The War Between The States Discussions

Discussion in 'Civil War' started by Zonie, Jul 19, 2019.

Help Support Muzzle Loading Forum by donating:

  1. Oct 16, 2019 #2181

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    69 Cal.

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2018
    Messages:
    3,048
    Likes Received:
    1,153
    I suspect it would end up in the supreme court and they would say it is a matter for the legislature not the courts.
     
    arcticap likes this.
  2. Oct 16, 2019 #2182

    tenngun

    tenngun

    tenngun

    Cannon

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Messages:
    10,654
    Likes Received:
    1,320
    Location:
    Republic mo
    In order to follow that line of reasoning you have to make a judgement call that says this cause is just and that cause isn’t. These people are good those people are bad.
    I am put in mind of Cortez who called the Aztec Gods Demons and insulted their religion. Moteczuma told him that the Aztec Gods were good Gods that blessed the corn and made it rain on time.
    How a society views something may be mysterious and unbelievable outside that society. However in order to be fair and understand a society we have to leave our prejudices behind and look at it from that societies point of view.
    The fact that some Europeans and some northerners who economically and socially were little effected by slavery condemned slavery had nothing to do with how the people living in the south viewed their society.
    A blanket statement that the constitution was a contract made two generations before the war was binding on the people living then, with the only choice to accept the rule of the majority of northern states or quit their homes was unlikely to be how the people of the south saw it.
    Even contracts made between people are unilaterally dissolvable should the other side violate the terms of the contract. A married partner that cheats, or a business partner with his hand in the till.
    For forty years the north was viewed by the south as encroaching on their rights, harming their economy and closing them in. Till at last a president was elected with the stated aim to emasculate the south’s political power.
    It all comes down in the end that people who did not live in the south or share Southern culture forced a change on an unwilling people, and force a government on a people against their consent.
     
    Eutycus likes this.
  3. Oct 16, 2019 #2183

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    69 Cal.

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2018
    Messages:
    3,048
    Likes Received:
    1,153
    When you put it that way, it sounds like they got a taste of their own medicine.
    Just what was this "southern culture" ?
    How had it evolved since the founding of the country ? How had the country evolved ?
    Who were these "unwilling people" ?
    How many people in the south did consent to the union ?
    How many states had consented to the Union ?

    What type of consent ?
    Unanimous consent,
    Hypothetical consent,
    Overt versus tacit consent,
    Engineered consent,
    Literal consent ?
     
  4. Oct 16, 2019 #2184

    arcticap

    arcticap

    arcticap

    54 Cal.

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,303
    Likes Received:
    373
    Location:
    Central Connecticut
    Hogwash!
    Inalienable rights are considered to be an essential part of "natural law".
    All civilizations, governments, nations and states are either more protective of the "inalienable rights" of all of its people or they are not as protective of them.

    Every nation and form of government can be rated on a scale of how much they honor and protect minority rights and the inalienable rights of all of its people. i.e. - how much their society, laws and government protect human rights for all people or conversely, not interfere with them unless necessary for the protection of those rights [such as for others].

    Why is it that most every civilization in history that didn't meet this criteria have met their demise either through internal or external conflicts and actions?
    In that respect the Confederacy was an experiment that failed because it didn't have the desire to enact and enforce those ideals.

    I don't believe that Lincoln intended to "emasculate" the south politically as much as he wanted to protect the paid labor market by stopping the western expansion of slavery.
    In that respect, the huge surplus population of slaves for which southern culture was largely responsible for was seen as having a negative impact on the nation's ability to proceed with an economically healthy westward expansion .

    As for the Aztecs, they were militaristic conquerors themselves who practiced slavery and live human sacrifice.
    How would the Aztec culture be rated on the absolute scale of protecting and upholding inalienable rights?
    While some may think that inalienable rights didn't exist throughout history prior to the United States, or should only be measured on the relative scale of history,
    I would argue that there's also justification to view natural law on absolute terms according to how much they did or didn't incorporate it into their culture.


    There's nothing wrong with applying the filter of inalienable rights in order to compare societies and cultures.
    Whether more or less people enjoyed liberty or freedom in a society may very well show why one failed while another thrived.
    And by setting our own parameters and perspective, we can better explore more reasons why the Confederacy failed while the Union survived.






     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2019
    Straekat likes this.
  5. Oct 16, 2019 #2185

    tenngun

    tenngun

    tenngun

    Cannon

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Messages:
    10,654
    Likes Received:
    1,320
    Location:
    Republic mo
    We don’t know where the experiment of CSA would have led, ultimately I THINK it would have failed. However what I think is based on my own prejudices regarding the human condition.
    What would a Po’pe Pueblo nation have looked like in 1750, we don’t know, it got wiped out and crushed by an outside culture before it had a chance to grow.
    What would a Tecumseh confederacy of Indian nations had looked like in 1860? We don’t know it was conquered and wiped out.
    The question of what counts as a good society has been debated for at least five thousand years, and how that society has helped protect human rights in that society. The debate goes on today.
    Small hunter gatherer communities are thought to be ‘free’, but often the people were guided by social pressures and taboos.
    Is the UK as free today as it was a century ago, or has the freedoms acceptable as worthy of protection changed in the view of the society or the government.
    We don’t know what would have happened ‘if’, but we can’t call the south a failed experiment, it was conquered and wiped out before we could see what fruit it would bare.
    The fact that the Confederacy could field an army that was its maximum sustainable for its population, combined with the need of the Federals to bring total warfare on the civilian population in order to crush the south demonstrated the consent of the governed to support their society.
    Yes there were pockets of pro unionist, just as there were Tories in the revolution. I dare say that Southren popular support in 1861 for the ‘cause’ was much greater then rebel support in 1776.
     
    arcticap likes this.
  6. Oct 16, 2019 #2186

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    69 Cal.

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2018
    Messages:
    3,048
    Likes Received:
    1,153
    You keep ignoring the slavery issue is your hypotheses and comparisons.
    It was the single biggest factor.
     
    Straekat likes this.
  7. Oct 16, 2019 #2187

    arcticap

    arcticap

    arcticap

    54 Cal.

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,303
    Likes Received:
    373
    Location:
    Central Connecticut
    tenngun you make some good points.
    But there's still some things worth noting.

    The Confederacy tried to replace the Union gov;t, in the south by defeating it and by denying it being able to exist in the south any longer which it simply wasn't able to do.
    It wasn't as if the Union needed to establish its sovereignty.
    It was the Confederacy that actually needed to establish its sovereignty which it simply wasn't able to do at home or abroad.
    It could only exist as long as there was a state of war, and even then it could no longer sustain a viable war effort toward the end.

    Another may be the most important factor that needs to be considered.
    " Modernization has effected a profound change in human civilizations and is a global trend since the 18th century...." --->>> https://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/9221

    There are short excerpts on this page from works about the world wide trend toward modernization and westernization that shouldn't be ignored.--->>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/modernization
    It shows that there is a whole field of study about modernization that may explain why the south wouldn't be able to wage a successful war under any circumstances that it needed to in order to survive.
    Because the north was more modern or advanced in many different fields including ideology and laws, the southern lifestyle [slavery] was going to become an anachronism
    one way or another.
    Modernization should have cancelled out any reason for the south to secede to begin with.
    In short, the Confederacy had no right to exist in theory or reality.
    It was an outdated creation from its very inception.due to this trend of global modernization.
    The fact that just about all of its manufactured goods had to be imported is only one indication of its problem.
    Their ideology was also simply outdated,
    It would have been better for the south if there was a peaceful transition away from slavery, but what choice did the Union have?
    The south was responsible for waging war on behalf of a soon to be outdated slave owning era that was coming to a historical closure whether anyone liked it or not.
    It was the wrong time and place in history to try to start a new country, especially warring against the Union for which it relied on for nearly everything meaningful except for slavery.
    And slavery would soon have no place in the modern world, so why secede and divide a nation over it?
    Hindsight shows us that as being the feather of truth.

    Anachronism -

    1. a thing belonging or appropriate to a period other than that in which it exists, especially a thing that is conspicuously old-fashioned.


    2. an act of attributing a custom, event, or object to a period to which it does not belong.
     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2019
  8. Oct 16, 2019 #2188

    Straekat

    Straekat

    Straekat

    40 cal - b

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2018
    Messages:
    409
    Likes Received:
    175
    Location:
    Yohogania
    Think you'll ever catch that tail? You keep going around and around repeating the same talking points that have been debunked several times, and haven't been able to come up with anything different that is convincing on the basis of facts, not emotional appeals to the bleachers.


    If you have a contract and think you can walk away from it, there can be serious consequences. Join the military and then pretend you don't have to obey orders and tell superiors you have a right to wallk away and form an "army" of your own because you didn't like a duty assignment....and you'd be in serious trouble.

    Walk out on a wife and mortgage? You'd be paying through the nose.

    A state thinking it doesn't have a contract with the Federal government the way the south did? It led to the south starting a war and getting crushed.

    Actions can have consequences if the other party to a "contract" doesn't agree with your abandoning an obligation.

    Until not that long ago, a man considered his honor and his word was supposed to be his bond. When a man didn't live up to his word and pledges, he was considered not to be honorable and was not trustworthy. He had no honor as a result. The same thing applies to nations. When the states joined the Union, that created a bond of trust and obligations between the states and Federal government. The southern states violated that trust by starting war.

    Shortly after the Constituon provided the basis for the current American government, the south held the balance of power in the government, and through the election of southern leaning Presidents, the Senatorial representation system, and orignally in 1782, slightly more states in the Union than northern, was able to determine who controlled the political playing field.

    That situation began changing when slave owners wanted to expand slavery beyond it's original borders and discovered thre was growing resistance to that happening. When the southern states "quit" the Union, it was not because they had been under "northern" governments telling them what they could or couldn't do since 1781, but because they were learning the political balance in the government had changed against them, and they did not like being in a position where they were not longer in control.

    Yes, the southern states had a contract, but the contract they wanted was one that was for them to be in charge, and not having the situation reversed after decades of being in control.

    Does that mean there is a right to scream and cry because they weren't getting their way any longer? The south found it liked being in control, but not when they had to deal with a world that was changing. They couldn't and wouldn't adapt, and that led to the south's failed experiment. Yes, it was a failure, because they made numerous decisions that led to their destruction by turning a tense political situation into a war, failing to understand international political relations, and militarily not understanding the war was won by the Union and lost by the south for failing to grasp the importance of strategic rather than tactical victories on individual battlefields.
     
    arcticap likes this.
  9. Oct 16, 2019 #2189

    Straekat

    Straekat

    Straekat

    40 cal - b

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2018
    Messages:
    409
    Likes Received:
    175
    Location:
    Yohogania
    Consent of the governed? Please, it was the rebellion started by the southern confederacy that started the war, and the south was not prepared for the consequences of it's actions. The southern states usually weren't as much of what the sates did before and during the war was never well thought out in advance.

    Conscription, in some cases, at gun-point was important to for the south to maintain the size of the armies in the field after 1862, and after the fall of 1863, it was a critical necessity.

    The Union wasn't alone in "resorting to total war" as southerners attempted to do the same. Does Chambersburg (PA) ring a bell, the abduction of free blacks in Maryland and Pennsylvania during the invasion there during 1863, or the raids from Canada into New England and the arson and terrorist attack on Manhattan ring any bells? Then there are raids by Quantrell, Morgan and a few others that were not confined to military targets alone.
     
  10. Oct 16, 2019 #2190

    tenngun

    tenngun

    tenngun

    Cannon

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Messages:
    10,654
    Likes Received:
    1,320
    Location:
    Republic mo
    I do think that both sides have a tail that’s been chased.
    The fact is that our founding document was based on the right of people to sever ties with a government no longer serving their needs.
    Our constitution was a document to form a working government, it was not our founding document.
    Yelling the south had no right to sever ties with the north does not magically make a law that the south couldn’t leave. There was no such provision that A state could not leave.
    Yes the south drafted, as did the north, as did the colonies.
    The south population was eight million. About two point six million adult males of military age. They would field about nine hundred thousand.
    During the ARW the population was two million. About one fourth of eight. So they should have fielded two and a half thousand men to equal.
    Hmmm.
    You can conscript a man but you can’t give him an esprit de corps. Right up to the final battles the Southern army remained tough.
    The Richmond line was held by one man every three yards.and it held through that terrible starving winter of ‘65.
    The south consented to its new government far more then the colonial consented to the revolution.
     
  11. Oct 16, 2019 #2191

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    69 Cal.

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2018
    Messages:
    3,048
    Likes Received:
    1,153
    Do you have a copy of that document?
    While you are looking for it, Can you also provide the names of the southern states that voted for the document that superseded the founding document once we won the war ?
    And, for those states that weren't states at the time of the founding, what is their standing ?
    Missouri was part of France, so “Vive la France”, since they never declared independence from France.
    Oh! and Texas, del af Mexico.
     
    Straekat likes this.
  12. Oct 16, 2019 #2192

    Straekat

    Straekat

    Straekat

    40 cal - b

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2018
    Messages:
    409
    Likes Received:
    175
    Location:
    Yohogania
    The southern states had a large number of men that resisted being inducted by heading for hills, swamps, and other places to hide. The number of deserters during the later part of the war may have been as large as 25 percent of all of the southern armies. So much for southern esprit de corps.

    Your last sentence is unverifiable OPINION, not something that can be quantified and thus not actually comparable.
     
  13. Oct 16, 2019 #2193

    arcticap

    arcticap

    arcticap

    54 Cal.

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,303
    Likes Received:
    373
    Location:
    Central Connecticut
    I apologize for not being more clear in my last post above about what the definition of "modernization" and "global modernization" means is as it relates to the south and the civil war.
    I should have referred to it as the south's lack of modernization compared to the Union states.
    The south really didn't have much of any industrial modernization to augment its agrarian economy compared to the Union.


    One way of looking at:

    ‘Modernization,’ in social science, refers to the transition from a traditional, rural, agrarian society to a secular, urban, industrial society. Modernization encompasses profound economic, social, political, and cultural changes, but the process of industrialization is at its core. The modernization syndrome includes urbanization, the application of science and technology, rapidly increasing occupational specialization, rising bureaucratization, and rising educational levels. However, the motivating force behind the process is the fact that industrialization is a way to escape the poverty and helplessness of subsistence agriculture. Industrialization makes it possible to enormously increase a society's wealth.

    And this:

    Modernization is complex due to internal causes, self-developing, self-transforming societies.
    An example of this type of modernization, starting with the New Age, is the development of Western Europe and North America.
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2019
  14. Oct 17, 2019 #2194

    tenngun

    tenngun

    tenngun

    Cannon

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Messages:
    10,654
    Likes Received:
    1,320
    Location:
    Republic mo
    Yes and you may have it too Declaration of Independence
     
  15. Oct 17, 2019 #2195

    tenngun

    tenngun

    tenngun

    Cannon

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Messages:
    10,654
    Likes Received:
    1,320
    Location:
    Republic mo
    Just look at the numbers, one half of adult males fought on the Southren side.
     
  16. Oct 17, 2019 #2196

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    69 Cal.

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2018
    Messages:
    3,048
    Likes Received:
    1,153
    You mean this one ?
    Hey, look United is capitalized.
    [​IMG]
     
  17. Oct 17, 2019 #2197

    Straekat

    Straekat

    Straekat

    40 cal - b

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2018
    Messages:
    409
    Likes Received:
    175
    Location:
    Yohogania
    Look at the census figures:

    https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1864/dec/1860a.html

    You can put a man into a uniform, but you can't make him fight.

    https://www.essentialcivilwarcurriculum.com/desertion,-cowardice-and-punishment.html

    The south was able to field somewhere between 700,000 to 850,000 men during the war. The numbers are estimates because many records were intentionally destroyed rather than let them be captured at the end of the war.

    Although men might be in uniform, there was a need for "Home Guard" units that were entirely local, whose duties were to patrol roads, watch for runaway slaves, look for deserters, round up conscripts for military service, and related duties. Then there were state militia units, which were purely for local use within the state, not for national service.

    While the numbers are only general, what is relevant is the rate of conscription in the south as a percentage was almost double that of the north (6% in the north, and 12% in the south), and desertion was a critical problem to the south's manpower efforts to keep armies in the field. The estimated desertions by southerners has been estimated as being at least 100,000 with most estimates being closer to 200,000 men during the war.

    Those percentages, not the number of men fielded, clearly indicates the southern states and confederate government had a serious morale problem as the war progressed.

    The fact the south had to resort to state and national conscription in the spring of 1862, is a violation of the supposed idea that people have the right to create a government that represents their interests, and not one that can take their slave, house, mule or other "property." The most important thing any person possesses is their life, and all else comes second. When a government has the power to coerce a man into uniform and potentially send him to die for defense of a philosophical idea, that violates all those ideas you said a government shouldn't be able to do.

    Did the colonies conscript men? Yes, but then the process was uneven and had numerous problems. During the Revolution, the Continental Congress did not have that power, and conscription was done by the states, not "Congress" or any national government.

    In 1862, when the congress of the confederate states created conscription, it was the act of the central government, not the states, The difference is a big one, or should be, for anyone who claims state's rights are more important than national ones, and individual liberties. The confederate government violated almost every single principle you (TG) have claimed as the basis for secession and rebellion, yet nary a protest. Hmmm.
     
  18. Oct 17, 2019 #2198

    Straekat

    Straekat

    Straekat

    40 cal - b

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2018
    Messages:
    409
    Likes Received:
    175
    Location:
    Yohogania
    The census information makes breaking down gender/age/racial demographics for the entire south (north also) and that presents information that casts doubt on estimates the southern states put roughly half of all men into uniform.

    If you're familiar with a normal distribution of age groups across a population, the "50%" claim raises serious doubts, even with a considerable black labor force to do a great deal of work. Considering the southern economy was primarily agricultural, and most (about 85%) of southern farms were small holdings and those families had very few or no slaves), the farm based economy of the south struggled to survive with women, young children, and old men being forced to take up the slack in addition to pre-war duties they did at home.

    The 19th century estimates of military men in uniform, losses, etc, has been the subject of considerable re-evaluation over the last few decades, and estimates have changed, with northern battlefield losses being reduced downwards, and confederate numbers being revised upwards. Livermore's early estimates it seems were often quite loose with his accounting methods.

    An aside on the "numbers" approach to the war:

    Comparing north to south during the mid-20th century suggested the southern forces were outnumbered two to one. What the people reporting those estimates seldom considered was Union numbers included all men involved in a campaign, whether they were on the battle-lines or somewhere in the rear with the gear. Southern numbers on the other hand used different accounting methods, depending on the army commander, war front, etc. Lee tended to report only the number of combat ready effective, or men who were on duty in the lines, not in hospitals, on leave, those who handled supplies, etc. The newer results suggests the northern armies still had an advantage, but no where near 2:1, and something close to 1.25/1, which armies on the offensive will commonly try to have over those who are on the defense.
     
  19. Oct 17, 2019 #2199

    Straekat

    Straekat

    Straekat

    40 cal - b

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2018
    Messages:
    409
    Likes Received:
    175
    Location:
    Yohogania
    The Declaration is akin to a marriage proposal, not the actual marriage. The marriage is formal and legally recognized act, not the proposal.

    The Declaration is a political broadsheet done for propaganda reasons, and a post-facto justification. It does not provide a framework for an operational government and a body of law on which a government is able to operate. It is a set of ideas, not not the all important "how ya gonna do it" part.

    The original founding document was the Articles of Confederation, and that was replaced by the current United States Constitution.
     
  20. Oct 17, 2019 #2200

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    Carbon 6

    69 Cal.

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2018
    Messages:
    3,048
    Likes Received:
    1,153
    This is so true, the confederacy had to become the very thing they riled against.
    What I am curious about though, is how was the South going to pay for it's debts and come up with money to rebuild if they won the war in 65 ?
    Think about it, cotton was at an all time high during the war and fell after the war.
    What measures would the Confederate government had to have taken, to remain solvent?
    How would the "We hate the Union crowd" have responded to necessities the Confederate Government would have needed to implement in order to survive ?
     

Share This Page



arrow_white