.

@LHoffman:

I do disagree to a point. The immediate cause of the war was the North’s desire to preserve the Union, yes, but the root (and overarching) cause was slavery. Why did the South even secede in the first place? Because the federal government (Republican majorities and president elect) was restricting the institution of slavery more and more. Yes, they were upset that their state’s rights were being infringed upon, but rights as they pertained to slavery. If there had been no slavery, there would have been no war.

And secondly, the South did start the war. April 12-13 shelling and demanding the surrender of Fort Sumter. Before that, the Union had taken no provocative or offensive action, contrary to that taken by the proclaimed Confederate States.

I agree that one of the reasons the south wanted to secede was slavery. However, secession does not necessitate war nor does in constitute an attack on the Union. Fort Sumter was an act of resisting oppression, those were Federal troops occupying Southern territory. It was the North that threatened and invaded the South. If you believe that slavery caused the war, then how do you explain every other country doing away with slavery without fighting a war over it?

Cromwell, you should tell us how you really feel about this and stop holding back your feelings.

LHoffman, speaking for myself, invested might not be the right choice of word

Now I wonder what somebody who actually really cared about this would be labelled, American perhaps?  wg

@Emperor_Taiki:

If you believe that slavery caused the war, then how do you explain every other country doing away with slavery without fighting a war over it?

I believe that the premise of your reasoning is false. All other nations did away with slavery without a war, therefore the US civil war could not have been fought over slavery. There is no further examination of the issue at hand.

Why did the French Revolution end up in bloody massacre and inquisition and the American Revolution end up with a stable new government? They were both fought for similar reasons and ideals. There isn’t a single answer for that, but what does account for it is that they are two very different countries, with many different social, political and historical dynamics.

1. First, virtually every other country in history that supported slavery was autocratic or authoritarian in some fashion. There were not the rights of freedom and liberty (of expression, speech, petition, assembly, etc… perhaps most importantly the right to bear arms) afforded to their citizens as they were (are) to US citizens. US government was truly representative and much power is given to the representatives of the people. Slaveholders in the United Kingdom and Russia, for example, did not have 70+ years of inalienable rights to property and their chosen way of life. When the government issues an order it is followed unthinkingly, because governmental control is part of their historical conscious memory. That same memory is not true of the United States. My point is that you are comparing apples to oranges.

2)Geographically, the United States was like no other country; rapidly progressing to industrial and agricultural superpower. However, as you know, these strengths were mostly divided along a east to west axis, thereby highlighting the differences between south an north. Great Britain was not like that, Imperial Russia was not like that, France was not like that… yet all had slaves at one time or another. No other country (that I know of) had such a stark geo-political divide in their nation as the united States did. Combined with the tradition of freedom and resistance to control, this provided for a war to break out.

@Emperor_Taiki:

I agree that one of the reasons the south wanted to secede was slavery. However, secession does not necessitate war nor does in constitute an attack on the Union. Fort Sumter was an act of resisting oppression, those were Federal troops occupying Southern territory. It was the North that threatened and invaded the South.

To your initial claim that attacking Fort Sumter is somehow resisting oppression… not sure how you can justify that one. No, secession itself is not a declaration of war. Today we have a bunch of people signing petitions to secede. A stupid thing to do for a number of reasons, but not aggressive.

Federal troops were occupying federal territory, which was owned legally by the Federal government. It was not part of a state, and therefore the South’s, to begin with.

This whole ensuing argument is going to be misunderstood by the both of us unless we define terms. I believe and hold that secession was an illegal act. For all historical intents and purposes, there never was a Confederate States of America because it was a construct of the South, never given legitimacy by the United States of America. During the entire war, the South was in a state of rebellion, not international autonomy. They still had seats in the US Congress (and therefore representation), the South voluntarily walked out and declined the right to a voice in government. They set up an illegitimate government which had no legal authority.

Given my above position, your assertions about resisting oppression and occupying Southern land mean nothing, because they are both false to begin with.

@MrMalachiCrunch:

LHoffman, speaking for myself, invested might not be the right choice of word

Now I wonder what somebody who actually really cared about this would be labelled, American perhaps?  wg

YES! Put some fight in it man!

Ok so if the war was over slavery…

Why did the NORTH get to keep slaves longer than the south? :P

LOL!

@Gargantua:

Ok so if the war was over slavery…

Why did the NORTH get to keep slaves longer than the south? :P

LOL!

Because the war was over slavery does not mean it was fought to end it.

Cromwell, it takes a big man to pull a mea culpa in regards to your one exchange with Grasshopper, I respect that.  I enjoy a good debate regardless of what side I take.  I debated in some history classes at university, we would flip a coin to see which side our group would take.  Interesting to debate for the other side, it really forces you to know both sides of the issue.

I like checking out links people provide, your link to Neo-Confederates is interesting.

Slavery is almost never defended, but it is usually denied as a primary cause of the American Civil War. Critics often accuse Neo-Confederates of “revisionism” and of acting as “apologists”.

That is a worry, that fighting for respect for your war dead you can give off the wrong impression.  You seem like an honourable person so don’t let your honour be allowed to be confused with some of the more negative images that might be conveyed un-intentionally.  Thanks for the good words of support, the thumbs down has been countered with a thumbs up.  I wonder if my thumbs down was from an American who just figures if a Canadian dares intrude on an conversation involving the US it must be to slag the US out of jealousy?

I grew up with half my tv and radio channels being American and I am much closer to Buffalo NY than any big city in Canada.  We are so close yet very different in our outlooks in relationship to the role of government etc.  Watching the debate in here is much like watching two brothers arguing over a girl who really isn’t all that pretty.  I suppose I am curious as to what all the fuss is about.  Fuss is probably a poor choice of words as I don’t intend to minimize feelings or importance of the topic but rather convey a certain lack of understanding.

@MrMalachiCrunch:

I suppose I am curious as to what all the fuss is about.  Fuss is probably a poor choice of words as I don’t intend to minimize feelings or importance of the topic but rather convey a certain lack of understanding.

Seeing as Canada has never had a civil war, and likely will not, (until Quebec secedes that is) it is natural that you may not have the understanding we Americans have on these matters.  :lol:  But seriously, there really should not be a fuss, which in this case I do believe is the appropriate word. I guess there is still some level of division between American citizens in the south and north; Cromwell here is a case in point. much as I like to think that the neo-Confederates and others perhaps more radical are few and far between, I really cannot say with certainty because I have never lived or traveled widely in the south. Nevertheless, there is a historical memory to the war which affects us to this day. Much of it, unfortunately, revolves around the slavery/Jim Crow topic. I say unfortunately because it is so, both in the fact that it happened and because people continually dredge that subject up because it sells news or otherwise motivates people. Racism is overrated in this country. But it does cause a fuss.

Though outsiders often see neo-Confederacy as “rebellion”, the Neo-Confederates themselves generally believe that the federal government of the United States has strayed from its original intent, and that the Confederate States of America was both the lawful and logical successor of the original government which formed out of the American Revolution.

From the Wikipedia page… I did find this rather interesting. This is worth some thought and debate in my estimation. But… perhaps not. We might tread on political territory with that one. However, I can only assume that this is something you would subscribe to Cromwell?

@LHoffman:

Seeing as Canada has never had a civil war, and likely will not, (until Quebec secedes that is) it is natural that you may not have the understanding we Americans have on these matters

FOOOOOOL! :) Canada Suffered her own “rebellions”.

The Red River Rebellion and North West Rebellions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North-West_Rebellion

The pathetic forces of the Provisional Government of Saskatchewan were CRUSHED under Canadian Federalist  Boot-Heel.

It was our first deployment of the “Gatling Gun”. :d

Garg, it also proved the merit in having an east-west railroad.  By the rest of Canada you mean Ontario I am sure wg.  It didn’t take long for Ontario the Great to send out her shock troops on our industrial railroad to grind the west under our JackBooted Heal!

LHoffman, there has been a bit more fighting in Canada over the years than you may know.  Ask a Frenchman about the Plains of Abraham.

Here you see a typical example, notice the nose pointing skyward……
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2012/09/21/argue-concerts-plains-of-abraham.html

Oh wait, he was just bitching because he was not informed about a concert…

This is the one I meant to link
http://www.ctvnews.ca/plains-of-abraham-re-enactment-cancelled-1.371078

Info on the actual battle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Plains_of_Abraham

Malachi: if you go back to page 6, you will see I reported the battle on its anniversary this year, the 13th Sept.
Always loved the story and battle as a child.
Was not aware you had two rebellions though.

FOOOOOOL! :) Canada Suffered her own “rebellions”.

Both times the Canucks lost the Stanley Cup, right?  :wink:

@Mallery29:

FOOOOOOL! :) Canada Suffered her own “rebellions”.

Both times the Canucks lost the Stanley Cup, right?   :wink:

Haha  :lol:!

Anyway, I knew I was going to get corrected about such a statement. My main point was not that Canada has never had domestic conflict, but that you haven’t had a full out civil war, at least certainly nothing called that or approaching the scale of the American Civil War.

@Gargantua:

Jermofoot - I am directly addressing the fact that you completely lack the knowledge to discuss or comment on the American civil war.

In your last post you make two points. Both points are disingenious garbage based totally on your own perverted misconception.

Example #1

You see, Lincoln wasn’t an emperor, or king, or what have you. He couldn’t sweep his hand and make all slaves free at a moment’s notice.

When in fact:

Emancipation Proclamation is an order issued to all segments of the Executive branch (including the Army and Navy) of the United States by President Abraham Lincoln on January 1, 1863, during the American Civil War. It was based on the president’s constitutional authority as commander in chief of the armed forces; it was not a law passed by Congress. It proclaimed all those enslaved in Confederate territory to be forever free, and ordered the Army (and all segments of the Executive branch) to treat as free all those enslaved in ten states that were still in rebellion

Example #2

Slavery was abolished completely with the 13th Amendment

And I don’t disagree with that (Though criminals could still be slaves). But the 13th ammendment didn’t come into full effect until sometime after the war was over.

WAR ENDS - April 9th 1865 Lee surrendered his Army of Northern Virginia
13th Ammendment - December 18 1865, Secretary of State William H. Seward proclaimed it to have been adopted

Garg, you’re not making any sense.  You told me I had no clue on the Civil War, then proceeded to agree with me.

If you can’t understand the difference between the executive and legislative branches of the US, and the powers they entail, as well as what it takes for the Constitution to be amended, then you’re going to continue to flounder trying to one-up me when I’m already 3 steps ahead of you.

Also, my parents are from a Union state, I was born in Confederate state, and currently reside in a border state.  I think I know what the F I’m talking about…

• It’s ironic that the north kept slaves longer than the south
  - It’s also ironic that someone from “canuckistan” has to spoon feed you, your own countries history.

How embarrassing for you. LOL

(+1 for the villain folks…)

So far, you’ve done nothing.  I’m not even sure what you think you’re schooling me on because you’ve been deliberately obtuse and running off tangents.  In nothing that I posted previous to your “lesson” did I say anything that warranted whatever the hell it is you’re trying to say.  It just looks like a non sequitur to me.

Oh wait, I just got it.

You’re AWing, and I fell for it.  I should have known better.

(Also, I don’t care if Canadians comment on the US, I assume they are as ignorant as I am of Canada’s history)

@Gargantua:

Can JUST Jermofoot ceed from the union?

I think you need to cede your head from your rear.

@Emperor_Taiki:

@LHoffman:

I do disagree to a point. The immediate cause of the war was the North’s desire to preserve the Union, yes, but the root (and overarching) cause was slavery. Why did the South even secede in the first place? Because the federal government (Republican majorities and president elect) was restricting the institution of slavery more and more. Yes, they were upset that their state’s rights were being infringed upon, but rights as they pertained to slavery. If there had been no slavery, there would have been no war.

And secondly, the South did start the war. April 12-13 shelling and demanding the surrender of Fort Sumter. Before that, the Union had taken no provocative or offensive action, contrary to that taken by the proclaimed Confederate States.

I agree that one of the reasons the south wanted to secede was slavery. However, secession does not necessitate war nor does in constitute an attack on the Union. Fort Sumter was an act of resisting oppression, those were Federal troops occupying Southern territory. It was the North that threatened and invaded the South. If you believe that slavery caused the war, then how do you explain every other country doing away with slavery without fighting a war over it?

LHoff did a good job responding, but I feel obligated to reply in reciprocation.

Can you name any other reason why the South would secede?
I don’t think I can name anytime there was secession without conflict, can you?  It’s theoretically possible, but my impression is secession means against the will of the whole.  Almost like the PC/opposite side term for rebellion or something.
Firing shots at federal land (Ft. Sumter) is an act of war.  Occupying federal land is not an act of oppression.  The South started the conflict by seceding and then firing first.  You can’t say concessions were proposed before hand.  The South left, fired, and then it was on.
As for your last question…the other countries didn’t involve secession as well?  The South seceded over slaves, started the War.  The North ended it to to preserve the Union.

@Gargantua:

Ok so if the war was over slavery…

Why did the NORTH get to keep slaves longer than the south? :P

LOL!

First, why not ask a legitimate question.  The North was largely anti-slavery and elected an anti-slavery president.  In 1860, the US Census reported 3,950,546 slaves. Of that total, 3,521,110 resided in Southern (future Confederate) states - 89% of all slaves.  Border states held 429,401, or ~11% of the share.

Northern states had…20.  Just 20 slaves.  In 1860.  They only had more COMBINED than the territory of Nebraska at 15.

Second, as was stated, the South seceded and fought over slaves (firing the first shots).  The North fought to preserve the Union.

I guess you could say it was fought over slavery and the Union.  That would be the technically complete answer.

@Gargantua:

@LHoffman:

Seeing as Canada has never had a civil war, and likely will not, (until Quebec secedes that is) it is natural that you may not have the understanding we Americans have on these matters

FOOOOOOL! :) Canada Suffered her own “rebellions”.

The Red River Rebellion and North West Rebellions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North-West_Rebellion

The pathetic forces of the Provisional Government of Saskatchewan were CRUSHED under Canadian Federalist  Boot-Heel.

It was our first deployment of the “Gatling Gun”. :d

Pffft, my High School could have made a better rebellion than that.  At most, that’s a Civil Skirmish.

@Jermofoot:

Can you name any other reason why the South would secede?

High northern tariffs on southern imports for one, http://www.civilwarinteractive.com/DocsJDFirstInaugural.htm. However its more interesting to consider why the north invaded the south. I understand the disagreement over Fort Sumter, but don’t most aggressors engineer some kind of border skirmish which they blame on the other side? Is it really that controversial an idea that the official reason for a war may not be the actual reason?

@Jermofoot:

I don’t think I can name anytime there was secession without conflict, can you?  It’s theoretically possible, but my impression is secession means against the will of the whole.  Almost like the PC/opposite side term for rebellion or something.
Firing shots at federal land (Ft. Sumter) is an act of war.  Occupying federal land is not an act of oppression.  The South started the conflict by seceding and then firing first.  You can’t say concessions were proposed before hand.  The South left, fired, and then it was on.
As for your last question…the other countries didn’t involve secession as well?  The South seceded over slaves, started the War.  The North ended it to to preserve the Union.

Secession means to withdraw from an organization, so there is no violence involved( anytime someone changes schools or work they are a secessionists). It is not the secession, but the retaliation to the secession that causes the war. In authoritarian or abusive organizations, often times those in charge use violence against those who attempt to separate. The breakup of the USSR and Warsaw Pact is a example of secession without the central authority attempting to wrestle back control. Can you show me where you got the definition “against the will of the whole”, and who/what is “the whole”?

to LHoffman, I think you made some good points and I see where you are coming from. I believe rights come from the people not from the federal government. So to me it was unlawful for the North to maintain military bases in the South when it no longer governed there.  Secession isn’t crazy or stupid, its just what naturally happens when a state decides to rule itself. I strongly oppose all forms of slavery, but that does not make secession wrong and it certainly does not make the North right.

(Also, I don’t care if Canadians comment on the US, I assume they are as ignorant as I am of Canada’s history)

Jermofoot, you know what you get when you assume……

Pffft, my High School could have made a better rebellion than that.  At most, that’s a Civil Skirmish

What an interesting thing to brag about…. Yes, I guess the US is number one in that it’s civil war killed the most people, does that bring you a sense of pride?  Certainly a greater volume of historic activities to debate.

wittman, Canada has had a few Rebellions, but since the first two occurred before Canada existed they don’t count as “Canadas”

The Rebellions (two) of 1837    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebellions_of_1837
The Red River Rebellion 1869-70   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_River_Rebellion
North-West Rebellion, 1885    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North-West_Rebellion

None of them were large conflicts but interesting history, for Canadians at least…well not really all that interesting even, but we were forced to learn about it in history.  Hard to get pumped up about it with all the American history beaming in from across the border.  Back in the day before most people had cable we used TV antennas and most of the channels were American, pity the Canadian history teacher!

I mean compare Luis Riel to the first battle between ironclads!

The breakup of the USSR and Warsaw Pact is a example of secession without the central authority attempting to wrestle back control.

Emperor_Taiki, are you seriously comparing the situation of the southern US states to that of Poland inside the Warsaw Pact or the Baltic states inside the USSR?  None of those states voted to join those unions.  They were all conquered in war and added as booty.  The differences are many and profound.  On the other hand The Prague Spring and Hungarian Uprising were about as successful as the US South, albeit a fair bit less bloody.

@Cromwell_Dude:

I am operating under the premise that the Confederates possessed great evidence supporting their cause. In light of this evidence, how do we best honor the war dead on both sides without dishonoring any of them? Thoughts from the community?

Like it or not, we do live in the United States of America. I do not believe that will be changing anytime soon, so it would be best to accept certain realities, most of which it seems you have Cromwell. First, and quite obviously, any remembrance or memorial should be reverent and respectful of both sides. Whichever side you most identify with, a great number of our ancestors payed the ultimate price for the ideals of freedom and unity. I do not agree with your premise, but respect your opinion. However, I question your belief that the Confederate States of America are currently under unlawful occupation of the United States. Seems like that is both kinda wacky and has the potential to foster some pretty significant public problems if enough people believed that too.

@Cromwell_Dude:

Lincoln wanted a war. He cleverly maneuvered the South into firing the first shot at Fort Sumter, where no one was hurt or killed. Even though he had sent warships to the fort, they did not return fire because their mission � to draw an attack � had already been accomplished. After Fort Sumter Lincoln thanked Naval Commander Gustavus Fox for helping him orchestrate the attack and to generate Northern support for a war.

I think it is disingenuous at the very least to say that Lincoln wanted a war. Because Lincoln refused outside help is not evidence that he desired war with the South or was ignoring routes to a peaceful resolution. Lincoln was a lawyer. He understood the Constitution as a legal document and the Union of the states in a similar contractual manner. Rebellion as it happened was an internal affair and had to be dealt with by the country alone. Allowing outside mediation, thereby acknowledging two separate political entities, would give the Confederacy a legal legitimacy which it did not have to begin with. He could not do such a thing. Mediation and compromise had been tried in Congress for 40 years. When the issue of slavery and regional tensions came to a head in the 1850s, there was little left to say.

Your repeated implications are not that Lincoln refused to attempt compromise, but that he failed to give the South what they wanted without any resistance. To compromise with an illegitimate argument is to completely give in to it.