The American Civil War: 150 Years Later

[VerseD]

"Who else could have declared a war against a power with ten times the area and a hundred times the men and a thousand times the resources, except men who could believe that all necessary to conduct a successful war was not acumen nor shrewdness nor politics nor diplomacy nor money nor even integrity and simple arithmetic but just love of land and courage--"

"And an unblemished and gallant ancestry and the ability to ride the horse," McCaslin said. "Don't leave that out."

Whether you call it the American Civil War, the War Between the States, the War of Northern Aggression, or the War to End Slavery -- for even the name is an evocation of division -- the bloodiest strife in American history began 150 years ago today, in the middle of the night, when Confederate forces began to fire on Fort Sumter.

Ordinances of Secession had been signed months before: "The union now subsisting between South Carolina and other States, under the name of the 'United States of America,' is hereby dissolved." Congressman Roger A Pryor thanked the Carolinans for "annihilated this cursed Union, reeking with corruption, and insolent with excess of tyranny. Thank God it is at last blasted and riven by the lightning wrath of an outraged and indignant people."

And with some men proud of their Confederate ancestry, and others calling those same ancestors traitors and slavers, and everyone turning and twisting history into something much grander or more forgettable than its real horror; and today, with a congresswoman shot in the head in front of a supermarket, and the squares of Madison filled with signs, and the federal government nearly shut down because all those men and women in suits could not agree on 1.9 percent of the budget and the question of abortion, as activists rallied in the street with fervent cries to "Shut 'er down!" -- how divided a house are we still?

The Civil War was not just a war for slavery, but against the rapid progress and industrialization of the north and the increasing power of the federal government, at the expense of a gallant old way of life. The rebels were, as Faulkner, the Homer of Mississippi, who I was reading this week and who made me think more about this than I might have -- Faulkner calls them:

those who had fought for four years and lost to preserve a condition under which that franchisement was anomaly and paradox, not because they were opposed to freedom as freedom but for the old reasons for which man (not the generals and politicians but man) has always fought and died in wars: to preserve a status quo or to establish a better future one to endure for his children.

It is in this respect, and in my opinion, a very instructive conflict: perhaps the most instructive since the Peloponnesian War. It was also devastating, ending only after four years of fighting and destruction and the deaths of 625,000 Americans. It was a war on which people find it impossible to agree, but it was inarguably during this war that the diverse states of the Union coalesced into one Nation under a strong federal government, a transition of power still in question today.

The personal legacy of the Civil War for me much smaller, living on the Pacific and without the heroes and villains of the South in my roots. I know some friends whose great grandfathers fought, mostly for the southern states. Many people living in Oregon today are descended from southern families who fled west before or after the fighting, to make a new life. They carried a lot of racism with them: Oregon was technically a free state but also discouraged freed or freely born blacks from settling here. The language of a law prohibiting black people from voting was not changed until 1927.

We also have, at a soldier's monument in Lownsdale Square, two small Howitzer mortars that were fired in the defense of Fort Sumter, retrieved from the beach there by an Oregonian tourist in 1902 -- one facing north, the other south.

[Ox]

Your friends' great-grandfathers fought? I have numerous ancestors who fought on both sides, but I don't think any of them are more recent than great^3. Maybe my family breeds fast.

I think comparisons to modern disagreements are weird -- there are mass demonstrations against a supposedly tyrannical government in London, but you rarely hear anyone suggest this has echoes of the Roundheads and Cavaliers.

[Widgetcraft]

It was a war built on propaganda, paranoia and abuse of power, nothing more. The high death toll can be blamed mostly on incompetent, aging leadership, and several significant leaps forward in technology.

[Superman's Dead]

When you look at how we operated as a "country" back then, I think most people would really be shocked. Going even further, to the founding, some citizens hardly wanted to be a union at all!

The civil war was problems we put off for almost a hundred years that had been left to fester and boil over. Everyone was at a loss for what to do, and we had some of the greatest political minds in america's history working on it.

[Dorkandproudofit]

What irks me is the number of people who still seem to show pride in the confederate flag. "duh-huh-huh, the war was about state's rights! Duh-huh-huh!" No, Billy-Jo-Bob, it was about Slavery, specifically, a bunch of rich asses wanting to keep the freedom to whip and torture and sell other human beings. All the other reasons stemmed from that. There is NOTHING to be proud of about that flag; If I had my way, There would be a national "Burn the confederate flag" day. Followed by national "piss and shit on the confederate flag" day.

Okay, I'll calm down now.

[Superman's Dead]

If you think state's rights had nothing to do with it, you're kidding yourself. They've been consistently the most divisive issue in national history. Everything comes down to that. Abortion, slavery, drugs, all of it is state's rights and always has been.

Edit- I mean, it's a chicken and egg thing, I guess. But slavery specifically was always a state issue. Always.

[Hemalin]

If you think state's rights had nothing to do with it, you're kidding yourself. They've been consistently the most divisive issue in national history. Everything comes down to that. Abortion, slavery, drugs, all of it is state's rights and always has been.

Edit- I mean, it's a chicken and egg thing, I guess. But slavery specifically was always a state issue. Always.
Those are only state's rights issues in that they are/were non-starters at the national level. If they could have been pushed at the national level, state's rights wouldn't have been a concern.

[Superman's Dead]

Those are only state's rights issues in that they are/were non-starters at the national level. If they could have been pushed at the national level, state's rights wouldn't have been a concern.

America never would have happened. Without strong compromises, there would be no constitution. If you look at how thinly the vote to adopt the constitution passed, it's very clear. Some states didn't even want a national currency. This fight was brewing since the 1760s. They hoped if they made importing slaves illegal in the future, the trade would die out. And even that concession was like taking a liter of blood.

[Kelegacy]

Go North! Go Blue!

[VerseD]

I think slavery was an issue ancillary to preserving a status quo, as Faulkner had it, of the dominance for the south's agrarian economy. The rise of free industry and new ideas in the north was overtaking Dixieland in commerce, wealth, population, and production, and the southern states would have to change if they wanted to keep up -- a terrifying thought, even today! The south had long enjoyed control of national politics,* and it was the loss of preeminence in the 1860 election of Lincoln that set them raving.

Lincoln was no revolutionary and had already pledged to preserve the institution of slavery where it existed: his Republican party was based around the limitation of where slavery could spread, not its abolition. This was not a war for human rights, and it's worth considering that those who worked for wages in northern factories had a standard of living not much better than the average slave -- not to excuse the institution.

On that head, I listened last month to a few interviews from the Library of Congress, of former slaves telling their stories, "from back when a dollar was worth what fifty dollars are today." (Available here. (http://international.loc.gov/ammem/collections/voices/)) One man said he had been liberated so quickly that he did not know what to do with it, was not prepared in any way to live on his own, though eventually he found his own way. When the interviewer asked him, "Would you rather have remained a slave?" the man said, "If someone had told me I was going to be a slave again tomorrow, I would take a gun to my head. That's no better than a dog's life."

* The old south still dominates today: while California receives 75 cents in return for every dollar paid in federal taxes, Virginia receives $1.40.

Your friends' great-grandfathers fought? I have numerous ancestors who fought on both sides, but I don't think any of them are more recent than great^3. Maybe my family breeds fast.

I think comparisons to modern disagreements are weird -- there are mass demonstrations against a supposedly tyrannical government in London, but you rarely hear anyone suggest this has echoes of the Roundheads and Cavaliers.

Yeah I think I need more "greats" in there. But I stand by a comparison -- what better way to understand the direction of modern politics or to avoid the mistakes of the past than by drawing parallels?

[Ox]

The south had long enjoyed control of national politics,* and it was the loss of preeminence in the 1860 election of Lincoln that set them raving.
Eh, I think that's a little simplistic. Yes, Lincoln pledged to preserve slavery: but as with many politicians, people suspected he was lying. Frankly, given that he was a Republican, this was not a crazy attitude. When discussing the causes of the Civil War, it's important to remember the distinction between Upper and Lower South: several of the most populous states, including Virginia and North Carolina, opposed secession until after Fort Sumter convinced them that this was a "war of Northern aggression." Weird logic, of course, but there you go.
* The old south still dominates today: while California receives 75 cents in return for every dollar paid in federal taxes, Virginia receives $1.40.
That's a pretty ridiculous measure: the primary cause of that is the relative poverty of the South and the fact that federal taxes and spending are highly progressive. By that standard, the ghettoes of Detroit are the most politically powerful districts in the country. Being a beneficiary of government largesse is not conclusive evidence of political power.

EDIT: Forgot that Virginia is a particularly tendentious choice, as it contains an awful lot of federal institutions thanks to its proximity to the capital. The District of Columbia receives $5.55 in spending per dollar it spends on taxes, thus demonstrating that the Americans who don't even have voting representation in Congress are the most powerful oligarchs in the country.
Yeah I think I need more "greats" in there. But I stand by a comparison -- what better way to understand the direction of modern politics or to avoid the mistakes of the past than by drawing parallels?
By drawing distinctions? Yes, sometimes Americans disagree about political issues. In this matter, we are parallel to every other society ever formed by men. But we don't form up in organized military units 50,000 strong and inflict 30% casualties on each other on a regular basis. In this, we are quite different from our ancestors.

[Ox]

One thing I will say is that Heretic Machine is wrong about the causes of the death toll. For one thing, the majority of deaths were caused by disease: in an age before wide acceptance of the germ theory of disease and in a country with poor infrastructure and severe weather, you can't really say this was due to incompetence. Moreover, the Napoleonic tactics in the war were pretty much required by the technology and politics of the time. Yes, rifled muskets had a much longer effective range than the smoothbores of Napoleon's day, but that didn't matter very much because as soon as a single volley was fired, the battlefield was obscured by smoke. Without the ability to aim, infantry was forced to shoot en masse blindly in the general direction of the enemy regardless of how long-ranged their weapons were. This is also why the bayonet was an effective weapon at the time: indeed, there were several instances in which units wielding rifled carbines were overwhelmed in hand-to-hand combat by units wielding larger but shorter-ranged rifled muskets. People slam the massed formations for causing heavy casualties, and they are right, but there weren't a lot of other options. The only alternative was trench warfare, but strategically this is only possible when you can pin the enemy against an objective he must defend (e.g., Richmond) and politically it was impossible for either side to accept the sort of slow attritional manner of trench warfare for several years.

[VerseD]

That is interesting. I never studied much of military tactics, despite studying most of the great tacticians, but I know a lot of amateur historians of the Civil War (and the World Wars, and Rome, etc.) who would elevate that above all other specifics.

Eh, I think that's a little simplistic. Yes, Lincoln pledged to preserve slavery: but as with many politicians, people suspected he was lying. Frankly, given that he was a Republican, this was not a crazy attitude. When discussing the causes of the Civil War, it's important to remember the distinction between Upper and Lower South: several of the most populous states, including Virginia and North Carolina, opposed secession until after Fort Sumter convinced them that this was a "war of Northern aggression." Weird logic, of course, but there you go.

You're right, there is a difference between Upper and Lower South: there was more industry in eastern Virginia and North Carolina, and therefore they had less of a vested interest in maintaining the old agrarian economics that the North had outmatched, which would explain their hesitancy to enter into a war on behalf of that dying status quo. The Lower South was more anxious for it, because they were falling faster behind.

About Lincoln, I can't comment on whether or not he was lying, though all my own study of the war suggests otherwise; in fact the general criticism is the opposite: that he was insincere about emancipation and was an incontrovertible racist (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,996904,00.html), and although my studies don't extend that far into his character, I can comment on the former.

Politically, he insisted throughout the war that his "paramount object in this struggle" was to save the Union. He wrote this in a response to a query by newspaperman Horace Greely, exactly a month before the Preliminary Proclamation of Emancipation: "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it. . . . What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union." He distinguished this "official duty" from his "personal wish that all men every where could be free." And he continued on this note, stressing the paramount objective of unity rather than liberation, even after Emancipation was Proclaimed, and notably in the Gettysburg Address.

One year after the Emancipation, Lincoln explained and justified that action in the context of the Constitution and the prosecution of the war in a letter to a Kentuckian journalist (http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/hodges.htm): "to this day, I have done no official act in mere deference to my abstract judgment and feeling on slavery. I did understand however, that my oath to preserve the constitution to the best of my ability, imposed upon me the duty of preserving, by every indispensable means, that government--that nation--of which that constitution was the organic law." Lincoln claims that when General Fremont and later General Hunter attempted the military emancipation of the blacks, and when Secretary of War Cameron proposed the arming of the blacks, he resisted: "because I did not yet think the indispensable necessity had come." Then, as the struggle bogged down, it was necessary; and when the border states refused compensated emancipation in 1862, Lincoln was driven to the alternative: "of either surrendering the Union, and with it, the Constitution, or of laying strong hand upon the colored element. I chose the latter." To him this meant no mean loss, and "a gain of quite a hundred and thirty thousand soldiers, seamen, and laborers."

So yes, he may have been insincere about all of this, and may have used the prevailing sense of desperation to excuse his secret goal of liberating "the colored people"; but I am convinced and think it is clear that Emancipation was a choice of strategic pragmatism, which happened to also be the moral one. The actual Proclamation declared free all the slaves in the Confederacy, that is all the slaves that the Union had no power to free -- it exempted the border states and areas of the south under Union control, keeping 800,000 people in slavery until separate deals could manage them, and emancipating perhaps 50,000 on the day of its announcement. In effect, it was an impotent gesture of abolition; however, the slaves within the Confederacy, which made up a substantial population there, might consider themselves free and turn on their masters or escape to the north, delivering to Lincoln their labor and depriving the south at the same time. This was the strategy, the "indispensable necessity," of ending slavery: it had nothing to do with the vices of the institution and everything to do with winning a war, and there is no reason to suspect that Emancipation would have happened under Lincoln if the Civil War had not forced it.

If I had to comment on Lincoln's character, which I do tentatively, because it is a topic of as much contention as any other in this war -- I would say he is one of those men with high and thoughtful principles, but practical enough to accept that they will never be made manifest in his lifetime. I remember reading arguments that, if he had long survived the end of the Civil War, it would have ruined his towering reputation: for although he supported the equality of men and the right for blacks "to eat the bread, without leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns," he expressly did not favor the right for blacks to vote, perform jury service, or hold office. He carefully moderated his politics so as not to offend other Congressmen. It was those who took up the banner of abolition, after and energized by Lincolns death, who delivered those other freedoms to the freed slaves, for a short time.

(This veers from the stuff of your criticism, but I always found it interesting, at least.)

That's a pretty ridiculous measure: the primary cause of that is the relative poverty of the South and the fact that federal taxes and spending are highly progressive. By that standard, the ghettoes of Detroit are the most politically powerful districts in the country. Being a beneficiary of government largesse is not conclusive evidence of political power.

You're right, it does not stand up to much thought -- but I always like to draw parallels between history and today, and so "government largesse" is, unfortunately, the only number I have to stand on.

By drawing distinctions? Yes, sometimes Americans disagree about political issues. In this matter, we are parallel to every other society ever formed by men. But we don't form up in organized military units 50,000 strong and inflict 30% casualties on each other on a regular basis. In this, we are quite different from our ancestors.

I don't understand. Are you saying that there is nothing to learn from the experience of the Civil War, other than how distinct we are from brutes who began it? One hundred and fifty years is not a long time.

I see so many of the same questions, then and now, about the rights of government and about the principles that must sometimes be sacrificed to preserve the Constitution; and I see so many similarities between the ideological rhetoric used today and that which preceded the Civil War, that I feel compelled to look back to better understand how that rhetoric can escalate. I'm not prophesying war or secession: but today we face the lockdown of the government by the refusal of one side to compromise. It seems foolish to me to ignore the wisdom of those of our countrymen who have gone through that experience, as if just because we have the Internet and tactical bombs we have transcended them.

[Ultima Thulian]

What irks me is the number of people who still seem to show pride in the confederate flag. "duh-huh-huh, the war was about state's rights! Duh-huh-huh!" No, Billy-Jo-Bob, it was about Slavery, specifically, a bunch of rich asses wanting to keep the freedom to whip and torture and sell other human beings. All the other reasons stemmed from that. There is NOTHING to be proud of about that flag; If I had my way, There would be a national "Burn the confederate flag" day. Followed by national "piss and shit on the confederate flag" day.

Okay, I'll calm down now.

Are you a college freshman/sophomore? Just curious.

[TheEpicOfTyler]

Your friends' great-grandfathers fought? I have numerous ancestors who fought on both sides, but I don't think any of them are more recent than great^3. Maybe my family breeds fast.

I think comparisons to modern disagreements are weird -- there are mass demonstrations against a supposedly tyrannical government in London, but you rarely hear anyone suggest this has echoes of the Roundheads and Cavaliers.

It's not that far fetched. 10th POTUS John Tyler has two living grandchildren. It's not intuitive at first look, but think about it and it's entirely possible.

That's all I have to add to this thread. :p

[Ox]

About Lincoln, I can't comment on whether or not he was lying, though all my own study of the war suggests otherwise; in fact the general criticism is the opposite: that he was insincere about emancipation and was an incontrovertible racist (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,996904,00.html), and although my studies don't extend that far into his character, I can comment on the former.
I'm not claiming that Lincoln was lying, just that it was rational for Southerners to think he was lying. I think you're probably right that Lincoln would not have freed the slaves (it would have been difficult to do it even if he had wanted to). But the South wasn't psychic, and they didn't have access to the wealth of information about his psyche and character we do today.
I don't understand. Are you saying that there is nothing to learn from the experience of the Civil War, other than how distinct we are from brutes who began it? One hundred and fifty years is not a long time.
No, but any analysis you might see in an op-ed is probably way too facile to be worthy of serious discussion. "Americans disagreed about politics in 1861, and Americans disagree about politics in 2011" would be equally true if you replaced "Germans" or "Frenchmen" for "Americans", so it's not a particularly enlightening comparison.

Some things which are peculiarly true of America in 1861 and 2011, but not so true of other countries: we tend to use a lot of religious rhetoric and reasoning in political discussions; our political disagreements tend to split far less on class bases than they do in European countries; and our political disagreements tend to be somewhat less directly related to individuals' self-interest than you might expect.
I'm not prophesying war or secession: but today we face the lockdown of the government by the refusal of one side to compromise.
This is not merely facile with regards to history, but facile with regards to the modern day. Obviously in any negotiations either side can concede the dispute, and so if no negotiated settlement is reached is it because both sides refused to compromise. You can make moral judgments about which side ought to compromise, but that's a much more loaded analysis and you ought to be clear that you're hurling moral judgments.

[VerseD]

I'm not claiming that Lincoln was lying, just that it was rational for Southerners to think he was lying. I think you're probably right that Lincoln would not have freed the slaves (it would have been difficult to do it even if he had wanted to). But the South wasn't psychic, and they didn't have access to the wealth of information about his psyche and character we do today.

But they did have access to the man himself, who guaranteed them, consistently, of his intentions and opinions: he said he would leave slavery alone, he would enforce the fugitive slave law, and he might even permit New Mexico to enter the Union as a slave state. I think it is a simplification to say that the Democrats of the day thought Lincoln a complete liar, though some certainly did. Most of them were, to use a facile word, overreacting.

Secession had already been contemplated by the states of the Deep South for a decade, for they saw no secure future for their "peculiar institution" within the Union; and after the failure in 1854 to make Kansas and Nebraska into slave states, even though there was never any real hope of success, the disintegration of the Democratic party and the victory in 1860 of anti-slavery Republicans proved the tipping point -- the moment in which the slave states realized their doom. Still, it was no unanimous decision: as you said, in the Upper South, less dependent on that old way of life, secession was at first voted down or not put to a vote at all; and even in Texas, Alabama, and Georgia, the issue was heavily contended, with a strong dissenting voice who said that withdrawal was foolish and unfounded, and that there was no reason to assume a hostile intent from Lincoln until he demonstrated it. I think this is a case where irrational and spectral fear won out.

But Lincoln was inflexible on the territorial question: any concession, he warned, would lead to an avalanche of new demands: "A year will not pass, till we shall have to take Cuba, as a condition upon which they will stay in the Union." His opponents were equally intractable, for their honor was threatened, and they would rather fight then and there than see a further degradation of their status quo -- wrote the conservative Edward Bates, "If we must have civil war, perhaps it is better now than at a future date." Here are men who saw no other options, and it was not so much about mistrust as about the inevitability and the terror of change.

There has been some argument that, had Lincoln taken a more conciliatory stance after the secession of the first few states of the Deep South, he could have prevented that of the border ones. But I think it was a strategic choice: having rejected further compromise on the issue of slavery, and opposing peaceful secession, his options were limited; and his attempts to encourage southern Unionists to rise up against the secessionist governments, and his attempts to threaten the southern states into abandoning their course, also had the unfortunate effect of energizing opinion against him and of validating the mistrust of those who had suspected him.

It is interesting that you say we have a "wealth of information about his character and psyche" -- nothing could be further from the truth. The documents to which we have access usually pose the same arguments that his opponents would have heard in person; beyond them, we know very little, and contemporary perceptions offered very little more. "Lincoln never poured out his soul to any mortal creature at any time," said his law partner, William H. Herndon; "he was the most secretive -- reticent -- shut-mouthed man that ever existed." Historians today treat President Lincoln as an enigma, and there are so many library shelves devoted to him because so many antithetical readings of the man are possible. But this is too much of a digression already.

No, but any analysis you might see in an op-ed is probably way too facile to be worthy of serious discussion. "Americans disagreed about politics in 1861, and Americans disagree about politics in 2011" would be equally true if you replaced "Germans" or "Frenchmen" for "Americans", so it's not a particularly enlightening comparison.

I'm struck by the thought that many of the comparisons between past and present, which I find very elucidating and accurate in an abstract way, would not hold up in court.

This is not merely facile with regards to history, but facile with regards to the modern day. Obviously in any negotiations either side can concede the dispute, and so if no negotiated settlement is reached is it because both sides refused to compromise. You can make moral judgments about which side ought to compromise, but that's a much more loaded analysis and you ought to be clear that you're hurling moral judgments.

You're right: I think it the Republican party, especially the uncontrollable Tea Party members, were primarily to blame for the delayed compromise; but that's a discussion for somewhere else.

[burger]

Are you two unemployed? I literally only have time to sneak in a one sentence post before my boss wanders in

[VerseD]

No, but I do sometimes question how I chose to spend my free time.

[Ox]

I write fast.

Verse, it's worth bearing in mind that my entire career is dependent on explaining why this analogy to a past situation is relevant while that analogy to a past situation is irrelevant. So I tend to be picky about analogies.

What's the relevance of analogies to the Civil War today? As you pointed out, the most interesting aspect of the Civil War -- that we tried to kill each other for several years -- is not going to happen again in the foreseeable future. It's an interesting time period that features several motifs you can identify in modern American politics, but what practical lessons does it offer a modern politician? 'Don't secede, or else Sherman will burn Atlanta'? Noted. 'Compromise is a good thing'? Not if you think of yourself as a latter-day abolitionist.

I'll confess I'm particularly suspicious of attempts to link modern Republicans to the Confederacy because they are usually transparently vacuous: 'the Confederacy opposed strong federal government and was evil, Republicans oppose strong federal government and therefore are also evil.'

Here's a less absurd comparison for you to mull: much like the current War on Terror, traditional civil-rights protections were relaxed in the crisis atmosphere. Lincoln famously suspended habeas corpus and imposed martial law, arguably more serious actions than those we have taken this century. Then as now, dissidents warned the country would slide into dictatorship. But after the crisis ended, the federal civil-rights restrictions ended. Maybe the lesson we should take is that we shouldn't worry about suspending civil liberties in a crisis.

[ShivaX]

Maybe the lesson we should take is that we shouldn't worry about suspending civil liberties in a crisis.

Unless that "crisis" never ends.

I mean a lot of dictators get there via "emergency powers" that never end.

[Ox]

Sure, but the American experience is the opposite: although the problem of secessionism continued for a long time, civil rights were eventually restored. Heck, we abolished elections for several years. But we restored their liberty on our own initiative. All evidence suggests dictatorship can't happen here no matter how reckless we are.

As for the supposedly never-ending crisis -- we weren't sure the South was loyal until 1898, and you can easily argue the crisis continued until the 1970s. There certainly wasn't a clear point when we could say, 'All right, now restrictions on civil liberties are unnecessary.' But we gradually restored liberties anyway, because apparently we don't believe in never-ending crises even when they exist. We should have kept the South under oppressive occupation for a generation, but we don't like oppressing people and lost interest.

[ShivaX]

I think its a pretty different animal compared to the War on Terror.

The War on Terror is more a concept. We can't destroy Terror's infrastructure and force a surrender.

The South had an Army, we defeated it and took territory. They could've gone guerilla warfare on us, but thankfully Lee was a better man than Davis and that didn't happen. Had it happened things likely would've gone a lot differently.

[Ox]

What is the KKK except a guerrilla war campaign fighting for the lost Southern cause?

[burger]

What is the KKK except a guerrilla war campaign fighting for the lost Southern cause?

The difference is that the KKK and the Confederate Army are two distinct entities where as in the war on terror who is the equivalent of the Confederate Army

[Ox]

The Afghan Taliban? They did field an actual army, with a command structure, a state, embassies, etc. I don't think an analogue to the Army of Northern Virginia is strictly necessary for this historical comparison to work, but that's what I'd choose if pressed.

[Vigil80]

Not that I don't see your point, but calling the KKK guerilla warriors is giving them too much credit, I think. A cult, club, organized criminals, or even radical political party, perhaps. But I can't remember the last time I saw reports of the Klan running a remotely successful campaign of sabotage and harrassment against the American military.

I'm also skeptical of the statement that the KKK aligns with a bona fide "Southern cause," particularly in modern times. That's probably not a productive avenue of discussion, though.

[burger]

The Afghan Taliban? They did field an actual army, with a command structure, a state, embassies, etc. I don't think an analogue to the Army of Northern Virginia is strictly necessary for this historical comparison to work, but that's what I'd choose if pressed.

I think of the war on terror as encompassing something much larger than Afghanistan...defeating the Taliban wouldn't end the war on terror where as the Civil War ended with the defeat of the Confederate Army (or surrender I should say)

[Ox]

I'm mainly referring to the first KKK that was crushed by President Grant, not the modern re-treads. Same name, different groups.

And no, the KKK didn't target hard targets. Like the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, they preferred softer civilian targets like the Freedman's Bureau. I encourage you to check out the wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan#Activities) on the first Klan's activities -- voter intimidation, attacking government agents, operating as the "military force of the Democratic Party" -- and asking yourself if they really sound so different from, say, al-Sadr's bully-boys. Most guerrilla warriors don't directly attack conventional military forces, in fact -- that's actually kind of the definition of 'guerrilla warfare'.

If you absolutely insist that guerrilla warfare requires attempts to seize political control over an area, I recommend to you the Wilmington coup (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilmington_Insurrection_of_1898) and the Red Shirts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Shirts_(Southern_United_States)). That should satisfy even the most discerning palate.

EDIT: burger, my point is that the Civil War didn't end at Appomattox. It didn't really end until 1877 at the absolute earliest, and really it didn't end until the 1970s when the federal Constitution was actually enforced again in the South.

[VerseD]

Verse, it's worth bearing in mind that my entire career is dependent on explaining why this analogy to a past situation is relevant while that analogy to a past situation is irrelevant. So I tend to be picky about analogies.

I like this! And by now you've proposed more analogies than me!

I mentioned the question of civil liberties, and I know of one quote by Lincoln regarding Emancipation: "I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensible to the preservation of the constitution, through the preservation of the nation. . . . I could not feel that, to the best of my ability, I had even tried to preserve the constitution, if, to save slavery, or any other matter, I should permit the wreck of the government, country, and Constitution all together." Here's the practicality that justifies the Patriot Act -- security paid for by privacy, and here Lincoln set a precedent not only for the necessary abandonment of civil liberties in desperate times, but for the strength of his office and the federal government.

I make no judgment about either side of the Civil War, and both sides were just as uncompromising and just as convinced that they were doing the moral thing. By comparing the arguments and neurosis and desperations of pro-slavery southerners to, say, the modern "defense of marriage" crowd, I'm not equivocating the two issues morally so much as psychologically: some honorable past threatened by a resilient new progress, so that the old guard feels compelled to fight now rather than be washed away.

You can also draw looser historical comparisons between the North/South divide of the Civil War and the East/West divide of the Cold War, or the split between democratic Athens and oligarchic Sparta in the Peloponnesian War, or between the West and Islam in the modern era: two antithetical ideologies, with fanatical leaders convinced that the enemy is not only wrong or immoral, but must be abolished entirely, until the conflict becomes a tempest of unreason. These are a different class of war, bloodier, not fought over territory or wealth, but for total annihilation and in the defense of ideas.

"The issue before us is one of no ordinary character," said President Davis, -- "We are not engaged in a conflict for conquest or for aggrandizement, or for the settlement of a point of international law. The question for you to decide is: . . . Will you transmit to your children the freedom and equality which your fathers transmitted to you, or will you bow down in adoration before an idol baser than ever was worshiped by Eastern idolators?"

And this speech, familiar in its scathing rhetoric, is made with what is perhaps the most tragic irony of these wars, other than the cost in human life: for the Confederate congress was meanwhile committing such infractions against their constitution and civil liberties, in a desperate attempt at victory, that they received pleas from all sides for moderation. It is more or less the same as Lincoln, who violated the Constitution to save it, and as the Spartans who overturned every statute of their old Lycurgan way of life to preserve those same traditions against new liberalism, or the Athenians who voted democracy out of existence when they thought it might allow them to defeat the enemies of democracy; Americans fight communism with McCarthy's arbitrary tribunals, and Muslims become so desperate to preserve their law that they misinterpret and violate the tenet of that law that says not to kill.

All of these issues are worth studying in their own right, but if you can understand one of them, you come a great deal closer to understanding the rest.

[Ox]

Interesting. But as I pointed out, the Americans are exceptions to the general pattern. The Spartans never regained their old way of life and the Athenians could not restore democracy, but Americans reinstated habeas corpus after the Civil War (although Grant suspended temporarily to fight the KKK) and McCarthy's tribunals were repudiated. Apparently we are the only people on Earth who can flirt with tyranny without going all the way. We must have a purity ring or something.

[Vigil80]

I'm mainly referring to the first KKK that was crushed by President Grant, not the modern re-treads. Same name, different groups.
What is the KKK except a guerrilla war campaign fighting for the lost Southern cause?

And no, the KKK didn't target hard targets. Like the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, they preferred softer civilian targets like the Freedman's Bureau....

So, what you meant to say was "What was the KKK except a guerrilla war campaign fighting for the lost Southern cause?" I think it's an important distinction, especially considering that I don't believe the modern KKK fits either my off-the-cuff definition or yours.

The Civil War and the "War on Terror" involve brutal fighting with idealogues leading the charge, and with the government making tough choices, right or wrong, about how to move forward. But that's true for every major conflict that comes to my mind. Besides that, I think Shiva was right in that they are largely different animals.

Edit:
Interesting. But as I pointed out, the Americans are exceptions to the general pattern. The Spartans never regained their old way of life and the Athenians could not restore democracy, but Americans reinstated habeas corpus after the Civil War (although Grant suspended temporarily to fight the KKK) and McCarthy's tribunals were repudiated. Apparently we are the only people on Earth who can flirt with tyranny without going all the way. We must have a purity ring or something.
Maybe this answers my questions. I agree. So far, so good, knock on wood, and all that.

[Ox]

So the lesson we should draw is that we should be quicker to restrict civil liberties. Thanks, history!

[Vigil80]

:p Rather, we have arguably been just cautious enough by the time the dust settles, it has generally served us well, and we should probably keep it up.

[VerseD]

Interesting. But as I pointed out, the Americans are exceptions to the general pattern. The Spartans never regained their old way of life and the Athenians could not restore democracy, but Americans reinstated habeas corpus after the Civil War (although Grant suspended temporarily to fight the KKK) and McCarthy's tribunals were repudiated. Apparently we are the only people on Earth who can flirt with tyranny without going all the way. We must have a purity ring or something.

This sounds like hubris to me! It's true that American democracy is resilient, but that does not mean it is invulnerable: I think it must be guarded as ceaselessly and carefully as a flame in a storm. Rome and Athens flirted with tyranny on many occasions, for centuries, before it finally ravished them.

What is the KKK except a guerrilla war campaign fighting for the lost Southern cause?

"--that race threefold in one and alien even among themselves save for a single fierce will for rapine and pillage," Faulkner called them, "who followed the battles they themselves had not fought and inherited the conquest they themselves had not helped to gain, sanctioned and protected even if not blessed, and left their bones and in another generation would be engaged in a fierce economic competition of small sloven farms with the black men they were supposed to have disinherited and in the third generation would be back once more in the little lost county seats as barbers and garage mechanics and deputy sheriffs and mill- and gin-hands and power-plant firemen, leading, first in mufti then later in an actual formalised regalia of hooded sheets and passwords and fiery christian symbols, lynching mobs against the race their ancestors had come to save: . . . a lightless and gutted and empty land where women crouched with the huddled children behind locked doors and men armed in sheets and masks rode the silent roads and the bodies of white and black both, victims not so much of hate as of desperation and despair, swung from lonely limbs."

I think of the war on terror as encompassing something much larger than Afghanistan...defeating the Taliban wouldn't end the war on terror where as the Civil War ended with the defeat of the Confederate Army (or surrender I should say)

Just as the Iraq War did not end with the proclamation of "Mission Accomplished," the struggles of Reconstruction faced after the Lee's surrender at Appomattox were in many ways just as serious as the struggles of formal warfare.

[Ox]

How about a compromise verdict, then: the odds of falling into tyranny after any given flirtation are low. If you roll the dice enough times, your luck will run out; but in any particular debate about any particular civil liberty, we shouldn't place much credence on the notion that it's a slippery slope. We could probably just abolish all rights for Muslims for a couple of decades without long-lasting repercussions if we wanted.

[burger]

Just as the Iraq War did not end with the proclamation of "Mission Accomplished," the struggles of Reconstruction faced after the Lee's surrender at Appomattox were in many ways just as serious as the struggles of formal warfare.

I don't consider the reconstruction of the south or policing Iraq apart of those respective wars any more than I think of the time the US spent in Japan and Germany after they both surrendered in WWII. There's war and there's the aftermath...connected as they may be they are still two completely distinct things. Wait...how did we get here in a Civil War thread?

Now I don't even know what's being argued anymore ;)

[VerseD]

A historian with a greater depth of knowledge than mine might make a good analysis of the role of ideology in conflicts by comparing the local reactions of the Japanese, Germans, Iraqis, and Southerners to their American occupiers, as ideology played a greater or lesser role in the preceding conflict.

I could at least and tentatively offer this: the KKK emerged in the south because of the injustice and despair of Reconstruction, and the Iraqi insurgency for many of the same issues with the US occupation.

[Ultima Thulian]

I could at least and tentatively offer this: the KKK emerged in the south because of the injustice and despair of Reconstruction, and the Iraqi insurgency for many of the same issues with the US occupation.

That's a bit oversimplified, but perhaps. Yes, the IronClad Oath was a means to the end you are describing. However, the KKK was merely trying to establish an old status quo, and did so with terrorism. The problem with your suggestion is that the KKK, nor the Iraqi insurgency, would not have been birthed or necessary if not for injustices committed by the United States/Union, which is a dubious claim at best.

The extremists and ex-Confederates of the South attracted to groups like the KKK and the Southern Cross were prone to violence, ardent racism, and a complete disregard for anyone's rights but their own and their wish to reinstate the old status quo, to begin with. The only conceivable way they would not have come to fruition is if the North lost or Lincoln allowed half of the country to secede. Don't even get me started on the insurgents, as they were largely groups that existed well before our invasion of Iraq during the Bush administration.

Short of not doing anything or simply being non-existent, these two aforementioned groups are going to be antagonistic to any one who disagrees with their methods. Diplomacy is not a viable options with extremists, as diplomacy relies on rational thinking and communication, something extremists are very rarely willing to engage in.

[TheFlyingOrc]

So, I've dabbled in research about the Civil War, but there's one thing I've never entirely understood. Obviously, I think that Union preservation was, in the end, a Good Thing(tm). However, I have never understood why Lincoln was so thoroughly convinced in its necessity from his vantage point. From a state's rights angle, I'm kinda with the South (although Sumter was a bit too much) that they should have been able to secede, even though they seceded over a terrible issue.

In short, I read again and again where Lincoln says the Union MUST be preserved. Do we know why he felt this way so strongly? I haven't ever heard the argument so I'm not going to call my gut reaction correct, but my gut reaction is to blame Lincoln for the scale of the war due to righteous fervor. Is there a reason history doesn't think of him this way other than "the winners write the history books"?

[VerseD]

Lincoln was a classical nationalist, an old Whig, formed in the mould of Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, and John C. Calhoun -- the Great Triumvirate, though Calhoun, Triumvir of the South, later switched to states' rights and free markets. Webster and Clay were all about modernization, protected industry, national banks, and a strong congress and weak presidency, and were opposed to the Jacksonian politics which today, ironically, form the central flagpole of the Tea Party tent.

The escalation of violence in war is never one sided. That being said, there are historians (Ramsdell) who accuse Lincoln of forcing the Confederates to fire on Sumter, because war was necessary to save the Union and the Republican party; and there are historians (Randall, Potter) who argue that Lincoln always pursued a peaceful strategy, and his early maneuvers were attempts at raising opposition to secession among southern Unionists -- who were not as much of a minority as you might expect.

In any case, Lincoln is an enigma. About the only clear principles he ever expressed, on which there is no controversy in modern histories, were his nationalism, that is the indivisibility of the Union under the Constitution, and his opposition to the expansion slavery. The Whig/Republican vision of a strong, modern, industrial nation would have ended if Lincoln had not treated the Confederacy as illegitimate and reasserted Union control; if he had acquiesced to the secession of those states, with all their federal property and revenue, it would have opened the door for all other states to withdraw as they pleased, over any issue.

The extremists and ex-Confederates of the South attracted to groups like the KKK and the Southern Cross were prone to violence, ardent racism, and a complete disregard for anyone's rights but their own and their wish to reinstate the old status quo, to begin with. The only conceivable way they would not have come to fruition is if the North lost or Lincoln allowed half of the country to secede. Don't even get me started on the insurgents, as they were largely groups that existed well before our invasion of Iraq during the Bush administration.

That's true, and it's interesting that, in both cases, the violence is not usually against the occupiers but against upstart groups within the state: the southern whites want to reassert a lost dominance over freed and land-owning blacks, and so do Sunni Ba'athists over Shi'ites -- again, simplifying matters a great deal.

[Superman's Dead]

:p Rather, we have arguably been just cautious enough by the time the dust settles, it has generally served us well, and we should probably keep it up.

How does that saying go? You can't be crazy as long as you keep asking yourself if you're crazy?

[Ox]

It might be worth considering the thoughts of Whitman, who was of course a great admirer of Lincoln:
Looking over my scraps, I find I wrote the following during 1864, or the latter part of '63:
The happening to our America, abroad as well as at home, these years, is indeed most strange. The Democratic Republic has paid her to-day the terrible and resplendent compliment of the united wish of all the nations of the world that her Union should be broken, her future out off, and that she should be compell'd to descend to the level of kingdoms and empires ordinarily great! There is certainly not one government in Europe but is now watching the war in this country, with the ardent prayer that the United States may be effectually split, crippled, and dismember'd by it. There is not one but would help toward that dismemberment, if it dared. I say such is the ardent wish to-day of England and of France, as governments, and of all the nations of Europe, as governments. I think indeed it is to-day the real, heartfelt wish of all the nations of the world, with the single exception of Mexico -- Mexico, the only one to whom we have ever really done wrong, and now the only one who prays for us and for our triumph, with genuine prayer.
I think Verse is right that Lincoln was a nationalist, and in particular he was an anti-Europeanist. From Monroe through to Teddy Roosevelt at least, every American President opposed European encroachment into the Americas, particularly North America. A fracturing of the USA would indisputably lead to the New World's politics being dictated by the interference of European powers. Essentially, letting the CSA secede would guarantee North America would be like the Middle East of the twentieth century. Especially since the South wasn't the only region that occasionally disagreed with federal policy.

I don't know that I agree that the Tea Party's "central flagpole" is straight Jacksonian politics -- the political issues of the early 19th century don't line up perfectly with the political issues of the 21st century -- but that's a tangent anyway. Also I think tents are supported by tentpoles, not flagpoles.

[Ultima Thulian]

Agreed, Ox. Versed is also correct in saying Lincoln was a bit of an enigma. The man was a shrewd politician and played his cards close to his chest. Very savvy.

[J Arcane]

So, I've dabbled in research about the Civil War, but there's one thing I've never entirely understood. Obviously, I think that Union preservation was, in the end, a Good Thing(tm). However, I have never understood why Lincoln was so thoroughly convinced in its necessity from his vantage point. From a state's rights angle, I'm kinda with the South (although Sumter was a bit too much) that they should have been able to secede, even though they seceded over a terrible issue.

In short, I read again and again where Lincoln says the Union MUST be preserved. Do we know why he felt this way so strongly? I haven't ever heard the argument so I'm not going to call my gut reaction correct, but my gut reaction is to blame Lincoln for the scale of the war due to righteous fervor. Is there a reason history doesn't think of him this way other than "the winners write the history books"?
The argument I've usually seen is that without a united States, the resulting two nations would've been too weak against the potentially rapacious desires of the Colonial powers to reclaim their hold in the Americas.

A divided nation would've been much easier to conquer. The South lost the Civil War, after all, and thus probably wouldn't have been able to withstand a foreign threat any better, they simply didn't have the industry or power to resist. Their loss was a foregone conclusion, and a more cynical person might even argue that in the end, the leaders of the Confederacy probably new this, and taking to insurrection allowed them to shift blame for their inevitable decline onto the invading Union.

Supposedly as well, the Emancipation Proclamation plays into this global power scheme as well, in that the British had outlawed slaver through most of the empire by this point, and by making it an issue it prevented them from being able to align with the Confederacy and thus prolonging the conflict and leading to a scenario where a joint Confederate/British offensive defeated the Union and then simply declared it's dominion over the now former US.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Thanks for the responses, guys. Very interesting. I forget that America has/had threatening enemies sometimes, due to that big ocean thing in the way.

[Ox]

A divided nation would've been much easier to conquer. The South lost the Civil War, after all, and thus probably wouldn't have been able to withstand a foreign threat any better, they simply didn't have the industry or power to resist. Their loss was a foregone conclusion, and a more cynical person might even argue that in the end, the leaders of the Confederacy probably new this, and taking to insurrection allowed them to shift blame for their inevitable decline onto the invading Union.
Leaving aside the ridiculous idea that the secession was all some Machiavellian conspiracy of blame-shifting, this does a disservice to the South's chances. The Confederacy came very close to securing a peaceful settlement at several stages, most notably before Antietam when Washington looked likely to fall and the election campaign of 1864, when McClellan ran on a surrender ticket. Lincoln himself described it as "exceedingly probable" that he would lose the election. The South couldn't conquer the North, but if it had won a couple more battles it would have worn down the North's willingness to spend the blood and treasure necessary to win the war. Our victory owes as much to a packet of cigars as to our industrial might.

[VerseD]

Ah! fate and Sharpsburg! Is there any more tragic hero, or any more noble cavalier in American history than General Lee?

And to quote Faulkner again on the other point: "Who else could have made [the Union] fight: could have struck them so aghast with fear and dread as to turn shoulder to shoulder and face one way and even stop talking for a while and even after two years of it keep them still so wrung with terror that some among them would seriously propose moving their very capital into a foreign country lest it be ravaged and pillaged by a people whose entire white male population would have little more than filled any one of their larger cities?"

Sure we know today that the Confederacy stood little chance against the superior quantity of men and material in the North, but victory and defeat are only certain in hindsight.

I don't know that I agree that the Tea Party's "central flagpole" is straight Jacksonian politics -- the political issues of the early 19th century don't line up perfectly with the political issues of the 21st century -- but that's a tangent anyway. Also I think tents are supported by tentpoles, not flagpoles.

Most tents, but not the Tea Party's, with such great and illogical patriots residing within. Sometimes our mistakes are truer!

[Ox]

Ah! fate and Sharpsburg! Is there any more tragic hero, or any more noble cavalier in American history than General Lee?
You mean the traitor who forswore his sacred oath to defend the Constitution, took up arms against the very men with whom he had served, and who perhaps is the single person most to blame for the horrific carnage of four years of bloody stalemate? If Lee is a tragic hero, he's King Lear.

[VerseD]

That's one way to put it, but I think he was a product of the times and of his upbringing among the southern gentry. He opposed and criticized secession -- "I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country," he wrote to his son, "than a dissolution of the Union" -- and yet when Virginia called in need, he answered with heart and soul, turning down in the process a prestigious Union commission.

He was tragic in the sense that all his folly was not due to a flaw of character, but to an excess of southern chivalry, and he joins the ranks of Brutus, Lancelot, and Richard III.

[Ox]

Both Virginia and the United States of America needed him and called him at the same time; he had sworn to protect one, but he threw it over for the other even while disagreeing with its cause. You may call it "an excess of southern chivalry" if you like, but I'd deem such chivalry a character flaw.

What's particularly fun about this post is that I'm writing it in my home office, and looking over my shoulder is a framed print of a photograph. Here's a regrettably cropped version:
http://i1021.photobucket.com/albums/af337/oxonian/robert-e-lee-photograph.jpg

The photo was taken in 1867 or 1868, and Lee is in civilian garb. Look at the eyes, how he carries his shoulders; the tale of the South's defeat, humiliation, and defiance is told in that image.

EDIT: Maybe I should have read the inscription under the photo that has hung in my home for two decades: it was taken a week after Appomattox.

[Vigil80]

I don't know the details, the Civil War has not been a subject of significant study for me. I do know that if I were called to serve a cause I support by leading troops through my home and my friends' and family's homes, I guess I'd have a hard time deciding, myself.

[ShivaX]

You mean the traitor who forswore his sacred oath to defend the Constitution, took up arms against the very men with whom he had served, and who perhaps is the single person most to blame for the horrific carnage of four years of bloody stalemate? If Lee is a tragic hero, he's King Lear.

Well when it comes down to it he helped end the war at least.

Hes far from a black or white figure, but then few people of note from then are.

[Superman's Dead]

You mean the traitor who forswore his sacred oath to defend the Constitution, took up arms against the very men with whom he had served, and who perhaps is the single person most to blame for the horrific carnage of four years of bloody stalemate? If Lee is a tragic hero, he's King Lear.

Someone has to fuck up on such an epic scale that their story is still told and disputed.

Usually men with beards.