AH Challenge: no confederate nostolgia

[wkwillis]

'without a single southern vote'

1. Lincoln didn't get a lot of votes in the seceding states because they wouldn't let him on the ballot.
2. He certainly would have gotten all the black votes, if they let the black people vote.

 

[wkwillis]

Confederate motives

As far as I know the only Confederate customs the North ever trampled on was the right to own slaves.
Nowadays the North and especially the West is splitting off from the South for cultural reasons, but this was not true in 1861. Possibly prohibition had more support in the North than the South? But prohibition did not pass till 1919 and with a southerner in the White House at the time.

 

[atreides]

atreides: Re your concerns regarding the use of the words 'substantially ignorant'. Sorry if you took offense, but words have meanings, and here the meanings strike me as appropriate. Ignorant, unless I am mistaken, means without knowlege of, or generally uninformed as to the substance of, a given entity. We could quibble abit about the definition, but I suspect that we could quickly come to some sort of general agreement there. I prefaced my use of the word 'ignorant' with 'substantially' because I don't believe that you are completely ignorant. On the other hand, referring to the south (as a group of people over many decades of existence) as irrational and racist is in fact evidence of substantial ignorance of these poeple and their history. I don't suggest you did so with malice, and in fact would argue that ignorance (substantial or otherwise) is something of an excuse.

atreides: Re your concerns regarding the use of the words 'substantially ignorant'. Sorry if you took offense, but words have meanings, and here the meanings strike me as appropriate. Ignorant, unless I am mistaken, means without knowlege of, or generally uninformed as to the substance of, a given entity. We could quibble abit about the definition, but I suspect that we could quickly come to some sort of general agreement there. I prefaced my use of the word 'ignorant' with 'substantially' because I don't believe that you are completely ignorant. On the other hand, referring to the south (as a group of people over many decades of existence) as irrational and racist is in fact evidence of substantial ignorance of these poeple and their history. I don't suggest you did so with malice, and in fact would argue that ignorance (substantial or otherwise) is something of an excuse.

Yes, words have meanings. Like hypocresy, sophistry and mere silliness, words that accurately describe your answer to the chance I gave you to explain yourself. Hypocresy because you know very well that calling somebody a "substantial ignorant" is an insult, and then you just went on trying to take the meaning of your own words out of their context, the oldest trick in the sophist's book. The whole answer was pretty silly, and reflected on you.

By the way don't be offended if I call you an hypocrite. It just means that somebody says one thing and thinks another. In fact I think you're a substantial hypocrite, meaning you're not entirely hypocritical. So don't be offended! That would go against your logic, my dear sophist.

And if you were trying to be "ironic", then consider this another irony, only better reasoned than yours.

Ditto your critics regarding my "generalization" on the South. I was obviously using the word "South" in the same way that one uses the name of a group of people/political entity/whatever in common usage: as an abbreviation of "the leaders/goverment of". For example, if one says "America wanted to go to war with Irak", it doesn't mean that 270 M americas wanted it...but I won't waste more time trying to explain to you your own basic debating tricks.

What you failed, purposedly or not, to see is that I was willing to be corrected by people like you on my ideas on American history, BUT I also wanted to be respected, especially as a foreigner asking something from your history in an educated way. But you like argument for argument's sake, like a child, and you needed to "make your mark", like a child. Whatever. But only a child would appreciate your style.

End of the conversation, man, and thanks for the data. Regarding the rest, at least I know that most Americans have better debating skills and more maturity than you.

 

[Scott Rosenthal]

Brilliant:

1) Why would the south (pre-1864) make major concessions (and emancipation was a major concession...even in the north it took 2 years to consider it seriously) when they didn't think that they had to? Until 1863, there was a general belief that the war would be won, and that the Union simply wasn't going to prevail. Under such circumstances, emancipation would have been seen as a shameful display of defeatism, and roundly condemned by all involved. This hardly means that the south was concerned only about slavery (as you suggest), but that they didn't feel the need to make concessions without any pressure to do so.

2) I am not sure what you are getting at here, please clarify. You were the one who said that all of states joining the CSA were slave states (correct), but I pointed out that not all slaveholding states joined the CSA, which would suggest that slavery was a necessary, but not sufficient condition.

3) I ask again, PRECISELY what could the southern leaders (if they had been competent enough to bargain, which they weren't) have offered? The midwest had an excellent deal with the north, and in fact had no real basis for any significant trade with the south. The south was almost exclusively export driven, and the primary agricultural goods that they marketed led them to policies completely antithetical to those appealing to the North and the MidWest. There wasn't much basis for a deal to be cut, and the south knew it.

4) No question that you are correct (I cannot imagine anyone voluntarily embracing slavery, but stranger things have happened...well, no, actually they haven't...), but the original point of the discussion wasn't whether blacks were going to support either side (clearly they would support the north), but rather whether racism was confined to one side or another. I believe we probably are in agreement here...

5) Lincoln clearly was not a supporter of slavery, but he also was NOT a supporter of the sort of militant abolitionism that was a driving force behind most of the Radical Republicans. I have no doubt that Lincoln wasn't going to do anything to extend slavery, and even take steps to limit its spread (much of this was going to become extremely difficult in the light of Dred Scot, however...), but there is no evidence to suggest that he was going to take steps to interfere with it where it already existed. In point of fact, Lincoln explicitly rejected this course of action prior to the war, and again after the war began. It wasn't until early 1862 before he seriously considered emancipation as anything other than a wartime expedient...hardly the policy of a rabid abolitionist.

6) Yes, blocking abolitionist activities would have helped, but blocking all sorts of other 'offensive legislation' would have helped as well. Fact is that the south did not wish to build factories and cities (they had some quite lovely ones, in fact...), the south was simply a different sort of culture, one that is quite alien to our modern sensibilities (I must say that I would have found it appalling, but to some, it apparently had some charms...). To adopt the northern industrial ethos was a surrender to them...and there is endless documentation to attest to the fact that this attitude wasn't limited to the planter class. Read letters (I almost said email!) from southern soldiers to their families, these provide incredibly valuable insight into their motivations for fighting (hint, slavery was rarely, if ever mentioned...)

7) Actually slave labor works very well in some environments, particularly those with bad climate, valuable crops, difficult soil and very very little mechanization. It isn't pretty, but it does work. The USSR is a bad example, as it took place AFTER extensive mechanization, which severely undercuts the impact of labor costs. There is little question that within a decade or two slave labor would have become seriously outclassed, if indeed it had not been already, in the first half of the 19th century, the machine was not (yet) supreme.

8) The problem with counterattacks are that it cedes the initiative to the enemy, and Lee always worked hard to PREVENT that from happening. The union's capacity to move troops quickly and attack on many fronts made a counterattack strategy very risky, particularly as the war wore on and the numbers facing the south grew larger and larger. The south enjoyed interior lines, but the distances, decrepitude of their rail net, and generally declining logistics situation made depending upon counterattacks riskier and riskier over time. I don't disagree that this was Lee's preferred tactic, but it wasn't a strategic approach that I believe he favored. Consider that even in 1864 and even in 1865, Lee was constantly trying to DISENGAGE from the AOTP in order to strike offensively at some point away from the Union main axis of attack. These weren't counterattacks, they were separate offensives...

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

It was the primary ECONOMICAL reason. But there were other reasons for the secession as well. The primary OVERALL reason was the loss of southern power compared to the rise of northern power. Basically, the South felt as if the North could bend or break any southern customs, traditions, or laws without the South even having a say in the matter. The federal interference with what the South viewed as strictly southern matters was the primary cause of the Civil War.

Pish posh. That's misdirection. How do you define "North" and "South"? One word: Slavery. The South's interests had, and HAVE, disproportionate influence in the United States - it was fear of loss of this institution that propelled the South.

 

[Scott Rosenthal]

That is how YOU define the south...that hardly means that this is the only way to do so.

If the south was propelled soley by the fear of the loss of this institution, how can you explain the fact that the vast majority of southern soldiers didn't own slaves, and in fact were often in competition with slaveholders? Read what these men wrote about themselves and their motivations in their letters home...

 

[Mark]

Pish posh. That's misdirection. How do you define "North" and "South"? One word: Slavery.

Slavery has not existed in the South since 1865 and yet there are still many differences between the North and South. Southerners tend to be more individualistic and generally opposed government programs. They also tend to be more religious, especially Protestant Christianity. As Americans continue to move around, these characteristics are being diluted, but they are there.

As to the original post, I'm not sure there is a POD that would eliminate the nostalgia. The people having those dreams see themselves as the plantation owners, not as the tenant farmers. The problem is that CSA nostalgia requires a CSA. So New England leaving earlier won't work (South is still USA). By the time the CSA formed, the attitudes were set and either the CSA wins or the Lost Cause redeems some "honor".

 

[Brilliantlight]

Brilliant:

1) Why would the south (pre-1864) make major concessions (and emancipation was a major concession...even in the north it took 2 years to consider it seriously) when they didn't think that they had to? Until 1863, there was a general belief that the war would be won, and that the Union simply wasn't going to prevail. Under such circumstances, emancipation would have been seen as a shameful display of defeatism, and roundly condemned by all involved. This hardly means that the south was concerned only about slavery (as you suggest), but that they didn't feel the need to make concessions without any pressure to do so.

2) I am not sure what you are getting at here, please clarify. You were the one who said that all of states joining the CSA were slave states (correct), but I pointed out that not all slaveholding states joined the CSA, which would suggest that slavery was a necessary, but not sufficient condition.

3) I ask again, PRECISELY what could the southern leaders (if they had been competent enough to bargain, which they weren't) have offered? The midwest had an excellent deal with the north, and in fact had no real basis for any significant trade with the south. The south was almost exclusively export driven, and the primary agricultural goods that they marketed led them to policies completely antithetical to those appealing to the North and the MidWest. There wasn't much basis for a deal to be cut, and the south knew it.

4) No question that you are correct (I cannot imagine anyone voluntarily embracing slavery, but stranger things have happened...well, no, actually they haven't...), but the original point of the discussion wasn't whether blacks were going to support either side (clearly they would support the north), but rather whether racism was confined to one side or another. I believe we probably are in agreement here...

5) Lincoln clearly was not a supporter of slavery, but he also was NOT a supporter of the sort of militant abolitionism that was a driving force behind most of the Radical Republicans. I have no doubt that Lincoln wasn't going to do anything to extend slavery, and even take steps to limit its spread (much of this was going to become extremely difficult in the light of Dred Scot, however...), but there is no evidence to suggest that he was going to take steps to interfere with it where it already existed. In point of fact, Lincoln explicitly rejected this course of action prior to the war, and again after the war began. It wasn't until early 1862 before he seriously considered emancipation as anything other than a wartime expedient...hardly the policy of a rabid abolitionist.

6) Yes, blocking abolitionist activities would have helped, but blocking all sorts of other 'offensive legislation' would have helped as well. Fact is that the south did not wish to build factories and cities (they had some quite lovely ones, in fact...), the south was simply a different sort of culture, one that is quite alien to our modern sensibilities (I must say that I would have found it appalling, but to some, it apparently had some charms...). To adopt the northern industrial ethos was a surrender to them...and there is endless documentation to attest to the fact that this attitude wasn't limited to the planter class. Read letters (I almost said email!) from southern soldiers to their families, these provide incredibly valuable insight into their motivations for fighting (hint, slavery was rarely, if ever mentioned...)

7) Actually slave labor works very well in some environments, particularly those with bad climate, valuable crops, difficult soil and very very little mechanization. It isn't pretty, but it does work. The USSR is a bad example, as it took place AFTER extensive mechanization, which severely undercuts the impact of labor costs. There is little question that within a decade or two slave labor would have become seriously outclassed, if indeed it had not been already, in the first half of the 19th century, the machine was not (yet) supreme.

8) The problem with counterattacks are that it cedes the initiative to the enemy, and Lee always worked hard to PREVENT that from happening. The union's capacity to move troops quickly and attack on many fronts made a counterattack strategy very risky, particularly as the war wore on and the numbers facing the south grew larger and larger. The south enjoyed interior lines, but the distances, decrepitude of their rail net, and generally declining logistics situation made depending upon counterattacks riskier and riskier over time. I don't disagree that this was Lee's preferred tactic, but it wasn't a strategic approach that I believe he favored. Consider that even in 1864 and even in 1865, Lee was constantly trying to DISENGAGE from the AOTP in order to strike offensively at some point away from the Union main axis of attack. These weren't counterattacks, they were separate offensives...

1) To gain English recognition. If slavery was an unimportant issue to them they can give it up at little cost for support that means a lot to them.

2) My point is that unless it was near suicide to risk the Union wrath slavery was important enough for the South to fight over.

3) If you think an area the size of the Confederacy had nothing to bargin with you are free to do so. I will however remain skeptical.

4)The point is obvious since no one has claimed that there was no racism in the North.

5) Which was my point. The South was so hooked on slavery that they couldn't have it restricted elsewhere. Besides if you are going to have "State's Rights" then it goes for fugitive slave laws as well.

6) War and peace are rarely decided by uneducated and poor people but by educated, rich people and in the South's case the Planters. They are the ones that their opinions printed and speeches made for. They can delude the uneducated people to believe almost anything.

7) It can work, just not as well as free labor. The slaves on a plantation had no real reason to work their hardest and every reason not to when they could get away with it.

8) It doesn't really give away the initiative as the North would have no knowledge of WHERE you are going to counter-attack. I may have been unclear but I didn't mean if the North just took part of Alabama you have to attack in Alabama instead of Kentucky or Tennesee.

 

[Scott Rosenthal]

Brilliant:

1) Until late 1863, there was no reason to assume that British recognition would matter, after that it was too late. Why would the CSA, thinking that such recognition wouldn't be important (believing that they would win) sacrifice something very important? You presume that the CSA would know that getting British recognition (something that was by no means a sure thing even if they DID emancipate their slaves) would be important, and that this would be important enough to embrace emancipation. Hence you define any worldview other than your own as hopelessly wedded to slavery

2) OK, then why did VA (which was immediately adjacent to the mass of the union's armies, thus arguably far more vulnerable than say, KY) secede and KY didn't? You cannot have it both ways. Slave states did secede, another other slave states didn't. If slavery was so important to them, why the different responses? As for it being 'near suicide', the border states fared reasonably well during the war, with the exception of MO (ravaged by guerilla warfare), and TN (suffered the dubious distinction of being the designated battlefield during much of 1861-3), depsite the attempts of these states to secede. The union lacked the power to enforce its edicts early on, the hindsight of knowing that the Union would eventually be all-powerful (something few believed at the time) is hardly a basis for the states behavior.

3) You were the one who claimed that they had something to bargain with, when you tried to make the case that the south had an alternative means to deal with northern dominance. Since this is a pillar of your argument that slavery was the key factor in the southern decision to secede, it seems that you should offer at least some evidence to support your contention. So far you just keep repeating that the south was obsessed with slavery, saying it doesn't make it so. Show me some evidence to support your contention...

4) No need for further comment, we agree

5) The south was 'hooked' on slavery? In (6) you suggest that it was inefficient and economic poison to them, here you say they couldn't do without it. Care to choose which is true? Why would limiting slavery outside of the south doom it inside? More to the point, why would slavery limited outside the south lead the south to go to war over it? Are you suggesting that these folks were willing to go to war to IMPOSE slavery on the rest of the union? Cite some sources for that one...

6) Ah! I see...so the southern planters were able to raise vast armies to fight a war that they (the soldiers) didn't have any real interest in, and in fact had significant reason to oppose. These were some fairly intelligent planters I see...especially since these same soldiers wrote extensively during the war and explained their reasons for fighting to their loved ones at some length. These reasons, I should note, were not those of the planters, and in fact were remarkably free of any sympathy for slavery either. Once again, you suggest that these folks were convinced to leave their families (no draft at first) and go to war to preserve slavery? Evidence please?

7) There is no question that in most cases, free labor is more useful. However, given teh circumstances that I have described before, the factor of labor productivity is not always significant, and hence its absence is less relevant. There is also the question of whether or not free labor (productive or otherwise) would actually work under the conditions that existed in some of the prime growing areas. If your contention is correct, plantations that did not use slaves (and they existed) would prosper more fully than those that did. There is not a shred of evidence to suggest that this happened, and more than a bit suggesting the opposite. Much of this would change of course as mechanization of agriculture (which stressed a high-quality workforce) caught on, but not at the time of the ACW.

8) I understand your point, but strategic mobility in the south was so limited (the rail net was a mess, look how long it took to send Longstreets troops to TN for Chickamagua) that the ability to counterattack effectively would be limited not only to a theatre, but to the locality within that theatre where the existing armies already were. The logistical infrastructure just wasn't there to support the kind of counterattack you suggest...