|View single post by 39th Miss. Walker|
|Posted: Mon Dec 17th, 2007 02:46 pm||
39th Miss. Walker
|Johan, if you go back to pre CW days who do you think voted for the Governors in most cases? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't the populace. The legislatures did.
The form of government we had, while a democracy was very different from what we have today. Even the very idea of the Electoral College was a dodge to be able to void the votes of the common man. It works even today. How many elections were won by Electoral votes and not by popular votes? Ask old G.W.
Neither the Union or the CS had a lock on true democracy.
But that was not a cause or reason for war. I truly can't sit here and tell you one was more democratic that the other. They both had their faults. It was a very trying time that took extraordinary measures to fight the war. We will never know what the exact make-up or end result would be for the CS government. The Federal government was also changed forever into the strong central government with a strong President instead of being Congress controlled, as it was prior to the war.
I think it is also a misnomer to give the western troops the credit for warring against slavery. The vast majority of the western men despised the negro. Many times the men refused to fight with them and in many cases the officers relegated them to only labor duty, such as Sherman's Pioneer Corp. Sherman even went so far as to seen his Colored Troops on a feint towards Charleston and to have them occupy Charleston to keep them away from his main army. Hell there were even race "riots" between Colored Troops and the white soldiers in places like Beaufort, SC.
While the South did a great job with the Lost Cause, don't think for one moment that the Northern writing of the war was any less propagandistic.
It still remains that the root cause was slavery, that was number one. But as I posted earlier it was not necessarily the reason the common solder fought, on either side.
"There were plenty of men willing to give up democracy for slavery, not as many willing to give up slavery for democracy..."
I don't buy it. It was not an either or. There was no talk of democracy in any quarter. Nice catch phrase but irrelevant.
"Johnny, of course, didn't own a single slave, so he couldn't have been fighting for slavery. Channing and McPherson (don't tell Joanie) take it a bit further. Possibly most fought for the adventure, the pay, an obligation to friends and family -- maybe even a few to protect their home; but a good many did join to keep alive the idea that one day they would be wealthy enough to own a slave, or simply because they feared having free blacks loose among them. -- the old and more modern argument that the black man wants nothing so much as he wants to marry your wives and daughters."
Where did you come up with this??? The South was not just large slave holding plantations, slaves were common on small farms as well. I always get a kick out of many who take the Southern stand but always state, "my ancestors never owned any slaves". I would suspect many never did their homework on their own geneology.
While some men did enlist for the reasons you gave Ole. I would challenge that any of the reasons cited were the over riding reasons most joined.
"the old and more modern argument that the black man wants nothing so much as he wants to marry your wives and daughters."
HUH? What kind of racist blanket are you throwing with this statement?
In the South slavery was an economic issue. The South had more property value in slaves than it did in all of it's land and industries combined. The very essence of it's existence was being threatened.
The State of South Carolina seceded from the Union on it's own. Other states followed suit. Much of the upper South did not secede until Lincoln called for the raising of the troops to invade the South, to put down the rebellion. It was the threat of invasion that caused them to join the Confederacy.