Civil War Interactive Discussion Board Home
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register


Blue Motives - General Civil War Talk - Civil War Talk - Civil War Interactive Discussion Board
 Moderated by: javal1 Page:    1  2  Next Page Last Page  
 New Topic   Reply   Printer Friendly 
 Rating:  Rating
AuthorPost
You have chosen to ignore JDC Duncan. click Here to view this post


 Posted: Wed Jun 6th, 2007 12:13 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
2nd Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

What were the motivating factors that caused Northern politicians to escalate the crisis to a state of war and sacrifice the unheard-of casualties to keep the Southern States in a politcal union they no longer desired ?  Why did they not let the Confederacy go its own way, and form a less-binding political relationship to the benefit of both ?

You might be overstating things a bit when you state"...caused Northern politicians to escalate the crisis to a state of war...." In my reading, Northern politicians were falling all over themselves during 1859-60 to appease the deep South. They were working closely with Southern politicians on the Morrill Tariff (they also saw the need of regaining the funds misspent by the Buchanan Administration); they were on the verge of passing the first 13th Amendment (which guaranteed was an amendment forbidding Congress from passing emancipation laws or further amending the constitution to nullify this one); plus quite a few other, smaller cookies tossed South.

"Why did they not let the Confederacy go its own way, and ......."? I suspect you are somewhat glad that this nation was not split as the Confederacy had intended. Lincoln and a majority of Northern congressmen saw the loss of Union as more than shattering the intentions of the Declaration and the Constitution, they saw it as a great experiment that would eventually free the entire world from monarchies.

It is frequently argued that secession took nothing away from the Union, that two similar Unions would have been as good as one. Can't quite buy that argument, but it's worth discussing.

Sounds a bit high-falutin, but a great many Northerners did believe that democracy would eventually benefit the world, even the guys in the trenches. Even so, it is likely the South could have gotten away with secession -- at least long enough to prepare itself better for the war that would have to come -- but for the firing on the flag.

Some influential Americans and quite possibly a majority of northern voters, might have overlooked the takeover of arsenals and forts and such because those things belonged to all the people and, rather than fight over them, they could have them. But firing on the flag was steppin' on the Blue Suede Shoes.

Psychologically, you don't back a person in a corner he can't get out of because he will fight to get out. Similarly, you don't kick a guy in the butt -- he will get even. And both pertain to firing on the flag. The symbolism of the flag is complex and not explained in a sentence or two. It would be a mistake to assume that the Northerners held the flag in no less esteem than we do.

Will let this go for now, General, but it could be an exciting and enliven the board for a few weeks. Thanks for introducing it.

Ole


 



You have chosen to ignore JDC Duncan. click Here to view this post


 Posted: Wed Jun 6th, 2007 03:05 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
4th Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Non-general JDC:

My answer was short and vague as well because my thoughts are also not quite as sharp on the subject as they ought to be before chiming in on a crucial subject.

I believe motives for the northern response are quite clear -- they can all be found in the person of Abraham Lincoln. First, he was fiercely dedicated to the constitution as he saw it. (Yeah. I know. We'll get to that eventually.) He really did believe that the US form of government. as embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, was a model of self-government for the entire world -- the "last, best hope" thingy.

He also hated the idea of enslavement. (That he was or was not as racist as everyone else is delving a bit too deep for this initial phase of the discussion.) He believed the founding fathers had intended for slavery to eventally go away; that the "persons held for service" clause was wimping out to bring Virginia, South Carolina and Georgia into the Union; that the Northwest Ordinance (passed by many of the founders) was evidence of their intention to limit slavery to where it existed.

We ought to also first separate northern attitudes towards slavery. First, of course, were the abolitionists, a vocal minority. Then there was a wide range of those who simply felt as Lincoln did: I don't like slavery much and hope it will go away. And, there was a substantial minority that didn't think about it at all. Finally, there was a minority that also believed that slavery was the proper place for people of color.

Abolitionists were loud but virtually powerless -- politically. Lincoln was not an abolitionist, but used their feelings and the feelings of those who were less vocal to build the Republican Party and eventually become its nominee.

I'm convinced that Lincoln believed that his administration would have no constitututional right to go after slavery, but that it would have a right to keep it out of Government property, namely, the Territories. (Presumably because the Northwest Ordinance had not seriously been contested -- we can talk about the Dred Scott decision later, as well).

So we have, during the 1860 campaign, either the South's genuine fear of a Republican president, or the manipulation of the southern electorate into such a state of panic that secession became a viable and, ultimately, real option.

Again, when we've developed the groundwork and a thorough understanding of each other's bases, I will go further into the "manipulation" angle. For now, it's an offshoot that will only muck up the discussion.

Now. If we can only get a few more posters to chime in, we might have a real Civil War discussion on this CivilWarinteractive forum.

Ole



You have chosen to ignore JDC Duncan. click Here to view this post


 Posted: Thu Jun 7th, 2007 01:02 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
6th Post
susansweet
Member


Joined: Sun Sep 4th, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 1420
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

 doncha hate it when you only get a little bit of bacon fat in your collared green, instead of a big ole slab ?
You do have a way with words JDC. 

 

Ole and JDC this is an interesting discussion.  Harry Jaffa has a book called A New Birth of Freedom:  Abraham Lincoln and the Coming of the Civil War .  This was the first book I read as a member of the Drum Barracks reading discusion group .  It took us two months to read it .  He presents Clays version and Lincolns version of the Constitution.  It's been way too long since I read it now to remember all the facts of the book.  Good place to get a start reading though. 

Found this review of the book



 
Robin Friedman (Washington, D.C. United States) - See all my reviews
      In 1958, Professor Jaffa published "Crisis of the House Divided" which remains the definitive study of the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858. "A New Birth of Freedom", published more that 40 years later, is the promised sequel to the book, and in it Professor Jaffa explores with depth the philosophical and governmental ideas that he believes underlie Lincoln's Presidency, his approach to the issue of slavery, and the Civil War and preservation of the Union.

This book is much broader in scope than Professor Jaffa's earlier book and is more engaged in the philosophical analysis of ideas than with the presentation simply of historical fact. Professor Jaffa asks at the outset what, if anything, differentiates the Southern Secession following the election of Lincoln to the Presidency from the actions of the Colonists in declaring independence from Britain in 1776. In answering this question, Professor Jaffa offers a discussion of the Jefferson-Adams election of 1800, showing how for the first time in history how a democratic society could resolve severe disagreement through the use of ballots in an election rather than through the use of bullets.
Jaffa's history has, I think, these two themes: 1.The Declaration of Independence's statement that "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal" did, indeed, apply for Jefferson and his contemporaries to all people, including the then African-American slaves. 2. The Declaration of Independence itself created a perpetual union of what had been 13 separate colonies of Britian and made the United States one country rather than a confederation of separate states.
Underlying these historical claims is a broader philosophical argument that is even more at the core of the book: Jaffa wants to reject arguments of cultural relativism, historicism, skepticism or other philosophical positions that argue agains the existence of objective moral principles. He finds that Jefferson correctly viewed the language of his declaration "All men are created equal" as expressing a moral truth based upon "the law of Nature and of Nature's God." Jaffa argues for a position based upon Natural Law, in the sense that moral standards are somehow truths independent of human will or of historical circumstances. His Natural Law theory, as I find it, is drawn from an uneasy confluence of the thought of Locke, Aristotle, and the Bible.
The book is less of a chronological historical account than a textual analysis and commentary on the speeches and writings of thinkers and politicians in Civil War America. Professor Jaffa offers a paragraph-by-paragraph analysis of Lincoln's First Inauguaral Address and of his July 4, 1861 message to Congress following the outbreak of hostilites. His approach is less on the pragmatic conduct of the government (although that is discussed as well) than on Lincoln as a thinker expressing what Jaffa sees as a commitment to Natural Law and the the inalienable nature of the Union which Lincoln strove to preserve.
Lincoln's thought is compared and contrasted, in almost as great detail, with speeches by James Buchanan, Alexander Stephens, Jefferson Davis, Stephen Douglas and John Calhoun. These individuals are shown to reject the principles of Natural Law that Professor Jaffa finds articulated in the Declaration of Independence and by Lincoln. Their though is compared rather explicitly by Professor Jaffa to academic modernism and skepticism regarding the objective character of moral principle.
There are fascinating discussions of Shakespeare's histories, Aristotle, and, particularly the "Federalist" and the works of Thomas Jefferson. In contrast to many modern historians, Jaffa sees Lincoln in the Gettysburg address as reaffirming the position of Thomas Jefferson rather than as effecting a change in the nature of the American ideal.
This is a difficult, thoughtful,challenging book. It is more of value for its philosophical outlook and challenge than for any addition to the store of historical knowledge. For those who want to think about the philosophical bases for our institutions, this book is highly worthwhile. It is a different sort of successor, but a worthy successor, to Professor Jaffa's study of the Lincoln-Douglas debates.


 



 Posted: Thu Jun 7th, 2007 01:54 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
7th Post
CleburneFan
Member


Joined: Mon Oct 30th, 2006
Location: Florida USA
Posts: 1020
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

The state of Vermont is considering seceding from the Union. I wish I could find a link to the news article. Anyway, I wonder what the "Union" response will be if, in fact, Vermont staters do vote to secede and will the arguments for whatever action is taken or not taken sound similar to the arguments that were commonly made when South Carolina seceded. 

Key West seceded in 1982, named themselves the Conch Republic, designed a flag, and promptly requested millions of dollars in "foreign" aid from the U.S. That entire episode, however, carried with it the kind of fun and festivity the Florida Keys are famous for. I think Vermont's plans are much more serious.

What the government did in 1861 is instructive, because such things could happen again, possibly over divisive issues such as immigration.



 Posted: Thu Jun 7th, 2007 02:02 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
8th Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

The 'Valley of the shadow' project and book is excellent for studying 2 towns on opposing sides and how both were doing what they thought was 'right' yet marching on a rigid collision course.

IIRC, Staunton and Chambersburg are the 2 communities in question.

Just in reading the limited dialog so far, it is easy to see how difficult it is to approach the topic in a disinterested, or neutral, manner. As with discussions on Abraham Lincoln, it tends to shed light more on the speaker than the topic...

 

HankC



 Posted: Thu Jun 7th, 2007 02:19 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
9th Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

CleburneFan wrote: The state of Vermont is considering seceding from the Union. I wish I could find a link to the news article. Anyway, I wonder what the "Union" response will be if, in fact, Vermont staters do vote to secede and will the arguments for whatever action is taken or not taken sound similar to the arguments that were commonly made when South Carolina seceded. 



Vermont and New Hampshire are alwasy mentioned when modern secession is considered as a realtively small number of people could constitue 51% of the vote. I wonder why Wyoming, the smallest stae, is not considered?

Libertarians bandy about the idea of moving to New Hampshire and peacfully takng over the legislature with their votes. It is just talk. Walter Williams, professor at George Mason and columnist, seems to be the most vocal, but I've not seen any moving vans in his driveway.

The Vermont group seems to be a few dozen Greens, Socialists and Nazis. A bizarre coalition at best...

 

HankC



 Posted: Thu Jun 7th, 2007 04:52 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
10th Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

perhaps the entire question hinges on the constitutionality of secession.

if secession is constitutional and legal, then the Northern response is beligerent and unjustifible.

if secession is insurrection, then the union president was right in using force.


That's a path into the woods. I've observed hundreds of pages of argument on this very subject between people far more knowledgeable than you and me -- well, me at least. The debates usually end up heated and amount to no more than: "Yes it was! No it wasn't!" If you want to tread that path, count me out. The war settled the matter (as well as subsequent SCOTUS decisions).

but the South certainly felt they had followed constitutional protocal and declared a new and separate nation.

More than one southern state did not follow constitutional protocol. And some of those that made motions in that direction required a voice vote or different colored ballots. For just one example, follow the procedures in Texas.

 they demanded the Union turn over state property to the states, the forts & arsenals, etc.  they demanded the surrender of Ft Sumter, now Confederate property and were refused.  they took the post by force.  the Union president raised an unprecedented army and invaded Virginia. (hence "The War of Northern Aggression")(and also, "The War to Supress Yankee Arrogance")

One hitch here: What they demanded was not state. but federal property, belonging to all the people of all the states. (How far would Texas get if it decided that Fort Bliss was state property?) Ft. Sumter was clearly US property. It had been deeded to the Federal Government and its purpose was to defend the harbor from foreign invasion. That its development was slow and was ready to repel nothing is quite beside the point. None of the seizures was to retrieve "state" property. Each was to gain armaments (arsenals and forts) and funds (customs houses and the New Orleans Mint).

One other remark that needs attention: "raised an unprecedented army and invaded Virginia." Lincoln's first concern was the safety of Washington. If you were president and the flag had been fired on in South Carolina and Militia Units were organizing in Virginia, would you not assemble some troops for the defense of the Capital? Oh yes, the army was unprecedented, but so was the CSA's declaration of war. By the way, Virginia militia siezed Federal installations before it seceded. Jackson had troops on the Maryland side of Harpers Ferry before Union troops "invaded" Virginia by securing Arlington. It would seem that pre-"invasion" provocations made "invasion" a pretty good idea.

man.  I'm way too tired for this.  doncha hate it when you only get a little bit of bacon fat in your collared green, instead of a big ole slab ?

Eating too much of that big ol' slab in one sitting gives one a bellyache. If you're saying you want to rush into the big picture and that what you've gotten is not satisfying, say so. You started out expressing a desire to understand the northern point of view. Hint: it is not, The South Was Right.

Ole

Last edited on Thu Jun 7th, 2007 04:58 pm by ole



 Posted: Sat Jun 9th, 2007 02:58 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
11th Post
JoanieReb
Member
 

Joined: Wed Jan 24th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 620
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I had committed myself to not coming in on this thread.

 

One reason:  I thought it would be better to read and learn than to add.

 

But, I fear that this thread is dying out, and the subject is of great interest to me.  If it dies out now, I learn next to nothing.

 

Of all the various personal “internal conflicts” that I have struggled with in ALL aspects of my life (relationships, career, child-rearing, finances), I have NEVER  been conflicted  - in terms of emotion vs. intellect - to the extent that I am conflicted by this War Between the States that occurred nearly a century-and-a-half-ago.

 

Make no mistake; there has never been a moment in my life when I have been conscious of questioning the utter repugnance of slavery.  That was a gift from my forefathers:  All men are created equal.

 

Of course, the history of slavery (like the history of religion and of wars) reflects/defines the history of civilization – but, that is another, very complex subject.

 

Whatever the case, Southern Boys whom had never even seen, much less aspired, to owning a slave, still fought barefoot, freezing, slowly starving, through dysentery and exhaustion and debilitating exposure –

 

- and, emotionally, I still want to fighting along-side them, kicking Yankee butt.

 

William Faulkner (anyone who doesn’t know who he is, is on their own to look him up on-line) once wrote that there was no Southern Boy whom, at the age of eight-or-so, didn’t act out the Battle of Gettysburg with himself being the soldier who turned the tide in the South’s favor.

 

I still suffer from the same problem, emotionally – no matter how many descriptions and how many times I read about the Battle of Gettysburg, the outcome is always the same.  And, emotionally, I suffer the loss again and again.

 

Intellectually, I have worked hard over the years to argue myself into believing,  as Ole says:  that I am "somewhat glad that this nation was not split as the Confederacy had intended”.  But, I am honestly afraid to pursue THAT argument within myself too far; for fear that I might prove myself wrong, and just turn out to be saying, “The grapes are sour”. 

 

I have always used WWII to convince myself that it was right that the Union continued.  Still, it rings hollow within me.

 

I have tried and tried to understand Yankee motivation, when it came to the common soldier, and this is the short list of what I’ve come up with:

-         adventure

-         employment

-         glory

-         fear of being called a coward

-         socio-political environmental issues

 

 

So, I have always wondered:  Did the average Yank believe in preserving The Union any more than the average Confederate believed that The War was about slavery?

 

Personally, when I really think about wearing gray (or butternut), I become passionate

unto death about fighting “bluebellies”.  But, when I think of wearing blue, I can’t raise a glimmer of inspiration.

 

Yet, despite seriously deficient leadership during the first three years of The War, veteran Yankees stayed and fought with an honor and passion to be admired by both sides. 

 

Dear Lord – I think of Cold Harbor, so late in The War, when the true Yankee veterans were no fools, yet still knowingly let themselves be slaughtered.  They must have had some reasons – WHAT?????  Their homelands weren’t being invaded, and even their prosperity was growing in spite of – or maybe because of – The War (this is another subject for those whom wish to argue it). 

 

SO – why did the average Bluebelly fight?  Was it just the expansiveness of the times?  The chance for adventure and romance?  The opportunity to get worked up and lick someone good?   Social pressures? 

 

There were no immediate desperate reasons for the average bluebelly to fight, such as an invasion of homeland, which was the primary (I believe) reason for a “greyback” to fight.

 

Why did the average Yankee soldier fight?

 

This actually has kept me awake at nights, trying to sort it out…

 

Certainly, there is someone out there whom can “project” him/her – self into the Yankee frame of mind the same way that I can project myself into the “Rebel” frame of mind. 

 

Please, enlighten me….

 

Thanks and sincerely,

 

JoanieReb

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Last edited on Sun Jun 10th, 2007 12:52 am by JoanieReb



 Posted: Sat Jun 9th, 2007 02:59 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
12th Post
JoanieReb
Member
 

Joined: Wed Jan 24th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 620
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Dammit - this font problem is driving me NUTS!!!!!  (see above)



 Posted: Sat Jun 9th, 2007 01:57 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
13th Post
Johan Steele
Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352


Joined: Sat Dec 2nd, 2006
Location: South Of The North 40, Minnesota USA
Posts: 1060
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I have read well over 2000 letters and diaries, most of them men in the western theatres because that is what interests me.

Adventure, peer pressure, money, a steady paycheck to send home were all reasons I have seen mentioned.  Fighting slavery was mentioned in a few.  But I think by and far most letters where a reason is referenced: fighting treason, preserving or defending the country stands out.  By and large I have tried to let the opinions of the men who were there shape my opinions.  IMO the average US soldier saw themselves defending something greater than themselves against an aggresor who was attempting to destroy it.

One thread I have noted about slavery in all of the letters I have read is that the further South the men went & the more slavery they saw first hand the more they despised the institution and blamed it for the war.  Men who were not even vaguely abolishionist would come to recognize that slavery was not only an evil but the driving force behind Secession & the war.  Simply from the homes slaveowners had... the wealthy; and all to often the owners had only recently fled in front of the army.  In short, the wealthy slaveowners were sending the average working man, farmer, off to fight for him.

They knew the men sharing mud w/ them on the other side of their rifle were not unlike them.  Most were farmers trying to make a life for themselves and most had similar or the same wants and needs in life.  Many were also aware that many men on the other side of their sights were not there willingly.  All too many seemed quite aware of CS conscription and forcefully extended enlistments for the "duration."  It was just one more reason to put down the rebellion.  An interesting vhein in many letters is the election of 64.  Men knew they were holding an election in the middle of hellish war; and the CS wasn't.

As to what motivated the average man in blue?  Patriotism & love of country would stand high on that list and right beside that the knowledge that the man next to them in line was in the same boat... they weren't about to let down their country, their families or the man in line next to them.

There was a bond of respect between enemies that the staybehinders couldn't fathom.  Men who have shared the mud and danger had a tendency to respect each other.  Years after the war the veterans maintained a respect and even friendship for each other that must absolutly baffle those who still harbor a hatred.



 Posted: Sat Jun 9th, 2007 04:17 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
14th Post
JoanieReb
Member
 

Joined: Wed Jan 24th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 620
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Thanks, Johan.

So, Joshua Chamberlain's speech to the mutinous Maine soldiers (in The Killer Angels) is a fair reflection of how the soldiers in blue thought? 

Last edited on Sat Jun 9th, 2007 04:18 pm by JoanieReb



 Posted: Sat Jun 9th, 2007 06:59 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
15th Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Doubtful, Joanie:

The soldier wasn't so much fighting to free slaves as he was to destroy slavery. Whatever his motivation for enlisting in the first place (and much of that really was to preserve the Union), he soon came to realize that the war was about slavery and, to end the war, slavery had to be destroyed. They had the nagging feeling that if the war ended with slavery intact, there would be another war, and another, until the peculiar institution was gone.

Johan mentioned that the farther south the Federals got, the madder they got. By the end of the war there were a few more who favored equality (in theory, at least), but it remains that the goal was to win the war by destroying slavery, not to free the slave. There is a difference. Really.

Ole



 Posted: Sun Jun 10th, 2007 12:48 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
16th Post
JoanieReb
Member
 

Joined: Wed Jan 24th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 620
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

They had the nagging feeling that if the war ended with slavery intact, there would be another war, and another, until the peculiar institution was gone.

This had never even occurred to me - nor have I ever read of this idea - but it has real merit.

Ole, between what you and Johan have said, I have enough on my mind that I am wandering off to my computer while a NASCAR Busch race is on TV, to re-read both your posts.  That's like, some serious stuff, if it pulls me away from The Boys on the Roundie-Round.  However, I must rush back to the race now, and only think of this stuff during commercials, :D:cool::cool:.

Here in Michigan, I once heard a lecture by a "general" war historian (not the rank, but the fact that he studied the history of war, in general, :)), and he mentioned that there was a time during reconstruction that many of the elements were in place for a new civil war to ignite, this time with the midwest coming in on the side of the South.  But, again that is anouther subject, it just kinda reinforces your comment above.

A lot of food for thought here.

My thanks.

 

 

Last edited on Sun Jun 10th, 2007 12:50 am by JoanieReb



You have chosen to ignore JDC Duncan. click Here to view this post


 Posted: Sun Jun 10th, 2007 02:52 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
18th Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

No offense taken, JDC. As my reply might have been taken that way, I apologize. You'd have to work a whole bunch harder than that to offend me.

I am still baffled by the politicians and governments motives.  Why oppose secession ?  Why oppose secession to the point of war?

The politicians had the same motives as the enlistees -- the union. Nearly every adult, north and south, was quite happy with the freedoms they had and with their participation in self-government. Even so, I believe the south could have gotten away with peaceable secession -- for a while at least. Few were hot enough to go to war over it. Many believed as Buchanan did: Secession is unconstitutional, but the Constitution doesn't make provision to prevent it or force the seceding states back into the Union. Even the seizure of Federal property in the seceding states was not outrageous enough to turn northern opinion to war.

So. You know where this is going. So long as secession was a matter of law, there was little the north would do. When secession became a shooting rebellion (Ft. Sumter), it became a whole nother matter. No sense separating the polititian from the ordinary citizen, most everyone was outraged.

I can understand the Jeff Davis believed he acted correctly in ordering the opening guns -- it would take that to get Virginia to join the Confederacy. He gambled that his action would bring in Virginia, but he underestimated northern reaction.

I'm a Northern Senator, unsure about what to do about the impending crisis.  As fellow Senators, or whatever, what are the arguements, circa 1860-61, that will convince me to "perserve the Union",  and bring back the Southern States by force, at the expense of my boys back home ?

As a Northern Senator, you can do nothing but make speeches, twist arms, and otherwise work to gain support of your views -- unless your constituency and the constituencies of other Senators and Representatives are really riled. When that happens you're not so much leading as being swept up.

There were a great many lofty reasons for "preserving the Union," one of which was devotion to the idea of the self-government experiment. Rebellion took all of them past the discussion phase.

Ole



 Posted: Mon Jun 11th, 2007 04:30 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
19th Post
younglobo
Member


Joined: Wed Aug 9th, 2006
Location: Lexington, Missouri USA
Posts: 423
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

JDC and Joanie

I read this thread and thought i did not have the smarts to respond and then something hit me . Why did the boys of the union line up to join up ?  Most folks with southern sympathies draw a blank . I think maybe I can help you out after thinking on the subject.

First lets put a modern spin on the subject , try to put us in the place of these men. Do you remember Sept. 11 ,2001 after we had been hit on our home soil by terrorist, the amount of patriatism that was revived, volunteers in military swelled, Why because someone had hurt us and we wanted to strike back. I think we gloss over the firing on Fort Sumter , I Imagine unionists saw it as a attack on them just like we did,a attack on what they stood for , God, country ect. I mean they called the southern forces Rebels we call the forces of osama terriost,( which is what they are ) shows what they thought of em.

Second the union men fought for the reasons Joanie mentioned adventure, money,glory, fear of being called a coward.

Conscription -- later in the war they had no choice on both sides, you were called you served , war is full of men that didnt want to go but did. The union army had a fair amount of men that came off of immigration boats and went into the union army for 3 reasons food, shelter, and pay

My grandfather was wounded at Iwo Jima I asked him once why he joined up, We were talking about my friends that were in the national guard, he said " because after the japs bombed peal harbor there was no choice"  Much like the men of blue his country his way of life and bliefs were hit and he struck back in the best way he could.

 the above thoughts are from a simple Missouri boy , so take em and 50 cents and enjoy a cup of java on me

 

 

 



 Posted: Tue Jun 12th, 2007 12:30 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
20th Post
JoanieReb
Member
 

Joined: Wed Jan 24th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 620
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Hey Younglobo -

The 9/11 analogy?  Simple, straight-forward, even obvious, and it worked for me.  Got that, now, thanks.  Really.

I do not think that Fort Sumpter issue is glossed over, though - I think it's a real hot-button issue, always has been, continues to be to this day.  So much so that I was starting to rebel against what you were saying in my mind - after all, I have heard for as long as I can remember that basically, the South was forced (the old men at the barbershop used the word "tricked") into firing that first shot.  But then, I remembered, I'm trying to understand the North's point of view here.  And, since you put it that way, I get it now.  Very powerful motivation, seeing the symbols of one's country under attack, seeing your flag shot at.

Also, I went back and checked out Chamberlain's speech in TKA's (great book, brilliant prose, now I'm reading whole thing again, darnit), and found what I remembered as Chamberlain's main point - not the slavery issue - which was also prominent - but the fear and hatred of the development of a "new aristocracy" in the South.  (Of course true Americans don't want a new arisrocracy, which is why there were all those incrediably rich people whose names have come to mean "old money" at the turn of the 19th century - many on the passanger list of The Titanic - and why we've dubbed the Kennedy administration "Camelot" - and why we (in general) can't stop reading, writing, and most of all WACTHING ever facit of Paris' Hilton's life, LOL).

But, I recall that as a factor brought up repeatedly  - including by Chamberlain.  Especially by the recent immigrants; the German's were most admament in that respect.

I have a bad case of something yucky, and have put together all the words I can for today.

Going to collaspe now.....

Last edited on Tue Jun 12th, 2007 12:34 am by JoanieReb



 Current time is 11:31 pmPage:    1  2  Next Page Last Page  
Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.2216 seconds (10% database + 90% PHP). 30 queries executed.