War of Northeern Aggression

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by MrFun
The southern politicians were concerned with not being able to maintain power in a majoritarian government of the United States, took the route of secession. And thus, their institution of slavery was becoming more threatened.

They were more concerned with the notion of the Federal government being used as an instrument of economic struggle between north and south - the Federal government sure looked the other way at state sovereignty issues in the north (Delaware slavery throughout the war, Dorr's rebellion, etc.) while those same Yankee politicians took a lesser view of southern sovereignty.

I have also read one book, in which the historian argued that the seccessionists were in the minority, and forced this decision on the majority Southerners. Either secede from the Union, or if you remain in the Union, and betray your native Southern state. I wish I can recall the book's title and author. I will look at my list, and let you know what source it is.

That is incorrect as a generalization. There were regions in the south with strong pro-Union sentiment, especially eastern Tennessee, and northwestern Virginia. At the statewide level, though, majority support for secession was pretty solid, at least when it was established - Virginia first rejected secession, then voted to secede in response to Lincoln's unconstitutional demand for specially furnished regiments of "volunteers."

There was also significant pro-Confederacy support in the border states of Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland, as well as in southern Illinois, Indiana and Ohio, and in Delaware. It is well known that people on both sides mistreated and threatened sympathizers of the other side.

In James Robertson's biography of Stonewall Jackson, he gives considerable treatment to Jackson's estrangement from his sister (to whom he'd always been especially close) along with his efforts to protect her from retribution, and also to the eventual exile north of his former father-in-law George Junkin, who was driven from his post as president of Washington College (now Washington and Lee University, next to VMI. At the local level, there was a lot of divisiveness and bitterness towards those who disagreed with the majority view in their area.

However, that's a long way from a general (and inaccurate) assertion that secession was not popularly supported by the majority within each state. (we're talking franchised majority, not some revisionist hypothetical)

[OldWarrior_42]

As usual... you portray your thoughts on the matter quite well, Mike.

Just that I wish you were not a Southern Revisionist. I am neither a Northerner nor Southerner in my views. I just call it as I have read and learned about it.

I call it a Civil War simply because it was a war on our own turf, between our own families. Whether one side was recognized as a sovereign nation or not matters nothing to me. I just see it as a Civil War. It was not Northern Aggression anymore than it was Southern Rebellion or Resistance. Both sides had their faults to be sure.

My only comment to Floyd in this thread, though ... was his comparison of the attack on Fort Sumter being similar to an Embassy withdrawal in modern times from a foreign nation. Bad analogy as far as I thought.

And some of his views just seemed odd to me. I don't want to go into details because then it may look like I am just bashing on him. Lets just say that we both disagree on many issues.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by MrFun
My undergrad major is History, and I plan to go to graduate school after I graduate. Then I plan to someday be a professor, and teach undergrad college students U.S. history.

I have a particular interest in United State's history from 1850's through the 1880's.

Westward expansion, organization of new territory, and the admission of new states was intertwined with the issue of the expansion or constriction of slavery in antebellum United States.

Slavery became the central issue throughout the antebellum era, and by the time the Civil War erupted, slavery's fate was sealed. It became abolished through the act of war, and emancipation.

The southern politicians were concerned with not being able to maintain power in a majoritarian government of the United States, took the route of secession. And thus, their institution of slavery was becoming more threatened.

I have also read one book, in which the historian argued that the seccessionists were in the minority, and forced this decision on the majority Southerners. Either secede from the Union, or if you remain in the Union, and betray your native Southern state. I wish I can recall the book's title and author. I will look at my list, and let you know what source it is.

Sorry for my self-quote, but I located the source that is related with the last paragraph of my quoted post above. The book is titled "The Reintegration of American History—Slavery and the Civil War" by William W. Freehling.

And if you want to talk about crimes against humanity during the Civil War, do not forget the black soldiers who were massacred after surrenduring to Confederate soldiers.

Michael is right --- it's a very basic fact that abolition of slavery did not take place until direct military occupation by Union troops in parts of the Confederacy.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

That is incorrect as a generalization. There were regions in the south with strong pro-Union sentiment, especially eastern Tennessee, and northwestern Virginia. At the statewide level, though, majority support for secession was pretty solid, at least when it was established - Virginia first rejected secession, then voted to secede in response to Lincoln's unconstitutional demand for specially furnished regiments of "volunteers."

There was also significant pro-Confederacy support in the border states of Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland, as well as in southern Illinois, Indiana and Ohio, and in Delaware. It is well known that people on both sides mistreated and threatened sympathizers of the other side.

In regards to this part of your comments, thanks for reiterating on something I already knew. But I disagree with your comment about Virginia's decision to secede from the Union.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by GP

"The War of Northern Aggression" sounds overwrought. Never heard that much.

It's a joke - sure is fun to watch some people splut and sputter when they hear it - just good ol' southern chain pullin' is all it is.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by OldWarrior_42
As usual... you portray your thoughts on the matter quite well, Mike.

Just that I wish you were not a Southern Revisionist.

I'm not one in fact - just some folk like to put that label on any of us who have something other than the "evil monolithic slaveholding south" against the "glorious Yankee guardians of virtue and goodness" view of things.

In some respects, I'm more scathing towards the south than any die-hard Yankee - especially with respect to southern politicians, Davis's military micromismanagement, and southern economic policy (to the extent you could call it that).

Mr Fun - the record of the two votes on Virginia secession is clear. The first vote, prior to Lincoln's call for Virginia to furnish troops for an invasion of a sister state, was strongly against secession. The second vote, prompted by Lincoln's directive to the states, resulted in a very strong shift in favor - the net result was the Confederacy added four states, and three states declared themselves neutral, while remaining in the Union.

Although I think you might be disagreeing on my view of the constitutionality of Lincoln's call for state volunteers.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Oh yeah - and SnowFire - if you can dig up that post in question, and throw it in here, I'll have a go with you on the subject of Fort Barrancas.

[OldWarrior_42]

I don't very much like the tone of your voice, young man. :-P~~

You are evil.

Rebel bastard.

[TCO]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


It's a joke - sure is fun to watch some people splut and sputter when they hear it - just good ol' southern chain pullin' is all it is.

Figured.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by OldWarrior_42
I don't very much like the tone of your voice, young man. :-P~~

You are evil.

I do try my best.

Rebel bastard.

And damn proud of it.

[OldWarrior_42]

You know, usually when you post in a serious thread, I tend to take you in that manner... so I assume if you call yourself a Southern Revisionist... then I imagined that that was what you were. But......

.... It never appeared to me that way in your posts as you do post about the War in straightforward facts. Not in a southern or northern favor... as it should be.

You're still a Rebel Bastard though.

[SnowFire]

MtG: Sure. If you've got your page count set to max like I have, it should be right at the top of the page. But post number 101, presumably. Date 19-02-2002 21:06.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42539&perpage=50&pagenumber=4

And oh yah, note that I never made the "might makes right" claim, and in fact IIRC Lincoln said something along the lines of "let us hope right makes might." Seems like it did, eh? ;-)

[MrFun]

That "rebel bastard" even assumed I was generalizing in my previous post on this thread. And on that assumption, he posted information I already knew, assuming I did not know that.

MTG -- next time ask me what you would like me to elaborate on, instead of assuming I made generalization. thanks

[OldWarrior_42]

Yeah... but I call him Rebel Bastard from a long standing friendship going back a few years now to Alpha OWO.

I took his Dam Yankee comments at the time, to heart when I shouldn't have. Now it is a kind of respect joke thing. As he has with a couple of us other Dam Yankees as well. ( Chris comes to mind)

And I'm a NY Yankee... the worse kind.

[OldWarrior_42]

I'm just stuck now, living in NC with all these Rebels.

:-P~~