.

@MrMalachiCrunch:

Strange that the ‘right’ to own slaves was not listed as a reason for the US civil war.

Slavery was part of State Rights, not the cause.

@MrMalachiCrunch:

Strange that the ‘right’ to own slaves was not listed as a reason for the US civil war.

Here is a quote from Lincoln describing slavery as a means to an end,
“If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.”
So for Lincoln ending slavery was not about human rights, but more about maintaining control of part of his domain. And how did he “save the Union”, he waged war against the states. That kinda reminds me of that quote from an American in Vietnam “We had to destroy the village in order to save it.” If you look up Section 3 of the Constitution, you will see “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them”. So you could say Lincoln was literally a traitor.

If Lincoln was serious about ending slavery, wouldn’t he have just taken the money he ended up using for the War in order to buy all the slaves freedom? Surely that would have only cost a fraction of what the war cost. Wouldn’t that have been more humane? Why did most other nations end slavery without using it as a reason to start a war? I am not saying the North or the South was right, they were likely both wrong, but to ignore these questions wont make them go away. Maybe A&A.org is not the right place for this, but the best way to honor the dead is to discuss why they were fighting so their sacrifice is not in vain.

Debating if it was or was not slavery that triggered the war, calling people traitors, talk of treason, arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of the pin.  See how easy it is to split into opposing sides.  How about “God rest the souls of the people who died over differing ideas”…… Or we could argue about who was right and wrong.

@Mallery29:

@Jermofoot:

Honor the dead, revisit the major battles, but leave it at that.  Avoid discussing the reason for it all and the disagreement on it.

I beg to differ. While it shouldn’t be done here, the reasons FOR the war and the disagreements SHOULD be discussed.  Sorry for my History/Poly Sci coming out, but no matter how you view the war (or Civil War, or war of Northern Aggression depending on your views), the core issues should be looked at because they are all relevant still today.

1. States rights vs. Federal control
2. Suspension of Habeus corpus
3. Martial Law
4. Scorched Earth

As for any celebration/memory….honor Lincoln/Lee/Grant and the dead on both sides (and the Medal of Honor recipients).

Reason 1, which boils down to slavery, is the only thing you listed that concerns reasons for the war.  That was the whole disagreement.  2 & 3 were done by both sides and were not reasons but consequences (which, in the case of the Union, suspension of 2 was outlined in the US Constitution).  4 is just a product of war, and ushered in a new line of thought on conducting it.  It was still on a very minor level that was seen later.

@Emperor_Taiki:

@MrMalachiCrunch:

Strange that the ‘right’ to own slaves was not listed as a reason for the US civil war.

Here is a quote from Lincoln describing slavery as a means to an end,
“If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.”
So for Lincoln ending slavery was not about human rights, but more about maintaining control of part of his domain. And how did he “save the Union”, he waged war against the states. That kinda reminds me of that quote from an American in Vietnam “We had to destroy the village in order to save it.” If you look up Section 3 of the Constitution, you will see “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them”. So you could say Lincoln was literally a traitor.

If Lincoln was serious about ending slavery, wouldn’t he have just taken the money he ended up using for the War in order to buy all the slaves freedom? Surely that would have only cost a fraction of what the war cost. Wouldn’t that have been more humane? Why did most other nations end slavery without using it as a reason to start a war? I am not saying the North or the South was right, they were likely both wrong, but to ignore these questions wont make them go away. Maybe A&A.org is not the right place for this, but the best way to honor the dead is to discuss why they were fighting so their sacrifice is not in vain.

What’s your point?  Lincoln didn’t go to war.  The South did explicitly over slaves.  So Lincoln did the most logical thing facing an adversary with a very high population of slaves.

Slavery was coming to an end anyway.  The US was one of the last remaining places to still condone it (hence the South splitting to preserve that ability).

@Jermofoot:

Lincoln didn’t go to war.  The South did explicitly over slaves.  So Lincoln did the most logical thing facing an adversary with a very high population of slaves.

Slavery was coming to an end anyway.  The US was one of the last remaining places to still condone it (hence the South splitting to preserve that ability).

The South was fighting for political independence from Washington, if Lincoln hadn’t ordered a violent suppression of the rebellion there would have been no war. The South’s goal was not to conquer the North, they wanted simply to maintain their own independence, much like the Colonists were not trying to conquer the British Empire, they just wanted independence from British rule.

You make a good point that slavery was coming to an end anyway. So why fight a war over something that was about to be resolved? Perhaps Lincoln( and his backers) had other motives and saw their chance at giving a moral spin to the war slipping away, perhaps there were other state rights issues besides slavery that gave the South reason to secede.

Are we remembering the dead real good like now?  Gee, aren’t we glad we started debating why something happened 150 years ago rather than remember the fallen?  What lessons can be drawn if people can’t even agree as to what the war was about or why it was fought.

I cant remember why i didn’t buy those .99 cents sunglasses from the dollar store while driving in a GMC Jimmy. Sounds like a good idea at the time, perhaps not.

:-D

Slavery was unsustainable. FDR proved it by enslaving the Japanese Americans latter and looked like an idiot four term tyrant.

I cant remember why i didn’t buy those .99 cents sunglasses from the dollar store while driving in a GMC Jimmy. Sounds like a good idea at the time, perhaps not.

IL, this is an example of trolling behaviour I find distasteful.

I know I know, your reply will be something along the lines of “Thou protestith too much”

I really hope you show up in Oshawa because I am going to punch you right in the mouth.  Not very politically correct of me but I am getting sick of you and your personal attacks on me.  You seem to have the support of the people who count, so I guess sooner or later I will vote with me feet and grant you the victory of driving me from this place.  I give up, you win IL.

OK OK.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWPVvO-Rv_4

How many edits you want to make, i count like 5 now. Geez.

I’m a northern guy and don’t know why people hate on Lee so much.  People could learn a lot from that man.  Not just as a person, but as a leader as well.  It’s a shame that he could not rebuild with Lincoln after the war.  Lee got a raw deal (granted, he “was” there), but I don’t honestly think Lincoln would have been so puppeteering with Lee.  I think a part of the reason this war still leaves a bad taste in the mouth is how everything unfolded after the assasination.  It’s a shame that we were robbed of such strong leadership by a couple of disillusioned people who couldn’t accept losing (and I don’t buy any BS conspiracy theory, BUT,  there are unanswered questions to some of the motives of certain people).

To Jermofoot: Ok, yes, 2-4 weren’t a cause of the war.  But from a historical standpoint, those facts play into a lot of the post war issues.

To anyone: Slavery is wrong. PERIOD. (yes, even those Orion girls from Star Trek) But it wasn’t the cause of the war.  This was about states rights, and that issue had plagued the nation since the Articles of Confederation, and still plague the US to this day.

When we remember the dead, remember this was brother vs. brother (or girl on girl!), not North vs. South, Ohio vs. Virginia…this bloody war which has been the costliest of all US wars, is a fabric of who we are and what we SHOULD stand for, regardless of this and that.  It’s blood soils the Constitution and the constitution of 50 states (57 if you’re Obama), and that’s what we must be reminded of.

The Union won, preserving not only sovereignty of itself, but free from France and England who were so willing to reimpose their will if the south had been successful in shattering the nation.  The South may have lost, but it was rebuilt from the ashes (not as planned, and not easy, but she is a presence in every day life in this country.

**Today the guns are silent. A great tragedy has ended. A great victory has been won. The skies no longer rain with death — the seas bear only commerce — men everywhere walk upright in the sunlight. The entire world lies quietly at peace. The holy mission has been completed. And in reporting this to you, the people, I speak for the thousands of silent lips, forever stilled among the jungles and the beaches and in the deep waters of the Pacific which marked the way.

We have known the bitterness of defeat and the exultation of triumph, and from both we have learned there can be no turning back. We must go forward to preserve in peace what we won in war.
    A new era is upon us. Even the lesson of victory itself brings with it profound concern, both for our future security and the survival of civilization. The destructiveness of the war potential, through progressive advances in scientific discovery, has in fact now reached a point which revises the traditional concepts of war.

Men since the beginning of time have sought peace. Various methods through the ages have been attempted to devise an international process to prevent or settle disputes between nations. From the very start workable methods were found in so far as individual citizens were concerned, but the mechanics of an instrumentality of larger international scope have never been successful. Military alliances, balances of power, Leagues of Nations, all in turn failed, leaving the only path to be by way of the crucible of war. The utter destructiveness of war now blocks out this alternative. We have had our last chance. If we will not devise some greater and more equitable system, Armageddon will be at our door.

We stand in Tokyo today reminiscent of our countryman, Commodore Perry, ninety-two years ago. His purpose was to bring to Japan an era of enlightenment and progress, by lifting the veil of isolation to the friendship, trade, and commerce of the world. But alas the knowledge thereby gained of western science was forged into an instrument of oppression and human enslavement. Freedom of expression, freedom of action, even freedom of thought were denied through appeal to superstition, and through the application of force. We are committed by the Potsdam Declaration of principles to see that the Japanese people are liberated from this condition of slavery. … To the Pacific basin has come the vista of a new emancipated world. Today, freedom is on the offensive, democracy is on the march. Today, in Asia as well as in Europe, unshackled peoples are tasting the full sweetness of liberty, the relief from fear.**
I know its almost 80 years after the Civil War, but it resonates regardless.

@Cromwell_Dude:

10. What flags are to fly at the event?

Both the Confederate National Flag and the US 33, 34 or 35 star flag, depending on the time.

After doing some quick research, apparently the popularly recognized “Stars and Bars” or Southern Cross was a naval jack and not an army flag. Did not know that.    http://www.loeser.us/flags/civil.html

I will add that if an event were to be held and flags be flown, as they surely would, both the Southern and Northern historical flags should be present, but on either side of our current 50 star flag, raised in the center. Most appropriate and honoring I believe.

@Cromwell_Dude:

I wanted to respond to other people’s good posts, but did not want to speak hot air. I appreciate your response. Your post was where I most wanted this discussion to go. I thank most every one for the civil discourse, ideas to the questions, and historical context.

Understandable. I did a bit of my own too, and will continue if such a discussion persists. I do think there is a place for both debates (something more socio-political and something historical/memorial). Certainly, people should be able to be civil in discussing both, but I realize there is some contention on this topic. While their opinions are still valid and interesting, I do find it curious that some Canadians are so invested in this topic.  :roll:

@LHoffman:

@Cromwell_Dude:

I wanted to respond to other people’s good posts, but did not want to speak hot air. I appreciate your response. Your post was where I most wanted this discussion to go. I thank most every one for the civil discourse, ideas to the questions, and historical context.

Understandable. I did a bit of my own too, and will continue if such a discussion persists. I do think there is a place for both debates (something more socio-political and something historical/memorial). Certainly, people should be able to be civil in discussing both, but I realize there is some contention on this topic. While their opinions are still valid and interesting, **I do find it curious that some Canadians are so invested in this topic.**   :roll:

Scoffman, You do realize that the confederate secret service is ahem “was” head-quartered in Montreal right?

The South’s Canadian headquarters were installed at the St. Lawrence Hall hotel. It is said that this headquarters was the second most important center of power in the Confederate organization, after their capital of Richmond in Virginia.

Also some little known facts…  this conflict greatly affected Canadian politics and economics; and between 40,000 and 60,000 Canadian & Quebec men joined to fight in the US/CS conflict, even though they technically broke British & Canadian laws by joining a foreign army. At least 30,000 joined the Northern Union Army & Navy and approximately 10,000 fought in the Southern Confederate Army & Navy. Also, serving with the North, at least 29 Canadians won the “US Medal of Honor”, plus 4 Canadians became Union Generals.

After you’re done digesting that information. Let me know how the humble pie tasted.

@Gargantua:

Scoffman, You do realize that the confederate secret service is ahem “was” head-quartered in Montreal right?

The South’s Canadian headquarters were installed at the St. Lawrence Hall hotel. It is said that this headquarters was the second most important center of power in the Confederate organization, after their capital of Richmond in Virginia.

Also some little known facts…  this conflict greatly affected Canadian politics and economics; and between 40,000 and 60,000 Canadian & Quebec men joined to fight in the US/CS conflict, even though they technically broke British & Canadian laws by joining a foreign army. At least 30,000 joined the Northern Union Army & Navy and approximately 10,000 fought in the Southern Confederate Army & Navy. Also, serving with the North, at least 29 Canadians won the “US Medal of Honor”, plus 4 Canadians became Union Generals.

I did not know that. I will say that in the grand view of the war, these events/facts are somewhat minor, but quite interesting nonetheless. I am glad that our bloody Civil War could bring Canada so much glory.

@Gargantua:

After you’re done digesting that information. Let me know how the humble pie tasted.

Pretty good actually… like blueberries. I will not say that I stand corrected, but at least you explained why Canadians could be interested.

@Gargantua:

@LHoffman:

@Cromwell_Dude:

I wanted to respond to other people’s good posts, but did not want to speak hot air. I appreciate your response. Your post was where I most wanted this discussion to go. I thank most every one for the civil discourse, ideas to the questions, and historical context.

Understandable. I did a bit of my own too, and will continue if such a discussion persists. I do think there is a place for both debates (something more socio-political and something historical/memorial). Certainly, people should be able to be civil in discussing both, but I realize there is some contention on this topic. While their opinions are still valid and interesting, **I do find it curious that some Canadians are so invested in this topic.**�  � :roll:

Scoffman, You do realize that the confederate secret service is ahem “was” head-quartered in Montreal right?

The South’s Canadian headquarters were installed at the St. Lawrence Hall hotel. It is said that this headquarters was the second most important center of power in the Confederate organization, after their capital of Richmond in Virginia.

Also some little known facts…  this conflict greatly affected Canadian politics and economics; and between 40,000 and 60,000 Canadian & Quebec men joined to fight in the US/CS conflict, even though they technically broke British & Canadian laws by joining a foreign army. At least 30,000 joined the Northern Union Army & Navy and approximately 10,000 fought in the Southern Confederate Army & Navy. Also, serving with the North, at least 29 Canadians won the “US Medal of Honor”, plus 4 Canadians became Union Generals.

After you’re done digesting that information. Let me know how the humble pie tasted.

Blame Canada?

@Cromwell_Dude:

1. So who speaks at the battle remembrances?
2. Who chooses who speaks?
3. What do they say?
4. How is the audience to participate?
5. What do you do about opposing viewpoints?
6. What events take place at these battle remembrances?
7. Who are given positions of honor at the remembrances? Who is not?
8. What is to be expected of the younger audience? Popcorn? Clowns? Games? Re-enactments? Toys?
9. What is the role and function of the war dead?
10. What flags are to fly at the event?
11. What is to be sold at the remembrances?
12. Are there different events and expectations for different audiences?

1. So who speaks at the battle remembrances? Not the guy who did the 700 part PBS series…SNOOZE!
2. Who chooses who speaks? Paper/Rock/Scissors
3. What do they say? “Damn the torpedoes”
4. How is the audience to participate? real life reenactment of Antietam
5. What do you do about opposing viewpoints? Arrest those individuals and suspend habeaus corpus
6. What events take place at these battle remembrances? The Sherman Special: Rape, Pillage, and Plunder
7. Who are given positions of honor at the remembrances? Who is not? LAST MAN STANDING!
8. What is to be expected of the younger audience? Popcorn? Clowns? Games? Re-enactments? Toys? Popcorn? Clowns?  Can you say preview of the Killer Klowns 3D remake!
9. What is the role and function of the war dead? Season 4 of the Walking Dead
10. What flags are to fly at the event? Bravo Flag
11. What is to be sold at the remembrances? Thankfully not a Ferengi funeral….ew.
12. Are there different events and expectations for different audiences? For the North, Queen and holo Freddie Mercury plays “We are the Champions”, for the South, a holo Sinatra sings “Here’s to the Losers”

Speaking of Canada and the Civil War, here’s a bit of trivia:

“Walking down the west side of The Hudson’s Bay Company building, a Montreal landmark, you will notice a peculiar plaque on the wall. It is dedicated to the memory of Jefferson Davis, the president of the southern Confederate States of America, and it was installed by the Daughters of the Confederacy in the early 1960s. Davis, who moved to Montreal after the end of the American Civil War, took up residence in a manor house that once stood on the building’s site.”

The building is downtown, and I’ve seen the UDC plaque many times.

Nice to know Marc. Thank you.

On a number of occasions Lincoln was playing a game of brinksmanship against upper Canada.

England was so certain that war was going to erupt, that they sent 40,000 troops to upper Canada.

Lincoln was constantly trying to avoid a two front war…  Certainly a political dynamic of the conflict long Forgotten.

Thanks again Garg. I had no idea. And I have read extensively on the War.