previous post next post  

See How Compliant I Am Being?

In an effort to expand my knowledge base about the Civil War (which currently fits on a postage stamp), I will be attending a lecture on the subject tomorrow.

"The Trent Affair" is being presented by the Massachusetts Historical Society on George's Island.  It's free except for the cost of the ferry ticket.

Then I will immediately retreat to my comfort zone with the premeire of PBS's "War of 1812" in Northampton, Massachusetts.

There are points for effort, right?  Especially if I don't tell you that when I signed up for "The Trent Affair" lecture I thought it was about the War of 1812.

Maggie

21 Comments

It wasn't a Civil War, it was a War Between the States, you silly ignorant damnedyankee!
 
"The War of Northern Aggression"
 
Yankee Doodle Dandy ate too much candy
When Candy bleet
He did eat
And went for Handy Andy.
 
Hmmm.  So far no points.  I'll be back later.  I'm sure there will be points by then.

BTW, how am I supposed to know what you call it?  I told you, It's my weakest subject.
 
War to Suppress Yankee Arrogance.

Lost that one, big time.
 
Someone better give Maggie some points.

MAJ Mike - you cracker hosers should just lettit go.  Yer as bad as the Germans saying "You never beat us when the odds were even!"

Even if true, not relevant. 

[Closes bunker door, turns up the tunes]
 
 My bunch weren't crackers since we had no slaves. And yes, teh wrong side won, and we get Obama out of the same deal.

The North invaded the south. The Germans invaded Poland. I see no equivalence there.

Maggie, remember the Name Wilkes. Then look up the "Exploring Expedition." Wilkes was a real package of work. The book "Sea of Glory" by Nathaniel Philbrick gives a good picture of the Ex Ex and the type of man Wilkes was.
 
I'm going to the Olustee Battle Expo(FL) this coming Saturday. Great grandpa and the boys in grey pushed the yankees back to Jacksonville, and protected Tallahassee, the only southern capital east of the Mississippi to remain in Confederate hands.
     
 J.M., I could go for that type of Trent Affair. I've been seeing Rolls engines on a lot of Boeing products lately.
 
 What is the difference between "The U.S. War Between the States" and "The U.S. Civil War"? I wonder what view the US Military had on US Soldirs who fought for Confederate Point of view?  
 
My ancestors were most probably horse thieves and draft dodgers during the War of Northern Agression.  If they had any land it wasn't suitable for cotton and they were certainly too poor to own other human beings.  On both sides of the Mason-Dixon Line it was a rich man's war, but a poor man's fight.
 
 Grumpy, Yankee historians made out like the south was trying to take over teh north, thus the "Civil War" label. The south just wanted to go its own way and be left alone. Thus the label "War of Northern Aggression."

And Mike is right. It was a rich man's war and a poor man's fight. It was northern industrialists that couldn't afford to have a free trading south with a betetr than 2000 mile border with a protectionist north.

The south was within her rights to leave, but Lincoln and the power behind his throne, couldn't allow it. And that war was anything but civil. Unless you are a leftist.
 
@Quartermaster - Did you mean Melanie & Ashley Wilkes?  I always favored Scarlett "I can't think about that right now. If I do, I'll go crazy. I'll think about that tomorrow."

The lecture was hugely interesting.  "The Trent Affair" is quite the episode in history.  And they managed to tie in the "War of 1812"!!!!!  Bonus.

It was a beautiful day and Jasper White has a "Summer Shack" snack stand there. Mmmmmm.
 
To be pedantic, in a true civil  there are multiple legitimate claimants to sovereignty within a single realm. As QM has pointed out, the South was not trying to conquer the North, but create a new country.

Me, I still say they: lacked legitimate motive along the lines of the "repeated abuses" mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, failed to act  in a lawful way in their separation (AFAIK when multiple parties are bound to a contract there must be agreement to termination), and shot first. :)

And yes, I know I'll never convince QM and other loyal sons of the South. :)

One of the crowning ironies of the war -rarely mentioned- is that both sides assumed the position of the other after cessation of hostilities The North claimed the South was in a state of rebellion, while the South maintained they were a sovereign nation.

After the surrender, the South was quite happy to accept Lincoln's approach wherein each state was assumed to still be part of the Union, while the North initiated a military occupation of the South more appropriate to a defeated foreign country than fellow citizens.

Maggie, I'll be glad to give you points. Lots and lots of points! The Trent Affair isn't well known today (big shock, considering the state of history in our schools), but brought us measurably near war with the Empire at the worst possible time. It is said that Lincoln remarked "one war at a time" was sufficient. :)

Things to remember: Grant wasn't an alcoholic, the Western theater was for most of the war the critical theater, and no matter what QM says, Lincoln wasn't a dictator! We all know that was Dubya. {/snerk}

Oh, almost forgot: The Civil War resulted in the highest death toll of any war fought by the US, including WW2. Also, I follow Trevor Dupuy's method, and count the Civil War as both a win & a loss in terms of score keeping.

 
 BusHitler was to blame for the War of Northern Aggression? That guy gets more powerful with each passing day. If the left keeps it up, he'll have started the Engluish Civil War, and the War of The Roses. I don't know if I could take that.

Bad as Lincoln was, I doubt if he had lived there would have been a military occupation of the south. Davis, when told of Lincoln's death, felt it was a bad thing for the south. The Radical Republicans, leftists all, forced the occupation and tried to take over the adminstration from Johnson.

I certainly disagree with you on secession. The train of abuses is a matter of judgment left to the parties of teh time. There was far more than slavery. Things like tariff based protectionism which decreased the value of southern exports, heavy taxation on imports (about 75% of teh federal budget was funded on imports through Virginia and South Carolina), much of which were spent on internal improvements in teh North, with almost nothing going to the south. In short, the south was funding the north's crony capitalism, and they grew tired of it. Bluntly, I think that was enough of a "train of abuses" to separate.

And, as Davis predicted, we would see all that again, and we are. We now have little defense against it vbecause of teh moral degradation of teh US population. We have Obama, because the north gave us Lincoln.
 
As may be.  The north gave us Lincoln because someone wouldn't give up their peculiar institution.

Plenty of blame to go 'round.

Virtually no war that lasts more than a month ends up being about what it began over.
 
Agreed on the blame part. Davis did not want secession, but the MS general Assembly gave it to him anyway. Ft. Sumter was a stupid act that Toombs wanted to avoid. Davis gave Lincoln his casus belli. Without Sumter there would not have been a war as the northern populace was against it. Lincoln told the Davis adminstration that Sumter would not be supplied and shut down. Lincoln did exaxctly the opposite. Plenty of blame.

For Lincoln war aims changed as a political ploy. The south remained in the fight to survive as a sovereign country.
 
 I must admit this has been a good discussion among good people, even though we may disagree.

I am just a little confused at the logic of the discussion. As I look at each of the States, they all have their own State Constitution which pays due respect to the US Constitution. As I look at this discussion, I see many things. Many would call this a States Rights issue or is it a Constitutional, both US and all of the States  Constitutional Issue?

We have more than a fair share of Veterans in this discussion. I would suggest we might want to look at this a little differently. Let's start by establishing a setting, we are no longer talking about states but about  Honorable Soldiers on the battlefield. What do they call it, when a soldier in battle decides to do his own thing, regardless of authority? What do they call it, when you encourage this type of behavior?

When we realize US Constitutional Authority is applicable within the States and is not a violation of States' Rights, but actually the tool which makes States' Rights possible. This is the reason it was so serious. This is the reason that the discussion has so much great value. Thank you. 
 
 
For Lincoln war aims changed as a political ploy.

Which, in most wars, is true of one side or the other.
War is a supremely political event.