The American Civil War

[Vitaphone Racing]

I support the South's right to secede, I support the Union's morality. However, the Union wasn't fighting to end slavery, they fought to regain their lost colonies.

Colonies?

I support the South's right to secede, I support the Union's morality. However, the Union wasn't fighting to end slavery, they fought to regain their lost colonies.

Uh what colonies?

Because if you mean the south then your just bullshitting yourself.The South dominated the federal government repeatedly threw out the period leading up to the civil war and held the same (if not more) power then the Union.

Colonies was a bad word. Let's say territory.

[Wikkiwallana]

Colonies?

Uh what colonies?

Because if you mean the south then your just bullshitting yourself.The South dominated the federal government repeatedly threw out the period leading up to the civil war and held the same (if not more) power then the Union.

Colonies was a bad word. Let's say territory.

Doesn't help.

[Laerod]

The Union is unquestionably on the side of righteousness. And that's where I'd be.

To be fair, they were on the side of righteousness because of the advantages it gave them in the international arena. "We're fighting this war to end slavery guiz!"

I mean, they're doing the right thing yes. But for the wrong reasons (and, to some extent, very hypocritically). Which should steal some of the thunder from the "righteous" deed.

Yeah, but considering how deeply hypocritical the South was having just spent decades trying to push the insitution of slavery onto the non-slaving states and then denying anyone that wanted to stay with the Union the right to do so... The South dug deeper, giving the North the moral high ground again.

[Kohlastan]

Grant was better than Lee.

there is no substitute for victory.

I'm definatly on the Union side, like buried in it... But even then, Lee was a better general, though if Grant got the same experience as Lee, he would have been better by far.

Sherman gots my vote

[Vitaphone Racing]

Colonies was a bad word. Let's say territory.

Doesn't help.

If you don't get what I'm trying to say by now I might as well give up. The Unions didn't oppose the secession because of their anti-slavery stance, they opposed it (obviously) because a sizeable portion of their country and their economy had walked out the door.

[Goobergunchia]

Ahhh! Alas and behold, the common Mexican D-, if you look closely you'll notice it is the closest thing that any of them will ever get to an "A" in school.

That kind of gratuitous statement about an entire group gets you *** warned for trolling ***.

[Wikkiwallana]

Doesn't help.

If you don't get what I'm trying to say by now I might as well give up. The Unions didn't oppose the secession because of their anti-slavery stance, they opposed it (obviously) because a sizeable portion of their country and their economy had walked out the door.

The thing is, words have meanings, and this is one of those situations where specific implications are very important. To call the colonies or territories is to imply that they were of lesser status and influence than they actually were. They were states, and they had as much de jure influence in the governing of the nation as the non-seceding states, and more de facto influence. Any statement that implies otherwise leaves open the potential claim that their leaving was because they were being denied a fair say, which is most definitely not true.

[Laerod]

Doesn't help.

If you don't get what I'm trying to say by now I might as well give up. The Unions didn't oppose the secession because of their anti-slavery stance, they opposed it (obviously) because a sizeable portion of their country and their economy had walked out the door.

And because said portion had attacked them.

[Laerod]

If you don't get what I'm trying to say by now I might as well give up. The Unions didn't oppose the secession because of their anti-slavery stance, they opposed it (obviously) because a sizeable portion of their country and their economy had walked out the door.

The thing is, words have meanings, and this is one of those situations where specific implications are very important. To call the colonies or territories is to imply that they were of lesser status and influence than they actually were. They were states, and they had as much de jure influence in the governing of the nation as the non-seceding states, and more de facto influence. Any statement that implies otherwise leaves open the potential claim that their leaving was because they were being denied a fair say, which is most definitely not true.

Yeah, but when he says "territory" (singular) that doesn't necessarily imply that.

[Wikkiwallana]

The thing is, words have meanings, and this is one of those situations where specific implications are very important. To call the colonies or territories is to imply that they were of lesser status and influence than they actually were. They were states, and they had as much de jure influence in the governing of the nation as the non-seceding states, and more de facto influence. Any statement that implies otherwise leaves open the potential claim that their leaving was because they were being denied a fair say, which is most definitely not true.

Yeah, but when he says "territory" (singular) that doesn't necessarily imply that.

Whoops, I missed that. I thought he used the plural. Seems I'm getting to tired to keep up properly, so it's off to bed for me.

[Nazi Flower Power]

I believe that states have a right to secede, but I am still more sympathetic to the Union because of slavery and because the South picked a fight.

If the South had been dedicated to the idea of peaceful secession, I believe they could have left without a war. There would have been some bickering and maybe some minor violence, but if the South had patiently and peacefully insisted on their independence without threatening the North, I believe they could have had their independence. It worked for India. The problem was that the South wanted to do more than just leave. They wanted to prove their superiority, teach the North a lesson, and become the dominant power in North America.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

I believe that states have a right to secede, but I am still more sympathetic to the Union because of slavery and because the South picked a fight.

If the South had been dedicated to the idea of peaceful secession, I believe they could have left without a war. There would have been some bickering and maybe some minor violence, but if the South had patiently and peacefully insisted on their independence without threatening the North, I believe they could have had their independence. It worked for India. The problem was that the South wanted to do more than just leave. They wanted to prove their superiority, teach the North a lesson, and become the dominant power in North America.

They did insist on peaceful secession. They sent ambassadors to Washington to negotiate peacefully, but wouldn't be heard. The only reason they fired on Fort Sumter was that Lincoln was resupplying it - resupplying a fort in a foreign land, even when the other land was saying "please get out."

[Laerod]

I believe that states have a right to secede, but I am still more sympathetic to the Union because of slavery and because the South picked a fight.

If the South had been dedicated to the idea of peaceful secession, I believe they could have left without a war. There would have been some bickering and maybe some minor violence, but if the South had patiently and peacefully insisted on their independence without threatening the North, I believe they could have had their independence. It worked for India. The problem was that the South wanted to do more than just leave. They wanted to prove their superiority, teach the North a lesson, and become the dominant power in North America.

They did insist on peaceful secession. They sent ambassadors to Washington to negotiate peacefully, but wouldn't be heard.

And rightly so. The correct place for peaceful secession is congress.

The only reason they fired on Fort Sumter was that Lincoln was resupplying it - resupplying a fort in a foreign land, even when the other land was saying "please get out."

Indeed, they had no valid reason.

[Vulpae]

also, the south did not treat the native american tribes any better than the rest of the states. the trail of tears started in the dixie states after all.
when they started the civil war the natives became "allies of convience" does anyone truely believe a slave holding nation whose plantation economy was based on the idea that another race of people are inferior, would have upheld any deal they struck with the natives?.

let along the apachie were still fighting the texans during the whole escapade

[Zathganastan]

I believe that states have a right to secede, but I am still more sympathetic to the Union because of slavery and because the South picked a fight.

If the South had been dedicated to the idea of peaceful secession, I believe they could have left without a war. There would have been some bickering and maybe some minor violence, but if the South had patiently and peacefully insisted on their independence without threatening the North, I believe they could have had their independence. It worked for India. The problem was that the South wanted to do more than just leave. They wanted to prove their superiority, teach the North a lesson, and become the dominant power in North America.

They did insist on peaceful secession. They sent ambassadors to Washington to negotiate peacefully, but wouldn't be heard. The only reason they fired on Fort Sumter was that Lincoln was resupplying it - resupplying a fort in a foreign land, even when the other land was saying "please get out."

Again it was federal property which the north had every right to resupply, the fort possed no real threat to the south and they had no reason and no right to attack it other then to once again force the union into giving them what they wanted yet again.

[TaQud]

They did insist on peaceful secession. They sent ambassadors to Washington to negotiate peacefully, but wouldn't be heard. The only reason they fired on Fort Sumter was that Lincoln was resupplying it - resupplying a fort in a foreign land, even when the other land was saying "please get out."

Again it was federal property which the north had every right to resupply, the fort possed no real threat to the south and they had no reason and no right to attack it.

They attacked for ammunition and gun supplies...

[Alien Space Bats]

<continued from above>

Everything You Know Is Wrong - Part III (Continued [Further])

---

As more than one historian has noted, acquiring Louisiana from France Spain France wasn't half as hard as governing it. While the economic prosperity (and military security) of the frontier relied upon control of New Orleans as well as at least one bank of the Mississippi from mouth to source, several American politicians and commentators were deeply concerned about the ethnic character of the new territories.

It wasn't the presence of African slaves or Indian tribes in the region that posed the problem; it was the presence of large numbers of people who had lived all their lives under "absolutist" rule. A great many Americans opined that these new "citizens" (many of whom were French, Spanish, or Swiss German), having no experience with self-government, would prove impossible to integrate into the greater American culture.

There was, however, a more immediate problem. Even though slavery had theoretically been abolished in France under the Law of February 4th, 1794 (16 Pluviôse Year II), that law had never been applied to Louisiana because the region had been under Spanish law throughout the brief period in which it had been in force (it had been repealed by the Law of May 20th, 1802 [30 Floreal Year X] as part of Napoleon's effort to reconquer Haiti) - well before the territory came back under French control (assuming the farce with the French and Spanish flags had actually ever really placed Louisiana under French "control" in anything other than the narrowest legalistic sense). There were thus already thousands of slaves in the newly acquired lands; granting them their freedom would almost certainly provoke the residents - whose loyalty to their new Nation was already highly suspect.

Under the circumstances, then, it would seem that the easiest thing to do would be to repeat what was done in Mississippi Territory five years earlier: Just ban the importation of new slaves from abroad (as part of the trend towards ending American participation in the international slave trade, something that was already scheduled to occur in five years' time under the Constitution) and leave it at that.

But things weren't that simple.

First, the initial census and survey of what would soon become the State of Louisiana - essentially, New Orleans and the Mississippi Delta proper - led some to contemplate the possibility that the new lands could prove a rich addition to the Nation in their own right, above and beyond their importance to the maintenance of the Mississippi River trade and the military security of the frontier. From an agricultural perspective, the Delta was seen as a new frontier of unimaginable fertility, one that could compete successfully with the West Indies in the trade for tropical cash crops, including sugar and molasses. The problem was that the prevailing opinion of the day was that white labor couldn't work effectively in such conditions; cultivation on the scale desired could only occur if large numbers of African slaves were put to the task.

Yet the very thought that the Delta could become America's version of the West Indies led immediately to the parallel thought: That it could also become America's version of Haiti. Ever since Haiti had gone up in revolt back in 1791, the South had lived in fear of a similar uprising on American soil. This led some in Washington and elsewhere to oppose the establishment of anything remotely resembling a "West Indian" economy in the area around New Orleans, lest a foreign power (like France) incite the slaves to revolt and use slave armies to sieze control of the trans-Appalachian frontier's lifeline to the Gulf of Mexico.

These contradictory impulses yielded strange fruit when the Organic Act of 1804 ("An Act erecting Louisiana into two Territories and providing for the Temporary Government thereof") was finally signed into law by President Jefferson on March 26, 1804. The Act divided the new territory administratively, into Orleans Territory (which would become the heart of the future State of Louisiana) and the District of Louisiana, which contained the rest of what was left of the Purchase.

As Organic Acts go, this one broke all the rules. First, the Act had a one-year time limit, marking it as the product of a badly fractured concensus. Second, it placed the District of Louisiana under the authority of the Governor of Indiana Territory, making Governor Harrison the virtual master of half the Nation. Third, it imposed a great many restrictions on slavery within the new Territories, suggesting that Congress was leaning towards banning slavery west of the Mississippi River altogether.

The restrictions involved not only a ban on the importation of slaves from abroad, but also a ban on the importation of slaves from other States: Slaves could only be brought into the new Territories by owners intent on taking up residence there; nor could these new residents sell their slaves at any point after arrival. Finally, no slave imported from abroad after 1798 could be brought into the new Territories at all, even as the personal property of an owner who had no intention to sell him. This last rule was intended to keep slaves "infected" with Haitian notions of "liberté" from poisoning the ears of others already present in the new Territories; interestingly enough, quite a few Southern States had already enacted similar rules aimed at keeping would-be troublemakers out of their respective jurisdictions - or at keeping slaveowners from another State from selling such slaves to their unsuspecting residents.

Congress had considered taking steps that would have resulted in the ultimate abolition of slavery west of the Mississippi River; and even more amazingly (in light of subsequent events) nobody had even come close to accusing those making such proposals of having any intent to harm those States that then currently permitted slavery. The idea that the South's "peculiar institution" needed access to the new lands of the West never seems to have been advanced by anyone on either side of the debate; instead, the focus was on what was best for the new Territories and - more importantly - the United States.

The debate seems to have raged from several directions at once. There were abolitionists, to be sure - those who thought that it was wrong to permit the institution of slavery to spread at all. On the other side, there were those that argued (as stated above) that the Delta in particular (i.e., Orleans Territory) could not be properly developed without slavery, and yet with it would become a land of magnificent riches.

The most compelling argument, however, seem to have come from those who argued that keeping slavery out of the region would retard its population growth, and that absent a rapid and massive influx of "genuine" Americans, both Territories would continue to be "foreign" in character and thus prone to "disunion". As stated earlier, this was the argument Governor Harrison was making up in Indiana (less warnings of impending revolt by those already present in Indiana, of course), where he was actively lobbying for the "temporary" suspension of Article VI of the Northwest Ordinance; and given the slow rate of population growth in Ohio and Indiana (relative to the neighboring States of Kentucky and Tennessee, noted earlier), the argument was a hard one for even those who disliked slavery to reject out of hand.

Interestingly enough, the one bloc that seems to have had the least influence proved to be the most prescient: Several Congressmen and Senators argued that any effort to place limits on the ability of the current (and untrustworthy) resident populace would alienate them to the point where serious discontent might result. Had such voices been heeded, the Organic Act of 1804 might have been very different.

As it turned out, the native population of both new Territories did respond badly to the new law. They had hoped - and now openly lobbied - for the same rights as the residents of Mississippi Territory; and some in Orleans Territory argued further that access to foreign slaves ought to be permitted. This latter group pointed to South Carolina's decision to reopen the foreign slave trade, beginning in 1803; that move had been undertaken, at least in part, because South Carolina anticipated a dramatic increase in the demand for slaves west of the Mississippi River. To the merchants of New Orleans, it seemed wrong that they should be denied access to foreign slave markets for the profit of middlemen in Charleston, and they bitterly argued as much in correspondence sent to their new Territorial government and Congress.

These protests worked: Fear of an Haitian-style slave revolution notwithstanding, both Congress and President Jefferson's government quickly realized that they could not afford to provoke the ire of the inhabitants of the new Territories. However much they distrusted the "foreign" populations of Orleans and Louisiana, and however much they were counting on rapid "American" settlement of the new lands to make them loyal to the new Republic, they realized that the United States was grossly overextended and thus necessarily needed the unswerving loyalty of those living beyond the Mississippi right then; consequently, if the locals wanted slavery, they were going to have to have it, whatever other fears, concerns, or moral scruples the rest of the Nation might have.

Consequently, on March 1-2, 1805, Congress passed two new Acts, replacing the earlier Organic Act of 1805, which was set to expire on September 30, 1805: "An Act further providing for the government of the territory of Orleans" (on March 1) and "An act further providing for the Government of the district of Louisiana" (the following day, March 2). President Jefferson signed these two new acts on March 2 and March 3 (respectively).

The new laws reorganized the District of Louisiana into Louisiana Territory, effective July 4, 1805; meanwhile, Orleans Territory retained its same name and government. Notably, while Orleans Territory ended up with a Legislature that was entirely appointed by its Governor (rather than an elected one), Louisiana Territory got the right to elect its own Legislature; this reflects the lack of trust Washington had in the local population (BTW, the same difference applied to jury trials: Orleans Territory lacked any right to such a thing, while Louisiana Territory enjoyed such rights; in the Congressional debate, many Congressmen and Senators opined that jury service was something that the residents of New Orleans and the Delta, accustomed as they were to "monarchical" government and "magesterial" justice, would simply "anger" and "confuse" them).

But the biggest changes these two new laws made (aside from ending all notions of merging the new Louisiana Territory with Indiana Territory and thus bringing all the newly purchased lands west of the Mississippi [save for the future State of Louisiana] under the Northwest Ordinances of 1787 and 1789 - a possibility the residents of the District of Louisiana had vehemently opposed in a series of public meetings held in September, 1804, with the result that a petition to that effect had subsequently been sent to Congress) were in the slavery laws, which represented nothing less than a complete capitulation to local interests and protests. All restrictions on slavery were dropped, save for that against the importation of slaves from abroad; attempts to limit the resale of recently imported slaves from other States (the so-called "South Carolina loophole") were also abandoned. In essence, both territories now operated under the same rules as Mississippi Territory. In addition, however, just to make things clear for the residents of the Mississippi Delta and New Orleans, their new Act expressly provided that Article VI of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 would not apply to Orleans Territory.

Thus the entire Louisiana Purchase was opened up to slavery, at least for the indefinite future; and further, for the first time in its history, a United States territory had not only seen slavery implicitly permitted, but had actually seen any ban on the practice of slavery expressly excluded from operation on its soil.

<more to come>

[New Embossia]

I do not see how ANYONE can tolerate the enslaving of a racial group of people! It's sickening. I would fight for the Union. The Confederates were fighting to enslave, torture and rape defenseless African slaves.

[New Sapienta]

I believe that states have a right to secede, but I am still more sympathetic to the Union because of slavery and because the South picked a fight.

If the South had been dedicated to the idea of peaceful secession, I believe they could have left without a war. There would have been some bickering and maybe some minor violence, but if the South had patiently and peacefully insisted on their independence without threatening the North, I believe they could have had their independence. It worked for India. The problem was that the South wanted to do more than just leave. They wanted to prove their superiority, teach the North a lesson, and become the dominant power in North America.

They did insist on peaceful secession. They sent ambassadors to Washington to negotiate peacefully, but wouldn't be heard. The only reason they fired on Fort Sumter was that Lincoln was resupplying it - resupplying a fort in a foreign land, even when the other land was saying "please get out."

It was a federal fort, not theirs.

[Tmutarakhan]

I believe that states have a right to secede, but I am still more sympathetic to the Union because of slavery and because the South picked a fight.

If the South had been dedicated to the idea of peaceful secession, I believe they could have left without a war. There would have been some bickering and maybe some minor violence, but if the South had patiently and peacefully insisted on their independence without threatening the North, I believe they could have had their independence. It worked for India. The problem was that the South wanted to do more than just leave. They wanted to prove their superiority, teach the North a lesson, and become the dominant power in North America.

They did insist on peaceful secession. They sent ambassadors to Washington to negotiate peacefully

On the contrary, they withdrew all representatives from Washington.

[The UK in Exile]

I believe that states have a right to secede, but I am still more sympathetic to the Union because of slavery and because the South picked a fight.

If the South had been dedicated to the idea of peaceful secession, I believe they could have left without a war. There would have been some bickering and maybe some minor violence, but if the South had patiently and peacefully insisted on their independence without threatening the North, I believe they could have had their independence. It worked for India. The problem was that the South wanted to do more than just leave. They wanted to prove their superiority, teach the North a lesson, and become the dominant power in North America.

They did insist on peaceful secession. They sent ambassadors to Washington to negotiate peacefully, but wouldn't be heard. The only reason they fired on Fort Sumter was that Lincoln was resupplying it - resupplying a fort in a foreign land, even when the other land was saying "please get out."

the ambassadors are a Catch-22 for lincoln and the confederacy knew it.

if lincoln refuses to see them, he gets accused of starting the war.

if lincoln accepted them, they claim he has recognised the confederacy is a seperate country.

Jefferson was negotiating in bad faith and everyone knew it. George Washington pulled exactly the same trick in 1776. if they don't talk their warmongers, if they do the've recognised the US.

[Bontivate]

Though the Union was mostly fighting to reclaim lost territory, their secondary goal of ending slavery made them noble enough for me to side with them.

[TaQud]

Though the Union was mostly fighting to reclaim lost territory, their secondary goal of ending slavery made them noble enough for me to side with them.

Lincoln wanted the US to be united again...

[IshCong]

Though the Union was mostly fighting to reclaim lost territory, their secondary goal of ending slavery made them noble enough for me to side with them.

Lincoln wanted the US to be united again...

Correction, he wanted the Union to not be split.

[Tmutarakhan]

Though the Union was mostly fighting to reclaim lost territory, their secondary goal of ending slavery made them noble enough for me to side with them.

Lincoln wanted the US to be united again...

Breaking the country apart would have been crippling. The border would have been indefensible without a large force, since the arbitrary pencil lines were drawn (some by British colonial administrators, some by the Federal government) without the slightest thought that anyone would think of these arbitrary units as being able to function as separate countries. The south apparently expected to force the north to continue customs-free trade with it, which they did not have the right to impose: in those days, that meant that neither government would get any significant revenue; that meant no armed forces, except through continually borrowing money that could never be paid back. This is why the Confederacy could never float a credible currency. The Union could partially pay for its army, since the south was under blockade and tariffs could therefore be collected without a smugglers' end-around; but ended up deep in debt, naturally. The splintering of the US invited European powers to try to reimpose themselves on the Western Hemisphere: Britain imposed martial law in Canada to snuff out moves toward self-government; France took over Mexico; Spain imposed martial law on Cuba and tried to re-invade Chile. A reversion to European colonial empires in the New World would have made the long-term independence of either the Union or the Confederacy a potentially iffy question; but even assuming (as is likely) that neither would end up under foreign domination, certainly neither could ever have become a world power.