slavery was legal in the Commonwealth. However, during the years 1781 to 1783, in three related cases known today as "the Quock Walker case," the Supreme Judicial Court applied the principle of judicial review to abolish slavery. In doing so, the Court held that laws and customs that sanctioned slavery were incompatible with the new state constitution. In the words of then-Supreme Judicial Court Chief Justice William Cushing: "[S]lavery is in my judgment as effectively abolished as it can be by the granting of rights and privileges [in the constitution] wholly incompatible and repugnant to its existence." This section introduces the legal status of slavery in Massachusetts prior to 1780, the Mum Bett case of 1781, and the Quock Walker case.

This is a settled issue. Prolongation of factual inaccuracy is not warranted.

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5549
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Re: Could the South have won the Civil War?

Mon Feb 27, 2017 12:48 pm

hanny1 wrote:
8<

GraniteStater wrote:under the US Constitution, slavery could be legal, if a State enacted it as such. That didn't enjoin it on a polity.


Not how it's taught in Us law , constitution classes, if a right exists in one state to its citizens, then it exists in all states, and history classes,


I've been wrong about things before, but I'd be happy to be enlightened about this concept, of which I cannot recall having ever heard.

Does this mean that since Colorado has legalized the use of cannabis for medicinal and recreational purposes, that the citizens of all other states in the Union also have the same legal rights in their home states? D.C. and federal territories too?

hanny1 wrote: not least because the US Supreme Court ruled that slavery was lawful over the entire domain of the Union in every case up to 1860. I.e. Slavery was lawful in every state and all slave owners had the right to have their property protected. Dredd Scott being the last time it would point this fact out, reminding the free states that they were created with the NWT that contained a perpetual protection of slavery in any future State created, it's quaint you think the constitution which protects contracts and property rights over the entire Union, and Supreme Court rulings, and the treaty that allowed all the free states to become states provided they recognised slavery and property rights protection, are inferior to your incorrect opinion.


The Dredd Scott vs Sandford ruling didn't actually address slavery in its conclusion, although Taney spent much time defending it on the general basis of it being historical, that "negros" were historically deemed an inferior race, and that since the Constitution and the founding fathers did not address the status of blacks directly, blacks therefore had no legal standing within the U.S. other than an objective status of being owned.

The ruling addressed the status of Dredd Scoot being a black African, born into slavery in the U.S., and deemed him as not having the rights of a U.S. citizen, and therefore had no right to bring his case before the U.S. Supreme Court, for the court had no jurisdiction over non-citizens.

Further, the decision did not make slavery legal in all other states at all, nor was that even contested through it. It put into question, however, whether the Kansas-Nebraska act could actually forbid slavery within U.S. Territories, or if that right were reserved for the Territory Legislature itself. This was however never legally contested.

hanny1 wrote:
GraniteStater wrote:Go to Wikipedia and look for 'History of slavery in Massachusetts' See the discussion under Quock Walker vs. Jennison, viz.:


and yet I am correct and your still ignorant and uniformed. It states explicitly that no legislation abolished slavery until the 13th ended it in mass.


No, you are not. It states, "No legislation was passed that abolished slavery..." and "...slavery was a violation of ... the constitution of the commonwealth". The 1781-'83 court cases ruled that slavery was de facto illegal, because it violated, in modern terms, the basic human rights, which the court naturally granted blacks.

This is the major difference between the Massachusetts court case and the Dredd Scott ruling. The courts in MA deemed blacks to have person hood and therefore the same legal status of all white Americans, whereas Taney spent most of his decision arguing against exactly that, mostly on the basis, which might be rephrased as, --we've always done it this way, therefore it is justified--.

hanny1 wrote: try reading a book yourself, R Ransom teaching text in US universities, Conflict and compromise,The economics of slavery, for instances explains that the Constitution gave protection to slavery over the entire union, and congress could not limit it in the union at state or territorial condition, and that state law is inferior to federal law, a point your also ignorant off it appears. I used the us education system links that explain the facts, you use wiki that contradicts your claims, how quaint. Because that case did not abolish slavery in mass, the judge orbiter dictum comments are not law, slavery only exists by positive law, and the state constitution allowed slave ownership, was not changed by any court case and so slavery remained legal in mass until it ratified the 13th which ended law by positive legislation. not knowing how basic law works is also quaint.


You can therefore point to a specific instance supporting your claims?

BTW the MA cases do not have an orbiter dictum. The Dredd Scott case, however has a very strange one. First Taney states that the USSC does not have jurisdiction over the case, and then he writes hundreds of pages on an orbiter dictum defending his decision on the basis of tradition. All his arguments culminate in his statement, "... that they [blacks] had no rights which the white man was bound to respect ...", supported by the fact that it has always been so. This is a circular argument, and is invalid. It is also a know tactic of persons to argue for something, but have no actual argument, of which Taney obviously has little.

In my opinion, Taney's orbiter dictum amounts to a smoke screen to hide the fact, that his arguments are weak, and mostly based on tradition; traditions from a time before constitutional rights of free citizens were were not a widely known concept.

hanny1 wrote:Try finding a 14 year old who can show you how to use wiki correctly, rather than use it to show your own incompetence and ignorance, like not knowing the difference between being the first polity in history to abolish slavery, which was not mass, who was not even the firsts to abolish it while it was in the union, and which was the first polity to do so. Then ask them why in the us 1830 census mass still had slaves listed as living in the state.


You had better learn to rein in your temper. There is no excuse for it. I would not suggest you test the patience of the moderators.

Return to “ACW History Club / Histoire de la Guerre de Sécession”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest