Does The War Shed Light On the Future of Enlightened Government?

[pepe4158]

Broch hmmm your acctually thinking a compromise could have been reached by dialogue at the time???? If I understand you correct or not?

If so you deeply miss-understand these people and culture of this time...it would have been equivalent to Sparta wanting to negotiate for peace with the Persian King Dariaus.

N again im insisting on a personal level they DIDNT hate each other...the hate level came after and mid-war (southeners adledging northern atrociticies)

[Brochgale]

Broch hmmm your acctually thinking a compromise could have been reached by dialogue at the time???? If I understand you correct or not?

If so you deeply miss-understand these people and culture of this time...it would have been equivalent to Sparta wanting to negotiate for peace with the Persian King Dariaus.

N again im insisting on a personal level they DIDNT hate each other...the hate level came after and mid-war (southeners adledging northern atrociticies)

I keep asking myself - was the war inevitable? I ask the question on the premise that American politicians were not any less intelligent than politicians at any other place and time in history? Coming as I do from a country where people slaughtered each other over Religion at one time?

[Brochgale]

I am afraid that the actual timeline of events does not support your conclusion.

November 6, 1860 : US Presidential Election
November 10 : South Carolina legislature calls for a convention to consider secession.
December 24 : South Carolina secedes.
January 9, 1861 : Mississippi secedes.
January 10 : Florida secedes.
January 11 : Alabama secedes.
January 19 : Georgia secedes.
January 26 : Louisiana secedes.
February 1 : Texas secedes.
March 4 : Lincoln inaugurated and assumes office as President.

It would seem that the inability to form a consensus or seek a compromise was with the Southern states and not with Lincoln. He never got a chance. Seven states has seceded by the time he got his hands on the levers.

I dont view the seccession of the Southern States as a catastrophy - It is the War that I view as the real catastrophy. But otherwise I accept your point.
I just view that it takes two to Tango and two to make a Fight? The war happenned but was it inevitable? Are politicians in Washington any more bengn today or for that matter is govt anywhere today more benign than in times past?

[Brochgale]

You should read Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns Goodwin.

This thread is just full of rhetorical nonsense. I really can't believe some of the things people are spouting off in here.

I will keep an eye out for the book - it is a new one one me.

Rhetoric has often led to war - so you could say that nonsense leads to the nonsense that is war - Rhetoric though is better than sharpening bayonets etc?

[pepe4158]

I ask you again, would you have expected Leonidas, to want to sit down and negotiate a peace with Darius over their differences?
Maybe not enough of a similar case, but many points similar.

Comon, these were manly men (not girly men as Arnold says lol) Think about how they settled things, if you talked bad about Abe Lincoln, in George Picketts prescence, you best be handy with a sabre or pistol cause soon he was going to slap you with the glove n challenge you to a duel.

You knoew its funny, most Europeans visiting the south, noted the southern elite (at that time) had more in common with Europeans then the multi-cuturalistic north.

[Brochgale]

I ask you again, would you have expected Leonidas, to want to sit down and negotiate a peace with Darius over their differences?
Maybe not enough of a similar case, but many points similar.

Comon, these were manly men (not girly men as Arnold says lol) Think about how they settled things, if you talked bad about Abe Lincoln, in George Picketts prescence, you best be handy with a sabre or pistol cause soon he was going to slap you with the glove n challenge you to a duel.

You knoew its funny, most Europeans visiting the south, noted the southern elite (at that time) had more in common with Europeans then the multi-cuturalistic north.

You are probably right. Darius was power mad and Greece was on the rise - a threat to his power?

As A Scot I know that Scots like a scrap. I guess there was also too much Scots -Irish blood in the mix at time of ACW - War was probably the only way to settle things? Also not forgetting the huge German community in States either? To many mixes who enjoy warfare for anything else to happen I guess?

[pepe4158]

Hmmm just curious ...you mentioned being Scott, you know the best union general his last name is Scott...is that just a coincidence or is that some type of anglo play on words for Scotish?
He suffered from just being too old, but Lee had the greatest respect for him, and he was actually a Virginian.

[pepe4158]

You are probably right. Darius was power mad and Greece was on the rise - a threat to his power?
To many mixes who enjoy warfare for anything else to happen I guess?

Yes n the similar connection I think is the chasm between north and south culture, on a collision course, for the south to want to stay united with the north, and although this thread is mostly about the morality of such a dispute, there was NO-WAY Lincoln or any northern senator was going to let them just go without a fight.
Even Lee, who professesed to want to really avoid war, believed this dispute could only be settled thru force-of-arms.
He too was a very religious man like Jackson...n most of the south, and believed that God would use war to settle the dispute aka old-testiment bible style.

[Brochgale]

Hmmm just curious ...you mentioned being Scott, you know the best union general his last name is Scott...is that just a coincidence or is that some type of anglo play on words for Scotish?
He suffered from just being too old, but Lee had the greatest respect for him, and he was actually a Virginian.

Scott is a Scottish name. As is Jackson. As is Forrest - Forrest had Scottish ancestry. There are plenty of others - I will not list them all. Grant is a very Scottish name. Very local to my area that one - Strathspey.

[Le Ricain]

I dont view the seccession of the Southern States as a catastrophy - It is the War that I view as the real catastrophy. But otherwise I accept your point.
I just view that it takes two to Tango and two to make a Fight? The war happenned but was it inevitable? Are politicians in Washington any more bengn today or for that matter is govt anywhere today more benign than in times past?

There were two issues that divided the North and the South. The Southern issue, slavery, seems to be the only one that gets all of the attention.

The Northern issue was tariff. Protection from cheaper European imports, primarily British, was viewed as crucial by Northern industries. Revenues from import duties was also an important source of Federal funding in a pre-income tax time. Of course, the tariff was of no use to the basically non-industrialised South. In fact the South deeply resented having to pay the tariff which they saw as benefitting the North at their expense.

One of the first things that South Carolina did after seceding was to repeal the tariff. Getting rid of the hated tariff was a powerful inducement to South Carolina's neighbours to join her.

Shortly after his inauguration, Lincoln was advised of the dire situation facing Northern Industries. The indutrialists were not concerned about the loss of the Southern markets, as their market share there was actually quite small. The South exported cotton, tobacco and rice to Europe and imported manufactured goods in return.

What concerned the Industrialists was that cheap European goods would flood the border states and the Far West. This, Lincoln was assured, would cripple if not in fact kill off Northern industries.

Lincoln did not really have a choice and after the South started the war, it did not matter as the decision had been made. For the Northern Industries, Southern secession was viewed as a catastrophe. Lincoln, as a Republican, could not ignore his core supporters. As a unionist, he could not ignore his beliefs.

[pepe4158]

There were two issues that divided the North and the South. The Southern issue, slavery, seems to be the only one that gets all of the attention.
.

You know Le...your right to point out all you did, but it went so much deeper. The south was a, 'agrarian' culture, meaning they were a farm and plantation type people and mentality. Its always been noted to that people of this society are generaly more, 'militaristic.' So not suprising the bulk of the professional officers in the USA were southern.
The north people were industrialists....hence the tarrif problems you alluded to
but if the north fiqured out how to make their sockets n wedges cheaper, then the Europeans...would there have still been a war...yes
If the slavery issue could have been settled..would there still have been a war....yes......your right to point out their significance, but bottom line these were just the catalists of a chemical equation bound to happen anyway.

[Le Ricain]

You know Le...your right to point out all you did, but it went so much deeper. The south was a, 'agrarian' culture, meaning they were a farm and plantation type people and mentality. Its always been noted to that people of this society are generaly more, 'militaristic.' So not suprising the bulk of the professional officers in the USA were southern.
The north people were industrialists....hence the tarrif problems you alluded to
but if the north fiqured out how to make their sockets n wedges cheaper, then the Europeans...would there have still been a war...yes
If the slavery issue could have been settled..would there still have been a war....yes......your right to point out their significance, but bottom line these were just the catalists of a chemical equation bound to happen anyway.

I agree with all but one of your points:

The claim that the majority of the professional officers in the pre-war USA were from the South is an myth used to demonstrate the South's superior militaristic ethos over the North. In this forum under the thread 'Trivia Question: US Army pre-CW generals', I have posted (post number 6) the scanned 'Official Army Register for 1858'.

The register lists all of the US Army officers by place of birth. In 1858, there were approximately 600 officers from the North and approximately 470 officers from the South (including Delaware, Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and DC).

[pepe4158]

yes there were more northern.....but none had actually seen combat! They were all pen and papper pushers, and it showed on the battlefield.

And thats a VERY important factor.....the only high ranking northern officer, to be part of Scotts grand Mexican campaign, was Grant (I could be wrong there but all of hand I can think of), where he and Longrstreet had become close friends.

Lee, Longstreet, Jackson, Pickett,etc....the list goes on of southern officers, who had all charged into Mexico city,had seen blood spilled and shed blood, under Scotts invasion of Mexico.

Yes Im sure the list is higher for the north, in numbers, but these were guys who all hid behind desks when the shooting started, where a southern general was out leading the charge, hence you have so many dead southern generals eventually, and their tribute to being militaristic.

Yeah I didnt include Scott as a union general (he was Virginian) because he was just too old to lead, but imagine if he wasnt (maybe had been 10 years younger?)? I dare say Lee would have thought twice on fighting his old commander, teacher, mentor, and dear friend.

[Brochgale]

There were two issues that divided the North and the South. The Southern issue, slavery, seems to be the only one that gets all of the attention.

The Northern issue was tarriff. Protection from cheaper European imports, primarily British, was viewed as crucial by Northern industries. Revenues from import duties was also an important source of Federal funding in a pre-income tax time. Of course, the tarriff was of no use to the basically non-industrialised South. In fact the South deeply resented having to pay the tarriff which they saw as benefitting the North at their expense.

One of the first things that South Carolina did after seceding was to repeal the tarriff. Getting rid of the hated tarriff was a powerful inducement to South Carolina's neighbours to join her.

Shortly after his inauguration, Lincoln was advised of the dire situation facing Northern Industries. The indutrialists were not concerned about the loss of the Southern markets, as their market share there was actually quite small. The South exported cotton, tobacco and rice to Europe and imported manufactured goods in return.

What concerned the Industrialists was that cheap European goods would flood the border states and the Far West. This, Lincoln was assured, would cripple if not in fact kill off Northern industries.

Lincoln did not really have a choice and after the South started the war, it did not matter as the decision had been made. For the Northern Industries, Southern secession was viewed as a catastrophe. Lincoln, as a Republican, could not ignore his core supporters. As a unionist, he could not ignore his beliefs.

It is an interesting point but I am not convinced that there was an economic argument for ACW. Maybe there was from the point of view of Arms manufacturers ard associated heavy industry but for Northern Industry as a whole - I am not convinced.
Nor am I conviced about Federal funding argument. Funding for what? Obviously not the military?

[pepe4158]

Also wanted to mention a little about the mindset of a union officer versus a southern officer Le...mere #'s dont tell that story
A union officer, viewed his rank, as merly a tool to gain political office.
A southern officer viewed his rank as his only true profession (other then farmer lol) and it was all about honor to them and being courageous on the battlefield for pride and glory, not political advancement.

The game does well to put so many northerners as administrator traits and recruiting officers lol....their talents were pushing pens and BS'ing people lol

Grant was an obvious exception......although latter he did get political, but probably an after thought.........Reynolds,Sherman, and Hancock were good too, and Reynolds managed to get himself killed of course.

[soloswolf]

yes there were more northern.....but none had actually seen combat! They were all pen and papper pushers, and it showed on the battlefield.

Yes Im sure the list is higher for the north, in numbers, but these were guys who all hid behind desks when the shooting started, where a southern general was out leading the charge, hence you have so many dead southern generals eventually, and their tribute to being militaristic.

This could not be more generalized. (My apologies to all on the pun.) A quick (and only surface skimming link) to refute your well thought out point: http://www.sonofthesouth.net/mexican-war/mexican-war-generals.htm

[soloswolf]

It is an interesting point but I am not convinced that there was an economic argument for ACW. Maybe there was from the point of view of Arms manufacturers ard associated heavy industry but for Northern Industry as a whole - I am not convinced.
Nor am I conviced about Federal funding argument. Funding for what? Obviously not the military?

How are you not convinced? You don't think that losing half of your nation would have any sort of economic impact? There is limitless evidence to support many economic arguments that contributed to the ACW. From both sides too.

And funding the military? They didn't just dip into a 'rainy/war-day' fund. Those neat options you have to suck more taxes, sell bonds, print money, were all necessary and still were not enough.

Ideology gets men in the field and headlines in newspapers. Death and debt are the result.

[pepe4158]

Hmm Solo...I think your link more supports my point then negates it. I believe I will see a lot of southern generals there lol.......the commodore doesnt count lol
Hes an admiral, and even the southern admirals stayed loyal to the union aka Foote n Faraugat
Hmmm forgot about Fremont tho....yeah he was there n he has a big role early in the civil war trying to save Mo for the Uniion...hmmm Wool tho...er ah Wool who lol...


opss didnt see the botom link..Ididnt know Mac n Sherman were there...I stand corrected, more then I thought.

[Le Ricain]

It is an interesting point but I am not convinced that there was an economic argument for ACW. Maybe there was from the point of view of Arms manufacturers ard associated heavy industry but for Northern Industry as a whole - I am not convinced.
Nor am I conviced about Federal funding argument. Funding for what? Obviously not the military?

The industrialists viewed tariffs as essential to the American economy for two reasons. American factories were in a start-up phase, often referred to as infant industries, which meant they were less efficient than their British competitors. Also, American manufacturers paid higher wages than did British manufacturers.

The goods needing protection were not from heavy industry, but rather common every day items such as boots, hats, candles and nails. The highest tariffs were reserved for bolts of cloth and iron bars.

In 1842, under the 'Black Tariff' law, the tariff rate averaged at 35%. Starting in 1846 with the Walker Tariff, the US Government began a policy of reducing tariffs as a means of accomodating the South. The Walker Tariff rate averaged at 25%. In 1857, the tariff was further reduced to 18%. Only in 1861, under President Buchanan, was the tariff rate raised to 35%. With departure of seven Southern states, there was no need to try and appease the South. However, the CSA exports were excluded from tariff liability as the North did not recognise the South as being foreign.

The Federal Budget for the financial year 1860 was $ 66.5 million. As there was no income tax, the largest source of federal funds was collection of import duties. Funding was needed for the military as the US Navy budget alone for 1860 was $ 10 million.

Sometimes the jokes write themselves. Once the Confederate government was formed, it was realised that the government had limited means of revenue collection. The CSA imposed a tariff on all imported goods of 15%. However, the effectiveness of the Union blockade meant that only $ 3.5 million was ever raised by the CSA.

[Le Ricain]

yes there were more northern.....but none had actually seen combat! They were all pen and papper pushers, and it showed on the battlefield.

And thats a VERY important factor.....the only high ranking northern officer, to be part of Scotts grand Mexican campaign, was Grant (I could be wrong there but all of hand I can think of), where he and Longrstreet had become close friends.

Lee, Longstreet, Jackson, Pickett,etc....the list goes on of southern officers, who had all charged into Mexico city,had seen blood spilled and shed blood, under Scotts invasion of Mexico.

Yes Im sure the list is higher for the north, in numbers, but these were guys who all hid behind desks when the shooting started, where a southern general was out leading the charge, hence you have so many dead southern generals eventually, and their tribute to being militaristic.

Yeah I didnt include Scott as a union general (he was Virginian) because he was just too old to lead, but imagine if he wasnt (maybe had been 10 years younger?)? I dare say Lee would have thought twice on fighting his old commander, teacher, mentor, and dear friend.

Solowolf has ably demonstrated the role of Northern officers in the Mexican War.

Using my trusty 'Official Army Records for 1858' I can tackle the pen pusher argument. Defining pen pushers as Judge Advocates Corps, Quartermaster Corps, Subsistance, Medical Corps, Pay Corps, Corps of Engineers and Topographical Engineers: there were 189 Northern pen pushers and 152 Southern pen pushers.

Serving with combat units were 403 Northern officers and 315 Southern officers.

[Jabberwock]

er ah Wool who

Major General John Wool was 3rd in rank in the regular army prior to the war. He was commander of the Department of the East when the war broke out.

Although it is often claimed he was the oldest officer serving on either side, he was born on February 29, 1784; so he was just past his 19th birthday in 1861 (so it can also be claimed he was the youngest general officer).

He was at least as responsible as Butler for getting troops to Washington during the "seige" caused by the Baltimore riots. He acted totally without authorization (since there was no communication with Washington). Since he was regular army, his part was not well publicized ... in fact he was put on sick leave and asked to resign. He ignored this request, rushing more troops to Fort Monroe before the rebels could occupy it.

He served in mostly administrative capacity (except for the capture of Norfolk) until his retirement in 1864. His commands during the war included the Department of the East, the Department of Virginia, VII Corps, and the Department of the Middle.

[pepe4158]

Ok Ok ....i give up!!!! Confederate generals were useless cowerds and the northern generals were better and just as or better experienced! Are you all happy now?

[Jabberwock]

All of the debates going on in this thread are highly subjective. People are entitled to voice their opinions on these matters if they want. I was not stating an opinion one way or the other. Just providing [mostly] objective information where it was asked. That information can be used to support any opinion here as far as I'm concerned.

[Brochgale]

The industrialists viewed tariffs as essential to the American economy for two reasons. American factories were in a start-up phase, often referred to as infant industries, which meant they were less efficient than their British competitors. Also, American manufacturers paid higher wages than did British manufacturers.

The goods needing protection were not from heavy industry, but rather common every day items such as boots, hats, candles and nails. The highest tariffs were reserved for bolts of cloth and iron bars.

In 1842, under the 'Black Tariff' law, the tariff rate averaged at 35%. Starting in 1846 with the Walker Tariff, the US Government began a policy of reducing tariffs as a means of accomodating the South. The Walker Tariff rate averaged at 25%. In 1857, the tariff was further reduced to 18%. Only in 1861, under President Buchanan, was the tariff rate raised to 35%. With departure of seven Southern states, there was no need to try and appease the South. However, the CSA exports were excluded from tariff liability as the North did not recognise the South as being foreign.

The Federal Budget for the financial year 1860 was $ 66.5 million. As there was no income tax, the largest source of federal funds was collection of import duties. Funding was needed for the military as the US Navy budget alone for 1860 was $ 10 million.

Sometimes the jokes write themselves. Once the Confederate government was formed, it was realised that the government had limited means of revenue collection. The CSA imposed a tariff on all imported goods of 15%. However, the effectiveness of the Union blockade meant that only $ 3.5 million was ever raised by the CSA.

So if I read you right - the real cause of the ACW was the same as the War Of Independence - Taxation???? I knew about the slavery issue but not about the tax issues. I just figure that most northerners at time were not all that bothered about the slavery issue? Most southerners had no real economic interest in maintaining slavery? The issue of taxation would produce more trouble?

[pepe4158]

well ya Broch...to the politicians and and elites it was, but to the masses it was the slavery issue. The old joke about, 'what if we gave a war and nobody came?' I really think if a northern soldier was told it was all about wedges and sprockets there would have been mass desertion in the ranks.

I mean all the Irish, Scott, German, and Dutch immigrants....who made up the bulk of the union army...had to be told something. Thus the ralling cry of the common northern soldier was the slavery issue.
The south knew they were out-numbered, hence you have the attitude of the southern soldier that he was a better man pound for pound then the northern, that it would take three union soldiers to whip one southern soldier. Which fostered the attuitude of the northern, 'that no, all men are equal, and Ill kill you and prove it, thus when they had huge losses, the only morale booster was your fighting to prove all men are equal and free versus the southerner who believed hes fighting for his rights (imagined or real)

Just an afterthought too....remember the average northern soldier is usually a fresh immigrant off the boat from Europe, Europe at this time is undergoing a renaissance in thought that slavery is very evil....hmmm the northern top dog (mob boss) in the area thinks hmmm how do I get this shmuck to go along with being drafted? Oh I know...tell him he needs to go end slavery.

[Coregonas]

It is hard to remember another (the main) reason, why wars are started apart from money .

Any other reason that is told to us the populace is simply a lie .

Well perhaps some one can find an example. But sure money is also in the reason list of that war.

[pepe4158]

Well I really think too that it was a clash of cultures, like the Spartans Vs the Persians or Rome Vs Carthage.....yes riches involved, but the south believed they were just too different now, and Lincoln was not going to let them go without a fight....sure like you said too, the views on $ a big factor.

[Le Ricain]

well ya Broch...to the politicians and and elites it was, but to the masses it was the slavery issue. The old joke about, 'what if we gave a war and nobody came?' I really think if a northern soldier was told it was all about wedges and sprockets there would have been mass desertion in the ranks.

I mean all the Irish, Scott, German, and Dutch immigrants....who made up the bulk of the union army...had to be told something. Thus the ralling cry of the common northern soldier was the slavery issue.
The south knew they were out-numbered, hence you have the attitude of the southern soldier that he was a better man pound for pound then the northern, that it would take three union soldiers to whip one southern soldier. Which fostered the attuitude of the northern, 'that no, all men are equal, and Ill kill you and prove it, thus when they had huge losses, the only morale booster was your fighting to prove all men are equal and free versus the southerner who believed hes fighting for his rights (imagined or real)

Just an afterthought too....remember the average northern soldier is usually a fresh immigrant off the boat from Europe, Europe at this time is undergoing a renaissance in thought that slavery is very evil....hmmm the northern top dog (mob boss) in the area thinks hmmm how do I get this shmuck to go along with being drafted? Oh I know...tell him he needs to go end slavery.

I am afraid that the claim that the majority of Union army soldiers were immigrants is just another myth. There are a number of sources that present a breakdown of the Union army, but Wikipedia would probably be the easiest to check.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Army#Ethnic_groups

The Union recruited 2.2 million soldiers of which 0.2 million were black. Of the white soldiers, 75% were American born. If you include the black soldiers, then 77% of the Union army was American born and 23% were foreign born.

In the CSA, 91% of her soldiers were American born and 9% were foreign born.

[pepe4158]

ok Le...here in the states we consider you 2nd generation immigrants still foreigners, as you DONT exclusivly speak english.....granted a lot of 2nd and third generation people served and are classified US born, but to the people that have lived here longer in the states, if you speak to your dad and mom in their native language, other then english, your still a foreigner.

Hence the different brigades in the union, are speaking to each other in Dutch, Galic(irish), Scottish, and German. (very foreign concept to most americans at the time.)

yankee recruiters (and draft boards) went after the poorer classes, which were generally first, n second generation americans. Again here in the states, we consider those people still foreigners, as you are right to point out tho they are technically US citizens. However when we here them speak another language other then english, most rooted americans mutter to themself (dam% foreigner)

Southern brigades spoke almost exclusively english....hence viewed our stereo-typical american (also same religious beliefs generally where north is a multi-mix)

Yeah i tend to also think of the northern army as just the eastern theater, and i know i am wrong to do so.

[pepe4158]

Using my trusty 'Official Army Records for 1858' I can tackle the pen pusher argument. Defining pen pushers as Judge Advocates Corps, Quartermaster Corps, Subsistance, Medical Corps, Pay Corps, Corps of Engineers and Topographical Engineers:

he-he well i quess your right to say some young lad or old guizzers gotta watch over the women and children while the real men go out n fight