Civil War: Cause?

[BLUEHAWK]

:cd:

To what degree, if any, was there a direct correlation between the replacement of the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution, and the socio-economic conditions (including the electoral college, gerrymandering and closed primaries) leading up to the american War of Rebellion?

[Tamaroa]

Oy-vey, you always ask the questions which make me strain my brain ;) Ok, here is my answer. As we all know, the Articles of Confederation was a failure. It was pretty much predicated on states rights. without a strong Federal government, taxes could not be levied, armies could not be raised, National Banks could not be formed, etc.

So they founding fathers got together and hammered out the Constitution (for interesting reading leading up to the ratification of the constiution, read the Federalist papers). There was a lot of angst going on here though because in the new representational form of government proposed, the north would have the ability to outvote the south on any regionally divisive issue since the representatives for each state were based on population counts. Therefore a compromise of sorts was reached which provided for each slave to be counted as 3/5ths of a person for purposes of representation.

Consequently the need for slavery to be spread as states were created was paramount so that the south could have a chance in voting down legislation that did not favor them. That plus the fact that the founding fathers did not outlaw slavery period in the constitution would lead to all the failed compromises, the fugitive slave Law, the Dred Scott decision all paved a road toward disunion.

I may be wrong but I believe if the founding fathers had found a way to abolish slavery at the onset of the Constitution, there would not have been a Civil War. I know there are probably a lot of people on this board who may think that states rights was the paramount reason for the war, however, if you think about it logically, almost every thing you can bring up including the Morrell Tariff which was passed after secession has slavery mixed up in it and therefore was a reason for the war.

Bill

[BLUEHAWK]

Holy mackerel Bill -

3/5ths of a person! In other words, although the founders would not or did not mention slavery in any way, they felt the need to compromise with the South and "count" votes, which then led directly to the spread of slavery (Missouri Compromise et al), which then led to John Brown and Abolition and all the rest.

Would it be fair to say, then, that to have agitated for Abolition might sometimes have been the same as voting to take AWAY voting power from the South? More so, or as much as, than anything having to do with the moral cause of freeing a horribly oppressed race of people?

Fer cryin' out loud!

And, how is it that today under a Federalist government, we do not have a criminal or civil code that applies to all States equally, nor even a United States of America driver's license? Seems like the only thing we have that IS Federal is a Social Security number, for all the good THAT might do someday.

Obviously, I am confused. You are not.

[Tamaroa]

Oh believe me I am easily confused. As a matter of fact, I served in the USCG (Uncle Sam's Confused Group) .

What is even more weird is the fact that one of the main reasons why the South lost the Civil War was the lack of a central government, to wit:

a)In North Carolina, they had warehouses full of confederate uniforms. Virginians were in rags, NC would not release the uniforms. They were still there in WW2 when the state gave them to the government for use by German POWs.

b) Georgia grew so incensed at Richmond that they threatened to secede from the Confederacy.

c) The lack of standards between the states created a logistical nightmare for the Confederacy vis-avis rail road guage size. If the Richmond government had had their say, they could have standardized the Rail road rail sizes and thus allowed for more more efficient transport of arms, soldiers and materiel for the war effort.

This is a topic that could go on forever (about the causes of the war). Personally, I think it could be boiled down to fear and pride on both sides. That is a topic for another discussion.

Bill

[Jerry D]

Ok here is a topic everyone can understand on why the south seceded. Today in California they have a big budget crisis and lets say for arguments sake that the US Government imposed a tariff that only affected the state of Maine i.e. the export of Lobsters to help California balance their budget on the money earned by Maine Lobster Fishermen. Now if you lived in Maine would you think that a fair arangement that a special Tax i.e. Tarriff was imposed just on you to help another state balance their budget? well thats one of the things the Northern Indutrialist did to the Agriculture based economy of the southern states. They imposed high tarrifs on all agriculture products shipped to England (who payed more for cotten then the textile mills of PA)Then when the South decided to take their ball and go home old Abe was in a pickle he couldn't let his Ill. constituents down when La. decided to tax all goods heading up the Mississippi river thru La. So Abe told the wayword states they could come back into the union and keep thier slaves but, the Southern States wanted some Tax relief and didn't get any and the rest is history .

[Keith_Hixson]

Most countries in Western Europe had abolished slavery. The abolishment of slavery would eventually happen and with the abolishment of slavery would come the civil war. States rights, slavery all played important part in the cause of the Civil War.
I believe that strong central government which came out of the Civil War enabled the U.S. to be the strong nation which enabled us to expand and eventually become the greatest nation in the World. Its sad that we couldn't have developed the strong central government without a war.

Keith

[BLUEHAWK]

Jerry & Keith -
It is odd, what might have been the true combination of causes for that war...I judge most of them were economic not moral, however. New York City was always THE most active slave trading port, and yankee bigotry against the negro race was every bit as horrible as anything that happened south of the Mason-Dixon... nor did it end with the Civil Rights Act in either part of our country.
I would find the federalist system of government more tolerable if it were in fact strong and central. In that light it might have been a significant error to include the 10th amendment which, in fact, creates enormous waste, redundancy, injustice, and actual degredations of human and civil rights in many cases. Perhaps, one day, our people will find a way to rectify this... and the Civil War might finally end.
It is undeniably true that back then in most other parts of the world, slavery had been abolished. My reading of the history says that America was trying to rid itself of the "peculiar institution" too, but as a fairly young economy had become quite dependent on that form of labor, south AND north. Too many other things seem to have taken place along the way, emotions got inflamed, people's livelihoods were threatened, loyalties were challenged in a governmental environment which had not yet fully embraced federalism. In the end, northern industrial power trumped southern agriculture, slaves were reluctantly freed, and Reconstruction fueled an onslaught of internecine punishment from which both sides are still recovering.
And, I am not quite as sanguine as others about the expansionist policies of our government. Many many people suffered, and still do, from those in a way that is impossible to justify, and which was not at all necessary. We decimated civilizations, expropriated their land and natural resources, made treaties later broken, and set the stage for resentments throughout the world by which America is burdened today. The hopeful aspects of our nation could yet be destroyed by our insatiable selfishness and arrogance.

We have a lot of work to do upon ourselves so that all the sacrifice of lives and treasury will have the intended meaning.

[Jerry D]

Thanks for all your well written thoughts :ae: and some good points noted also. I always enjoy discussing the WBTS i.e. Civil War .Since Websters Dictionary states that the definition of Civil War is when one faction trys to take over the Government. The South split with the US and formed its own Country and Capital and left Washington City for the Union so i.e. no civil war occurred :) One term for the WBTS some countries refer it as the 2nd American Revolutionary War. God bless the USA, and lets take care of our Civil War Era veterans grave sites no matter what side they supported because if we don't stand up for their rights now who will stand up for us when we are dead an buried? So, on memorial day plant a flag (Dixie or Old Glory) for your departed veteran and for the decendants who followed. Deo Vindice and E Pluribis Unum.

[BLUEHAWK]

Jerry -

I, myself... assuming the temerity to even use the first person prounoun in such a case as this is, have always preferred the nomenclature "War of Rebellion".

We shall not have further american wars... of rebellion, nor of revolution wherein blood is shed and dealt if Patriot Files shall keep the fair diplomacy of sincere persons alive against escalating rhetoric.

That war must end when, and only when, we ALL say it has ended, for all of time.

Much is at risk.

In the balance, a vanguard of peacemakers holds the key.

And then no more shall any of us need, "Look away, look away..."

[Tamaroa]

I love to debate Civil War topics. As soon as a lot of stuff gets cleared at work and I can clear the brain, maybe we can discuss a few interesting items about the War of the Rebellion.

Bill

[BLUEHAWK]

Bill -
Any words you would care to bethump us with would be most appreciated.

[Jerry D]

Bill, I agree I would be interested when your brain gets cleared, to hear what you have to add to the discussion.Thanks again for shareing your thoughts :ae:

My GrGRGranpa Pvt James Hut Watkins served honorably under General Sterling Price from Missouri in the Co.D, 4th Cav. CSA

[kmetz]

My great-great-grandfather, Pvt. Henry Clay Bryant served honorably in the 9th Missouri Sharpshooters during the Red River Campaign. My great-great-great-uncle, John Yeager McPheeters was one of the Confederate sympathizers shot at the Palmyra Massacre, Palmyra, Mo., 18 Oct 1862.

The Civil War was fought over money--aren't all wars fought over money? In fact the root cause of continued slavery was money. When the Constitution was written--the framers intended for the slavery question to be settled by 1806. They worked on the problem then and it was suggested that each slave in America at that time be bought by the US government and set free. They were to be shipped back to Africa or set up in a country of their own elsewhere. But the guys in Congress at that time felt the government couldn't afford such a thing, and the problem was left to set and fester.

BTW my dictionary says that a "Civil War is a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country or nation." Weren't we fighting in the beginning to stop the South from forming their own country? So you could say that the Revolution was our first Civil War.

[BLUEHAWK]

k -
I've always thought, like you, that the "Civil War" was fought over money, resources and land. I also think that abolition of slavery, a noble moral cause, was only brought into the debate when it became associated with money, resources and land. Had that not happened, then maybe the war itself might never have had to be waged.

Mike

[Tamaroa]

I ran across this essay while surfing the net, I think it ties in nicely with what we have been discussing.
===================
Who were these people were so eager and willing to fight for their cause? What was their cause? What enticed their enlistment? The levels and modes of enticement were certainly numerous. Some men joined the ranks out of a sense of patriotism and duty to their country. Honor and the fear of being branded a coward if they did not enlist served as a powerful motivator in others. Many in the South joined to defend their home and land from invasion. And certainly the pay was a considerable factor in making this important decision. In the North there was significant unemployment and many men were desperate to find work. That $13 a month looked rather appealing to the poor and unemployed. As the War progressed and enlistments began to fall, the Federal government authorized the 19th century version of a signing bonus-in the form of $100 or more-for those who would join the fray. In the South men were paid $11 a month; many poor farmers and laborers saw the monetary advantage in enlisting.

Preserving the Union was probably paramount among Northern enlistees, especially with foreign-born Americans. And some did indeed see the War as necessary for ending the evil institution of slavery. "'Slavery must die,' wrote one Vermont corporal, 'and if the South insists on being buried in the same grave I shall see in it nothing but the retributive hand of God'" (Robertson, Jr., 1984, p. 24). But this view was not of the majority. Most Union recruits, particularly in the early part of the conflict, were relatively indifferent towards the quandary of the American slave. Preserving slavery was an issue among Southern recruits, but certainly not in the minds of most. The wave of war fever and the sense of duty to their state, land, family, and posterity tended to stand above any other professed issue for the majority of Southern soldiers (Robertson, 1984 & McPherson, 1997).

The Civil War soldier took on many faces and backgrounds, but also carried among them many similarities. Most of the soldiers on both sides were farmers (nearly 50% in blue and 67% in gray). And those who didn't come from an agricultural background represented an amalgam of trades: "More than 300 different occupations were represented in the Federal Army, and more than 100 in the Confederate" (Robertson, 1984, p.26). The most interesting occupational background came from Southern enlistment stations, where some recruits listed their occupation as "gentleman."

The vast majority of soldiers were young, unmarried WASPs (white, Anglo-Saxon Protestants). The average soldier was about 26 years old (give or take, depending on the source), with some as young as nine and as old as 80. Average height among the soldiers was about five feet seven inches, the shortest Federal soldier on record being three feet four inches and the tallest standing just shy of seven feet.

Immigrants, particularly in the North, comprised a significant number of the Federal fighting force. More than 200,000 Germans served in blue, along with 50,000 Englishmen, 150,000 Irish, and 50,000 Canadians (Robertson, 1984). The Southern ranks also saw immigrants in high numbers, though they weren't as numerous as in the North. Roughly nine percent of the Confederate forces were foreign-born.

And then there were the native-born--the true Natives. Almost 12,000 Native Americans served in the Confederate army. The numbers were far less for the North with about 3,500 (Robertson, 1984). But because they were often purely treated. they weren't exactly loyal to either side's cause (can you blame them?). And speaking of the ill-treated, a few hundred Mexican-Americans joined up in the transatlantic west, namely Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas. Their being treated as subclass soldiers caused many to defect to the other side!

Of course, the American Negro saw his share of the military. Over 200,000 blacks served in the United States Army and even more in the Navy. In the South, service was much less considerable, though many free blacks did join the Southern cause as "cooks, servants, musicians, and teamsters, occasionally even performing picket duty. At times one of them would grasp a fallen weapon in the heat of battle and join the fight, but such heroic lapses were frowned upon" (Robertson, 1984, p. 35).

And now we come to one of the least talked about demographics represented in both armies: women. It is estimated that nearly 200, if not more, women disguised themselves as men and served in battle. Of course, most were identified quickly, but there were indeed a few who managed to continue on incognito even for years.

One such courageous lady was one Sara Edmonds, who enlisted in the 2nd Michigan Infantry in 1861 under the alias Frank Thompson. "In her account of her war experiences, she related that General George B. McClellan employed her as a spy during the Peninsular Campaign in 1862--completely unaware of Private Thompson's true identity. For her first mission, she blackened her hair with a wig and slipped behind Confederate lines at Yorktown dressed as a young male slave" (Robertson, 1984, p. 27).

Edmonds contracted malaria in 1863 and rather than reveal her identity through medical examination, she deserted and continued on with her normal life.

Another daring woman was Jennie Hodgers, a.k.a. Albert Cashier of the 95th Illinois Volunteers. She fought at Vicksburg, Nashville, and Red River and was mustered out in 1865. She even continued to collect a government pension by clinging to her fake identity for years after the War. It wasn't until 1911 she was found out, and even then the Bureau of Pensions continued her payments, for she was still a veteran entitled to those benefits (Robertson, 1984). Amen.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sources

McPherson, J.M. (1997). For cause and comrades: Why men fought in the Civil War. New York: Oxford Press.

Robertson, Jr., J.I. (1984). Tenting tonight: The soldier's life. Alexandria, VA: Time-Life Books.
=============
Bill

[BLUEHAWK]

Bill -
Thank you, so much for that.

As I was reading, these ideas crossed my mind:
- Some of the same motivators for a soldier signing up, either side of a conflict (anywhere, presumably) are identical today, or nearly so. I'm sure financial matters are high up there for current enlistees... a college education and bonuses today outweigh, surely, the pay rates they can expect. Cowardice was a factor during VN draft-era, not so much today though, thusfar, it seems...and one wonders at times to what degree enlistees truly understand that they WILL be expected to defend the homeland. I know it is drummed into them, but I wonder... we see that when a unit is sent/mobilized, however, they (and families) achieve 99.9% with the program.

- Today they are told, and readily accept, that their job is to protect american freedom, defeat terrrorism or drug lords/governments. and to help spread democracy. I wonder to what degree the troops do see that part of their job deals with democracy though, as a policy of our government, much like "Union" was for the blue? In Iraq, I am sure they feel they are liberators, as well as occupiers-in-fact.

- One wonders if there exists ANY "sense of duty to State", these days... I'd guess not very much. Is my perception off on this point? One doesn't hear much about units being from such-and-such State or city anymore.

- I'd never ever heard anything about there being any natives serving on either side...that would be interesting to investigate further, as to what might have motivated them to join, blue or grey.

- Other demographics of an enlistees seem relatively similar, considering the passage of a century... makes me wonder though if our volunteer forces might today benefit from extending the upper age limit for enlistment by a few decades... or, if we keep fighting in so many theatres, whether there might be no other choice but to do so.

- Today, one supposes, the only vocational gentlemen and ladies would come from Officer ranks or service academies?

- The story of Jennie Rogers is encouraging, from the view that sometimes the vet benefits DO flow according to justice and as much as to entitlement.

- Would you say there was an important morale role played in those days, at least up north, by yankees wearing the uniform in public, or officers in the south? I know I was able to do so, mid-1960s, but they aren't anymore... and I very much miss seeing them on the streets.

Always enlightening Bill, always.

[Tamaroa]

Mike,

Annie Heloise Abel wrote one of the first books about American Indians in the Civil War. It was entitled "The American Indian as Participant in the Civil War". It was published near the end of the 19th century. It was recently reprinted. Not easy to find though. My wife gave me a copy for our first anniversary 32 years ago.

There were alot of Indians in the Civil War. One of the more famous units was the First Cherokee Mounted rifles for the Confederacy. In addition Chief Stand Watie was a Confederate Brigadier General.

As for wearing of the uniform, I have mixed feelings about that. When I was in, our ship was homeported out of Staten Island, NY. With all the protesting things got a bit dangerous for those of us going on liberty in NYC. The draft board at White Hall street got bombed. after that we were told when we went on liberty to wear civies, it was safer.

After Viet Nam when things calmed down a bit, I noticed military folks wearing their uniforms again. But over the last couple of years, my son who is now a Naval Officer has been told to travel in civilian clothes so as Not to attract attention to himself. When he was a middie, 5 years ago, he did wear his whites going back and forth to his summer cruises, but now, they discourage it.

I was always proud to wear my uniform and was a bit perplexed when our military ordered us not to wear the uniform. It was a sad time to be sure when you could not trust the civilian populace to treat their military folks with respect and decency.

During the Civil War, uniformed soldiers on both sides were looked upon with great respect, all the way through the Korean War, I think the public respected and valued us. I think you can probably see a little bit of what happened in Viet Nam start in Korea though. To this day, Korean War vets refer to themselves as the Forgotton vets. I always buy the blue poppies when the vets come around as they signify the Korean Vets. My wife's uncle served in Korea. He doesn't talk about it much.


Bill

[BLUEHAWK]

Bill -
Thanks for a slender reference re: natives in that war service, I intend to do some looking into it more deeply now that this has come up. There was much intermarrying among my maternal line, Irish/Cherokee, at several stations along the migration from eastern port mid-1700s, through the upper south to their most sedentary selection of Ozarks and Oklahoma territories. None ever ventured much further north than Jeff City, MO latitudes (and only then on business). None of either side were ever more than subsistence farmers (one school teacher I believe did slip in during the Tennessee era) all through until those born at the end of the 19th c. and then thereafter. Being patriotic americans all after 1865, almost nothing was ever shared about on which side someone served, but having lived in southwest Missouri a great deal of my life, it is a fairly sure bet it wasn't predominantly with the north... particularly in view of battles at Carthage and Wilson's Creek, the ranger raids and, of course, the still present dissection of Missouri between north and south brought on, I surmise, when the secessionist legislature was run out of the capitol our direction. To this day, in some sense, one can almost "feel" where that invisible boundary still exists in travelling either direction. Indeed, the absence of very many major directly north-south axis roadways is still quite noticeable to natives, and somewhat proudly prized. Getting from Joplin to Columbia necessitates attentive use of a map to arrive by the shortest route. In any event, mother's family are all devout Church of Christ (OLD style, if you know what I mean), and it may have been too much to go into what might have been seen as having sided as they did.
My father's line complicated my life considerably when it occured, if one may say it that way. His mother was from Red Lion, PA, quite near Gettysburg, of so-called Pennsylvania-Dutch, who married my grandfather also of the mid-1700s Irish immigrations. Thoroughly, albeit strictly nominally, yankees by inclination if not heritage. My folks chanced meeting when he was stationed first at Fort Leonard Wood and then to old Camp Crowder, on his way to Los Alamos in 1944-45. In this manner Irish and Cherokee met straight-lipped upper midwest yankeeness, and all was not well in the end. Grandmother, on his side, had an identical twin who lived her whole life in Little Rock, further deepening certain philosophical differences I did not begin to grasp until in my 40s.
Eventually, in other words, after surviving what might well be called "yankee propaganda" in school as to the course and cause of the "Civil War", it was in trying to reason out some of the seemingly unreconcilable fundamental differences in attitude between my two lines that I began taking interest in the Confederacy at all. That was almost 20 years ago.
What followed was the filling of my free time thereafter, for about ten years, reading anything (I do mean anything) concerning the Civil War, no matter what the topic, length or disposition of the author on certain key questions, such as the one which began this post. Needless to say, you know better than I, such open-minded reading though naive, does tend to lay out discrepancies which then appear to undergird premises upon which modern patriots make decisions... terribly important ones.

[Tamaroa]

Lincoln vs. Davis
By Professor Ernest Butner (Irish)

Define the Problem:

Charles Beard, a noted historian said that the American Civil War was a conflict between industry and agriculture.
Alexander Stephens, a southern statesman said that the war was about states rights.
Horace Greeley, a northern newspaper man, and prominent abolitionist claimed the war was fought over the issue of slavery.
Abraham Lincoln said it was a struggle "testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated can long endure."
Lincoln said his paramount object was to save the Union, and if he could accomplish that by not freeing any slaves, he would free none; "if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union."
What would have happened if Davis would have said that his paramount object was to save the Confederacy, and if he could accomplish that by not freeing any slaves, he would free none; if he could save it by freeing all the slaves he would do it; and if he could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone he would also do that. What if he would have taken the attitude that what he did about slavery and the colored race would be done to help save the Confederacy?
Jefferson Davis was profoundly dedicated to the cause that he led. Many prominent Southerners, including Robert E. Lee, were troubled in conscience by slavery. Davis never manifested any qualms about either slavery or secession. His support of state sovereignty and the Southern way of life was based on deep conviction.
When Lincoln composed the Gettysburg Address he did not talk much about the way most historians perceive the war. It was his perception...The men who had died at Gettysburg, Vicksburg, Chancellorsville, Balls Bluff, Big Bethel, Shiloh...had not given the last full measure of devotion to free the slaves, nor to establish a modern nation nor to create an industrial empire. They died for the Union, and beyond that for the idea of democracy, so that the ray of hope sent forth by the American Revolution would never dim (Stephen E. Ambrose).
The issue of the Civil War was democracy. Lincoln saw to it that the North fought to insure "that government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth."
The constitution drawn up at Montgomery defined the new government as the creation of "sovereign and independent" states. Davis subscribed to the principles of state sovereignty but he was far less provincial in his views than were many of his fellow Confederates. As the South's chief executive he was tremendously handicapped by the deep and pervasive attachment of Southerners to states rights (Bell I. Wiley).
Davis was also handicapped by the excessive individualism which characterized the South's ruling classes. The individualism was a product of the plantation system. Each planter was in effect a petty sovereign and his exalted status tended to make him self-reliant, proud, resentful of opposition, and averse to teamwork.
Great men are never cruel without necessity. In war as in politics, no evil, even if it is permissible under the rules, is excusable unless it is absolutely necessary. Everything beyond that is a crime. Men who have changed the world never achieved their success by winning the chief citizens to their side, but always by stirring the masses. The first method is that of a schemer and leads only to mediocre results; the other method is the path of genius and changes the face of the world (Napoleon Bonaparte).
According to his contemporary critics, Abraham Lincoln's Presidential record was notable for his despotic use of power and his blatant disregard for the Constitution. Lincoln ordered thousands of arrests, kept political enemies in prison without bringing charges against them, refused these hapless men their right to trial by a jury of their peers, and ignored orders from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to release them. In his first few months in office he made the most direct violations of the Constitution in the Nation's history. He increased the size of the Regular Army without Congressional approval, spent money without Congressional authorization, suspended the writ of habeas corpus without authority and generally acted as if he had never heard of the other two branches of the government. He threw out the Constitution and retained popular appeal of the masses.
Davis lacked popular appeal. At no time in his life did he mingle freely with the masses under circumstances that might have enabled him to develop an appreciation of their aspiration and virtues. He never felt close to them, nor they to him. Davis never succeeded in dramatizing the issues of the war or in arousing public enthusiasm for their support. Confederates like to compare their struggle with the Colonial revolt against England. But their President was never able to infuse the Southern movement with the lofty purposes and timeless qualities that Jefferson and Paine breathed into the American Revolution (Wiley).
Jefferson Davis was known for his integrity. He was not always as forthright as he might have been in dealing with difficult persons and situations, but he observed a strict code of conduct with respect to money, favors and gifts. As President he repeatedly demonstrated his moral courage by unwavering support of unpopular individuals and measures. He had rich experiences in public affairs. He was an effective public speaker, known for their clarity and logic. He was profoundly dedicated to the Southern cause. It seems quite paradoxical when you think about it. Jefferson Davis was never known as "Honest Jeff," and the man who led the Union by basically ignoring the Constitution was known as "Honest Abe."

Bill

[BLUEHAWK]

Bill -

And, not to make too fine a point about things, wouldn't it be true that there is very little difference, if any, between "secession" and "revolution", in our July 4th, 1776 Declaration of Independence sense? You allude to this of course, so it is no wonder such a conclusion might have been arrived at in certain southern minds, based upon the political premises of 1776-1860.

Here's a speculative question only someone such as you might be able to offer an answer to:

If it could have been anyone else than Davis to preside over the Confederacy, whose leadership might have stood a better chance of leading them to victory, who would that have been?

[Tamaroa]

Mike,

A close look at our American Revolution will reveal that it was nothing more than a rebellion. Our traitorous forbears became patriots solely because they won the struggle. And as always the victor writes the history. Many years ago as a Senior in College, my history professor gave us an exam. the question was"Explain why you think the American Revolution was justified?" Well I didn't think it was and told him so. He said if that's the tact you want to take, back it up. Well I was the only student in the class that went in that direction. I must have done a fairly good job because I wound up with a B+ for the test and an A for the course.

Many of the reasons that are listed in today's text books are excuses for rebellion, NOT reasons for Revolution. It has been 29 years since I took that course but as I recall, some of my reasons were as follows:

The Boston Tea Party:

was supposedly a rebellion against taxes imposed on the colonists. Instead of destroying government stock, they destroyed private property.

The Gaspee Incident:

A British sloop of war was peacefully at anchor in a British colony when it was boarded and burned by rebellious colonists.

The Boston Massacre:

Tired British soldiers were just returning from a long scout when they were accousted by rabble rousers who began throwing rocks, etc at them. If you were one of those British troops, would you just stand there and be attacked?

Taxes:

The American colonies relative to the other British colonies had the least amount of taxes imposed upon them. Therefore they did not have a gripe vis-avis the other British colonies scattered throughout the world.

Wealth of the Colonies:

Charles A. and Mary Beard wrote a book entitled "An Economic Intrepretation of the American Revolution." Their theory was that the wealthy land owners wanted the rebellion to keep their money in the Americas. It is true that some of the colonists such as Paul Revere (a silver smith) were not wealthy landowners. the vast majority of the agitators were southern land owning colonists who had a good thing going.

Did they really want freedom and equality?

We all know that "We the people" mean white land owning males. "All men are created equal" was bunk. It took 625K deaths 80 years later to settle that issue.

No taxation without representation:

While this may have been an issue, it is a fact that the King appointed people to represent the colonists and even they recognized it was not an elected representative. During the Revolution, England tried to set up a meeting to resolve some of these issues. The Colonists disregarded the attempt.

I can't remember them all, Mike, but these were some of the issues, I brought up in my paper. My professor was very strict about backing up assertions with facts. Even though I got only a B+ on the test, I feel I made my point and he commented "good job" on the test.

The difference between revolution and rebellion (Secession?) is a very thin line. Lincoln's oft used quote sanctioning Texas's removal from Mexico is given as an example of revolution because allegedly, the yoke of an old form of tyrannical government was thrown off to introduce a new enlightened form of government. Well again, bunk!! Texicans were upset because the Mexican government expected the Americans to live by the agreements that they had made. In other words to practice the Catholic faith and to develop the land that they were given. The Americans decided not to follow the rules of the game at a later date and thus was born the Republic of Texas.

Was the situation in the south rebellion or revolution? Did the south have to throw off the yoke of a tyrannical government in order to function better. These questions are still open to interpretation. I maintain that comparing the Civil War to the Revolution is a dangerous thing to do because in reality the only thing that turned us from traitors to patriots was victory. What of the tories that remained loyal to the King? What happened to them. They who remained loyal, which in my opinion they should have done, were driven from this land and they lost everything.

Another angle to look at it would be from the U.S. government's view after the Civil War. It is rather interesting that not one person was tried for treason, is it not. Yes, Davis was imprisoned and Lee and Davis were indicted. However, none of them were brought to trial. That was for a simple reason. Suppose they had been found innocent? Then the whole war and the deaths of 625K men would have been invalidated. secession would have triumphed.

So better to let the issues go away and say it was the proper thing to do to aid the healing of the nation. Scholars far better trained than we will be arguing these points for many more decades. I doubt if there will ever be agreement as long a there are those who believe in a strong central government and those who believe that power should reside in the states. To quote the 10th amendment - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. "

That one sentence will be argued forever and ever as the justification for the war.

Bill

[BLUEHAWK]

Bill -
I had never once thought of it that way... I confess that at times the heretical idea has come into my mind that had I been a colonial in the mid-1700s, I might just have been considered a "Loyalist" (cripes, I hope some of our more partisan patriots don't see this). So, your expression of our revolution having been actually mmore of a rebellion resonates well with personal inclinations, but what does it then say about the fervor with which that war was fought for high and noble freedoms...

On the other hand, I am today a "Loyalist" too, i.e. faithful as possible to defense of the existing system and very wary of proposals to pitch it out... no matter how poorly it is functioning. I just do not, not, not believe that war, death, carnage, destruction ever solves the thing it set out to change. It seems, forgive me, so useless barbaric when there are so many better alternatives... but then it being also a "business" pretty much puts the method over the top, No?

Such detailed sourcing in your post... I sure wish it was you who were writing our school books. Any chance of that?

Back to my just previous post though, if you can stand it...

Who might have been a more effective and successful first president of the Confederacy?

[Tamaroa]

Mike, I would still have to go with Davis. The more prominent southern politicians of the time were John Bell of the 1860 Presidential election along with Breckenridge, Robert Toombs, Alexander Stephans and Davis. One might also include Virginia governor Letcher or possibly James Kemper a Confederate General with political aspirations.

They all were able politicians but the thing that separates Davis from the crowd was his service as Secretary of War in the 1850's. He was also a West Point graduate and a Mexican war hero. Davis in my opinion was the only logical choice. However, he himself wanted to be a general in the army. He was elected President of the provisional government of the Confederate States without even running for the office. In fact, the election stunned him. He was tending his rose garden at his plantation when a rider approached and gave him the news. there is no question that Lincoln was a better president. In today's terms, Lincoln thought outside the box. Davis while knowledgeable and able was also a bit rigid in his thought.

His service as Secretary of war was one of the reasons why the radical republicans wanted to charge him with treason. they reasoned that while he was secretary of war, he was secretly planning for contingencies such as the placement of arms and armories in strategic areas. Simply put, Davis was the best most qualified man for the job in the Confederacy. He probably could have done a better job if he was not so loyal to some of his friends who also turned out to be crappy generals (Bragg comes to mind here); and if he ironically had a stronger central government, he could have twisted the states arms for more men and material.

Regards,

Bill

[Keith_Hixson]

Those against a strong central government were defeated because they didn't have a strong central government.

Great War Machines take a strong Central Government.

Keith

[BLUEHAWK]

Keith -

Gotta admit there can be NO doubt about that... which is one reason I become nervous when ours appears to fritter away homeland security in favor of nation building...