..._-_NARA_-_524905.jpg) |
| Infantry regiment in camp. [Probably 96th Pennsylvania Infantry at Camp Northumberland near Washington, DC, ca. 1861] Mathew Brady Collection. (Army)¹ |
Anyhoo ...
One of the blogs I like to read is The Angry Staff Officer (the title drew me in, the content kept me going back), there's the main guy and a number of contributors. You can always find something interesting to read over there. You might not agree with it (I don't always) but it tends to be well-written and interesting. Again, YMMV.
The latest post (as of this writing, natürlich) was very interesting, which led me to another, then another, then ... Well, you get my drift.
With all the controversy about statues being pulled down, history being erased, ad nauseum, there was a post I found very interesting having to do with a certain general who resigned his commission and went South. You probably know who I mean.
But embedded in that post, was this video, which I reproduce for you here ...
The officer in the video, Brigadier General Seidule (the rank he retired at), taught history at the United States Military Academy for a time, among his other accomplishments.
No doubt some of y'all will have your own thoughts on the topic and I'm keen to hear 'em. Just keep it nice and cite sources if you can, if you can't, well okay, I suppose I can look it up myself.
An interesting topic and controversial to some. But have at it.
Not the first time I've written about this fellow, probably won't be the last. I've not much else to write about today.
¹ And for those who wouldn't know, that picture shows to great effect what a regiment in column looked like, in the ACW, in Napoléon's time, and all the wars since Frederick the Great's up until 1863-ish. Bayonets fixed, one company behind another, though the men seemed to be faced to the right oblique, the formation should look familiar to those who know such things. But I won't talk about that movie, not today.
² The American Civil War, I have settled upon that as the Chant's "official" name for the conflict. YMMV, but I just don't care enough to argue the point.
The belief that the Civil Wasn't primarily about slavery runs into several large obstacles. In the South, there was no question that slavery was an integral part of Southern culture, various writers stated so over and over again pre-war. The original seven state that seceded stated slavery as a primary issue in their secession documents. All of the problems that existed between the North and South did so for many years prior to the war, but it wasn't until an anti-slavery administration was elected in 1860 that the Southern states took the step of seceding. Was slavery the only issue, of course not but it was the last straw for many Also the fact that the Lincoln administration was elected with a minority of the vote encouraged the separatists. Given the original compact I don't think that there was any question the Southern states had the legal right to leave, that was changed by military power.
ReplyDeleteApparently under the Articles of Confederation secession was allowed, I'd have to dig for that. Secession was not addressed in the original Constitution, nor is murder, so I question the "legality" argument. But you could make the argument that secession was not illegal, as nothing in the law prohibited it.
DeleteSecession was about slavery. The War of 1861 was initially about revenue for the federal government. Lincoln said as much at his inauguration. "The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere." He was correct in saying that the Articles of Confedation bound the States in a perpetual union, but when that unbreakable compact was broken and replaced the men who framed our Constitution did not include any such language. Adams, Jefferson, and Madison all wrote at various times that a state or states could withdraw from the union.
ReplyDeleteIf the only cause was slavery all the seven states of the deep south needed to do was ratify the Corwin Amendment, somewhat ironically it would have been the 13th Amendment.
Folks can write all they like about the Founders interpretation of the Constitution, but if it ain't in there, it ain't in there. And it wasn't.
DeleteThen again, as I mention above, nothing, to my knowledge, explicitly prohibited secession. But, as is often the case, might makes right. The South couldn't defend their perceived right to secede, whereas the North could enforce their remaining in the Union.
"nothing, to my knowledge, explicitly prohibited secession. " Exactly. And, per the 10th Amendment, since it isn't prohibited, the States retain a right to withdraw. But, as you say, might makes right. Once it started the Confederacy had no realistic hope of winning. MAYBE if it had been able to follow up on the Great Skedaddle after First Manassas and marched on and captured Washington City they might have enforced the separation. But that battle got the backs of enough citizens of the North that nothing would stop the war short of a Federal victory.
DeleteThat Lincoln held the Union together was ultimately a good thing, but the sea change of "the United States ARE" to "the United States IS" did, I think, irreparable harm to the Constitution and the power balance between the States and the Federal government. That and the abomination of the 17th Amendment pretty much destroyed the protections the States and the People had against the Feds.
Concur that the 17th is an abomination. Don't agree that the 10th Amendment gives the States the right to withdraw from the Union. Secession wasn't prohibited by the original Constitution which is really the key, don't need to find something which "gives" a right.
DeleteSecession was about slavery, except many northern states didn't get rid of slavery until late or after the war. And the numbers are in the 20-30 thousand slaves in The North. Especially in New York and New Jersey.
DeleteSo tell me the war was to free the slaves. When the Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves in the captured areas of the Confederacy.
Was the issue over slavery one of the talking points and one of the issues? Yes. But not the main issue, which was 'Did the Federal Government have power over the States?' That's the issue.
Very complex issues, involving tariffs, quotas, attempts by northern states to control manufacturing, slavery in the south (but not the north) and so much more.
The question of slavery triggered secession, secession triggered the war. Everything else is clutter.
DeleteI beg to differ with the General. Succession votes were NOT overwhelmingly in favor of leaving the Union. For example, Virginia voted to remain in the Union in February 1861. The feeling in the Old Dominion was that South Carolina and the rest of the Deep South were foolish to leave but had the right to. They just didn't want to join in. That changed two months later when Lincoln ordered military action against South Carolina - essentially invading the State. Only then did Virginia succeed.
ReplyDeleteIt's the same story for the non Deep South States - Tennessee, North Carolina, Arkansas. Only when the US military started action did they leave the Union, and then the reason was that Lincoln was essentially re-writing the Constitution.
I've written about how most discussion of the American War of Southern Independence is retarded. No offence to the General, but he's an outstanding example of that.
I need to see a source citing your "Lincoln was essentially re-writing the Constitution." Specific examples would be nice.
DeleteNow explain to me why slavery was a good thing.
Sarge, the discussion about slavery has turned sour. If Lincoln had not pushed the southern states into a shooting war, southern slavery would have died out in another generation or two. Ask yourself about slavery in the US prior to the war.
Delete-Who filed the first lawsuit concerning slavery? A black man who owned slaves.
-How many black slave owners were in the south? Why aren't they addressed in today's discussions, especially those for reparations.
-How many slave owners were the harsh ones we see in movies and documentaries today as opposed to those who had preachers and teachers to raise the slaves from ignorant individuals to educated individuals able to support themselves as free men?
-Note that the northern states did not desire complete emancipation for slaves as they thought slaves would vote for southern issues instead of northern ones. They did not envision LBJ putting blacks on the plantation with the Great Society.
As an old guy who studied Civil War history in both northern and southern states, the history concerning the Civil War was taught differently with the points about slavery but also with points that the war was really caused by uneven taxation and the uneven distribution of the federal budget.
-Before the war, southern goods shipped to the north had to be transshipped with a tax on both shipments instead of just the original shipment or just continuing to the nearest northern port unheeded. (I lost track of the book that detailed this abomination)
-The federal budget was built using approximately 80-90 percent southern revenue. The budget was supposed to give funds to build infrastructure in both northern and southern states. However, most of the money was spent on northern projects, especially railroads and only a small portion to southern industry and rail. (Abbeville Institute)
Note: I have read that Lincoln had interest in at least one of the northern railroads receiving federal funds but have not been able to run that thought down. Maybe in your research you can find an actual source document.
-Taxation was the biggest problem and today's teachers focus on just the slave documents and not on the financial documents or on the constitutional issues in congress at the time.
Lincoln's push for federalism instead of the union of independent states was where he started moving away from the original portions of our constitution. Governmental rights not specifically enumerated or prohibited in the constitution belong to the states and the people. Lincoln used the slavery issue to further his federalism push with actions such as not enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act. Various northern states passed laws to abrogate the Fugitive Slave Act clearly demonstrating that individual states have authority to ignore the federal laws and could act on their own independently as states. The congress was debating the succession issue peacefully and the issue would have been settled without shooting.
Lincoln could see the lack of federal funding disappearing and started the shooting war by sending the Relief Squadron to reinforce Fort Sumpter.
-The first Federal action to start the war really was Federal troops occupying Fort Sumpter and sending the South Carolina caretakers out on their ears. (Abbeville Institute) The Federal troops were originally on a smaller position in range of shore batteries. Of course, just like the financial documents, you don't hear about that action in today's history lessons. Even today, Americans do not realize that the budget isn't a budget but a continuing resolution. Nobody wants to put on green eyeshades and look at the books.
War Crimes Against Southern Civilians by Walter Cisco is a well documented book and you might enjoy reading it.
Bottom line was slavery. The old "it would have eventually gone away" argument is, and has always been, moot. We'll never know, will we? Keeping people as property has always been wrong, no matter how you slice it and dice it.
DeleteNow I'm not saying that the ACW was a great crusade to free an enslaved people, though that was the end result (and we're still trying to untangle all the problems which followed). The Federal gubmint has always had the best interests of the Federal gubmint at heart, regardless of what the people want.
But the peculiar institution was the issue at the heart of things.
So, if I read your second paragraph right, and the Civil War wasn't about slavery, then what was it about? The northern states wanted what? Hegemony over the south, seems probable. Disallowing slavery is a good idea. Would've been better if the first place they outlawed it was in the North. They didn't, so it's not about slavery writ large. Apparently, it was about, keeping the South in a position where they were weak and dependent. I think you hit the nail on the head. "The Federal gubmint has always had the best interests of the Federal gubmint at heart, regardless of what the people want." That was true then and is even more so now. Look at all the Federal agencies sticking their fingers into everyone's business (when they remember to pull them out of you know where).
DeleteThe Power to force people to do things that the people in power want, THAT is the issue at the heart of things.
My humble opinion, yours may vary.
juvat
My second paragraph means to say that the ACW was NOT "a great crusade to free an enslaved people," though many have painted it as such, both then and now. Slavery was the trigger of secession, which was the trigger of war.
DeleteI love how all the libs talk about ridding the country of slavery ,how about ridding the country of the criminals of the 13% .
ReplyDeleteHuh? What?
DeleteThat's a reference to modern crime statistics that show the majority of violent crimes are committed by a small percentage of people found in a racial and sexual subset of Americans.
DeleteIt is an issue that BLM (not Bureau of Land Management, the other BLM, you know, grifters) has consistently failed to address while inflating every attack by people of European ancestry.
Again, a complex issue. Sadly.
Muddying the waters of the issue at hand.
DeleteIMO the civil war settled the states rights question, the states wanted to leave the union and they were not allowed to do so.
ReplyDeleteYep. Sadly. Nothing like being told you could do something and then getting smacked for doing it.
DeleteRob - I could quibble about the concept of states having rights all day long, but I won't. But in essence, you're right.
DeleteBeans - Who "told" them they could leave? The key point is that there was nothing saying that they couldn't. Nothing other than the United States Army and Navy that is.
DeleteBah. Bah, humbug. I am peeved beyond belief that politicians have removed the Confederate Memorial at Arlington. Removed over butt-hurt feelings that have nothing to do with reality.
ReplyDeleteHas it been removed? Last I heard there was a stay in place. Why worry about that old business when we have a collection of ignorant judges in Colorado deciding someone is an "insurrectionist," based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment? Convicted without a trial. Crooked politicians and activist judges are the problems this nation faces. Everything else is just clutter.
DeleteGrowing up with Alabama-bred kin, my view of the WNA was a bit different. Crittenden was correct when he said, "All the wrong is never on one side, or all the right on the other." Northern states started talking secession in the1840's? Dave hits some good licks about the disparate taxation (echoes of taxation without representation). It was a wholly avoidable mess, but Americans were involved. And we don't like being told what to do, how to do it, or we are wrong. Never have, never will. Isn't it amazing that what Shelby Foote said is still true today, "It defined us, good and bad. It was a hell of a crossroads." It's an unhealed wound that still hurts.
ReplyDeleteI truly hate the term Civil War. The South didn't try and conquer the North. It just wanted to be left alone. I understood a civil war to be one faction attempting to overthrow the other. This was more like a mate saying "If I can't have you, I will kill you" and the object of that ire fighting back. Lincoln succeeded in taking us from independent states to a federal government system that now lords it's overweening control on dependent states full of tax slaves and grifters. Yay us.
The current mess including statue controversies are just so much smoke. Smoke from the smoldering wreck the we are floating on. Is the Republic even alive? Long live the Republic.
The South "just wanted to be left alone"? Then why so much fuss about extending slavery to the new states? (Playing "devil's advocate" here.)
DeleteWithout a balanced congress, there would be a continuation or, more probably, an acceleration of punitive taxation. The most visible difference between states was the slave issue. Pull that completely off the table, and look solely at the taxation issues. Dave outlines it above. It was an industrialized area financially standing on the neck of an agrarian area. It was already illegal to import slaves. It was just a matter of time until we did what England did.
DeleteI have so many questions about the RESULTS, that it makes me question the PREMISE. If slavery was really THE issue, why did the victors just drop it after the war? How do we account for the NIMBY attitude in the north? Why did the federal government just wink at the Jim Crow era? Why did it take 100 years to enact civil rights / equal rights?
The death of 500,000 citizens, the wholesale ruin of the agrarian South, the excesses of Reconstruction, theft of property by carpetbagging locusts, the outlaw era of the old West, and the resulting societal breakdown not happening, where could we be as a nation now?
Slavery wasn't the issue, it was the cause.
DeleteAnyone who says that the slavery question wasn't the driving force behind secession has to explain Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephen's cornerstone speech. A top Southern politicians lays it out explicitly.
ReplyDeleteIndeed.
Delete