Why did Lincoln Invade the South?
8,608 Views |
56 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by TexasAggie81
I remember running by a historical marker on Yorktown Victor Road on Fort Bragg many a time...some minor skirmish from the Revolution.Sapper Redux said:
South Carolina made their fortune on rice along the tidal plains and low country. In 1860, SC and MS were the two states with a Black population larger than the white population. Rice and indigo were still very valuable.
I agree with the critique of the ethnic thesis. I don't find anything particularly compelling in the record to justify treating the Scot-Irish as a unique group by the time of the Civil War. Pennsylvania, the Midwest, and Maine/NH had significant Ulster Scot migrations and didn't have similar responses to political issues.
I should note that modern Fayetteville was founded by Highland Scots who remained loyal during the Revolution.
Moore's Creek Bridge down the Cape Fear near Wilmington is a nice little park. A very early engagement during the Revolution, but it essentially put the Highlanders on the sidelines for the rest of the conflict. They did provide Cornwallis with support during the Carolinas Campaign.
The Cousins' Wars: Religion, Politics, Civil Warfare, And The Triumph Of Anglo-America by Kevin Phillips.
Discusses how the English Civil War, the American Revolution, and the American Civil War were all related and cultural issues and demographics that went with it. Really good book.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0465013708/ref=cm_sw_r_apan_glt_fabc_MVZWRF9MD8YQ3Y3K85YZ
Discusses how the English Civil War, the American Revolution, and the American Civil War were all related and cultural issues and demographics that went with it. Really good book.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0465013708/ref=cm_sw_r_apan_glt_fabc_MVZWRF9MD8YQ3Y3K85YZ
This thread made me remember an episode of The Beverley Hillbillies (my grandmother watched it religiously when we stayed with her over the summers) where Granny referred to the Civil War as when "the North invaded America". Good memories
My grandmother always taught us to refer to it as the War of Northern Aggression.
Yeah...that ain't how the Yanks see it...Bucketrunner said:
My grandmother always taught us to refer to it as the War of Northern Aggression.
Let's see...
Lincoln ran on abolition, the South seceded. Lincoln enforces a blockade on southern ports and put tariffs on southern goods. Union reinforces Sumter, Confederates fire on it. Union has their cause for war now. If you have product, can't sell it anywhere, and there's a high rate of taxation on it so your fledgling country can't afford to stay open, that really leaves you one choice: fight for the right to sell elsewhere. Now when the union invades (Bull Run), there really is no going back. Fight the invader, and push them to their own land. But that now gives them more of a reason to fight.
The union's goal before the war was to make it impossible (through semi-diplomatic means) for the Confederacy to exist. Middle of the war turned to quelling the "uprising," and ends of the war turned to punishment. Ironically, when Lincoln was assassinated, Johnson made Reconstruction much more horrible for the South than Lincoln's idea, and extended the suffering for former Confederate states by a decade until the depression of 1876. The country as a whole didn't recover until at least WWI, realistically Vietnam (if ever). Lincoln had an idea for a Marshall Plan-esque reuniting from my understanding, while Johnson wanted to punish the Southern states for leaving.
Lincoln ran on abolition, the South seceded. Lincoln enforces a blockade on southern ports and put tariffs on southern goods. Union reinforces Sumter, Confederates fire on it. Union has their cause for war now. If you have product, can't sell it anywhere, and there's a high rate of taxation on it so your fledgling country can't afford to stay open, that really leaves you one choice: fight for the right to sell elsewhere. Now when the union invades (Bull Run), there really is no going back. Fight the invader, and push them to their own land. But that now gives them more of a reason to fight.
The union's goal before the war was to make it impossible (through semi-diplomatic means) for the Confederacy to exist. Middle of the war turned to quelling the "uprising," and ends of the war turned to punishment. Ironically, when Lincoln was assassinated, Johnson made Reconstruction much more horrible for the South than Lincoln's idea, and extended the suffering for former Confederate states by a decade until the depression of 1876. The country as a whole didn't recover until at least WWI, realistically Vietnam (if ever). Lincoln had an idea for a Marshall Plan-esque reuniting from my understanding, while Johnson wanted to punish the Southern states for leaving.
Waco Kid:
You need to hang out here more. If you did, you would know that Lincoln did not run on the premise of abolition and that tariffs were in place long before Lincoln came to power.
You need to hang out here more. If you did, you would know that Lincoln did not run on the premise of abolition and that tariffs were in place long before Lincoln came to power.
Quote:
Lincoln ran on abolition
False.
What do you mean the country didn't recover until Vietnam? Did you do bath salts before writing this?
Never read much about Reconstruction?Quote:
Johnson made Reconstruction much more horrible for the South than Lincoln's idea, and extended the suffering for former Confederate states by a decade until the depression of 1876. The country as a whole didn't recover until at least WWI, realistically Vietnam (if ever). Lincoln had an idea for a Marshall Plan-esque reuniting from my understanding, while Johnson wanted to punish the Southern states for leaving.
And why do the lives of African Americans never once matter in these kinds of arguments?
Rather than doing a drive-by snarkism, why don't you educate us? I was always under the impression that while Reconstruction may have started out with good intentions for African Americans, it quickly became a corrupt effort and created backlash that may have worsened the plight of the AAs. It certainly did not create any long-term relief for their plight in the South.Quote:
And why do the lives of African Americans never once matter in these kinds of arguments?
Are my impressions wrong? If so, a summary of facts showing that they're wrong would be helpful as opposed to simply snide comments.
Jabin said:Rather than doing a drive-by snarkism, why don't you educate us? I was always under the impression that while Reconstruction may have started out with good intentions for African Americans, it quickly became a corrupt effort and created backlash that may have worsened the plight of the AAs. It certainly did not create any long-term relief for their plight in the South.Quote:
And why do the lives of African Americans never once matter in these kinds of arguments?
Are my impressions wrong? If so, a summary of facts showing that they're wrong would be helpful as opposed to simply snide comments.
It's not a "snide comment," it's a genuine statement of reality. The implications of secession and reconstruction on the millions of slaves and then newly freed is almost never touched on.
No, Reconstruction was not "corrupt." That's a Dunning School interpretation from the early 20th century based heavily on racist assumptions about African Americans. Part and parcel of the "Lost Cause" mythology.
During Presidential Reconstruction, former Confederate states passed Black Codes that reduced the freed slaves back to a state of bondage. They were required to have "employment contracts," they were essentially given no rights of citizenship besides the right to marry (rights to own property and sue were essentially meaningless since they could not contest white claims to property or in court). A freedman without an employment contract would be arrested and forced to work for a planter.
https://www.crf-usa.org/brown-v-board-50th-anniversary/southern-black-codes.html
Radical Republicans saw Reconstruction under Johnson as essentially returning the South to power under the same people who led session with no consequences for the bloodiest war in American history. And saw that newly freed slaves had almost no improvement in their lot after abolition. Congressional Reconstruction resulted in the expansion of voting and property rights, the extension of education to Black Americans, the extension of citizenship to Black Americans, and participation in government. SC and MS were half Black by population in 1868. Under the Black Codes they had no voice. Under Reconstruction they did, and they used it. They helped pass new state constitutions that created public education and founded schools like Texas A&M. They served on state militias and began owning land. They made significant progress.
If you're looking for corruption, look to the campaign of terrorism by ex-Confederates that sought to end Reconstruction. And it was literally a campaign of terrorists far worse than anything Al Qaeda has done in the US. Thousands of Black Americans were murdered, raped, and beaten by groups like the Klan, the "Knights of the White Camelia," the "Red Shirts," and a variety of "Rifle Clubs." With almost no consequences unless the US government stepped in. These groups were led by people like Wade Hampton and Nathan Bedford Forrest. Jubal Early cheered them on.
Their actions resulted in the overthrow of legitimately elected governments and massacres in places like Colfax, LA. All of this resulted in non representative government and the denial of basic rights to millions of Americans. Because terrorists won. And the government made peace with them.
Thank you.
And without necessarily disagreeing with anything you wrote (I agree completely that Southern treatment of blacks until very recently was horrendous and intolerable), I do wonder how long it will be before what you wrote will be termed an "Interpretation" that will be viewed as incorrect and abandoned.
I've been a student of history for almost half a century and every single accepted perspective has eventually been rejected and replaced by a new interpretation.
My guess is that each perspective/interpretation has large elements of truth, but none contain the entire truth. Perhaps a combination of all interpretations is likely to get someone closer to the "real" truth.
My point is that your interpretation, although completely accurate, may not be complete. I guess I'm reacting to the tone in your posts that your current interpretation is the final word and the only accepted interpretation with no modifications permitted.
However, you do know a lot more details of this period of history than do I. Why didn't Grant do more for the freed blacks when he was President? He was no friend at all of the South after the war. He was incensed that the South did not act like they'd just lost the war. Why didn't he do more?
What did the Radical Republicans do to hurt their cause in the North? The North could do anything it wanted after the war, but the RR seemed to alienate everyone almost immediately. Why is that? Could they have approached the post-war issues in a different manner that would have been more effective in improving the lot of Southern blacks?
And without necessarily disagreeing with anything you wrote (I agree completely that Southern treatment of blacks until very recently was horrendous and intolerable), I do wonder how long it will be before what you wrote will be termed an "Interpretation" that will be viewed as incorrect and abandoned.
I've been a student of history for almost half a century and every single accepted perspective has eventually been rejected and replaced by a new interpretation.
My guess is that each perspective/interpretation has large elements of truth, but none contain the entire truth. Perhaps a combination of all interpretations is likely to get someone closer to the "real" truth.
My point is that your interpretation, although completely accurate, may not be complete. I guess I'm reacting to the tone in your posts that your current interpretation is the final word and the only accepted interpretation with no modifications permitted.
However, you do know a lot more details of this period of history than do I. Why didn't Grant do more for the freed blacks when he was President? He was no friend at all of the South after the war. He was incensed that the South did not act like they'd just lost the war. Why didn't he do more?
What did the Radical Republicans do to hurt their cause in the North? The North could do anything it wanted after the war, but the RR seemed to alienate everyone almost immediately. Why is that? Could they have approached the post-war issues in a different manner that would have been more effective in improving the lot of Southern blacks?
This is the correct answer. It was about geopolitics. There are other good answers on this thread also, but this is the core reason.
Rabid Cougar said:One word - Scots. The English dumped lots of them in the Carolina's.Jabin said:Interesting. I wonder why that was? What caused the Carolinas to be different than, say, Virginia, Georgia, Mississippi or Alabama? I can see Georgia being different because of its heritage as a dumping ground for criminals, but the Carolinas?Quote:
It was cultural in nature.
Or was it the atrocities themselves during the Revolutionary War that created that particular culture?
Also, I have some vague sense that atrocities occurred in New York as well. That is, hangings by each side of the other. Is that not correct, or just not to the degree of the Carolinas?
Very clannish and adverse to authoritarian governments. Mix in English immigrants/loyalist and the British Army and you have everything you need to settle old grudges and create new ones. They didn't bother with hangings. It was kill everyone and everything on the farm and then burn every to the ground. Lots of tit for tat.
They won out in the 1780's and their kinfolk were still around in the 1850's.
I assume most on this board have read Albion's Seed, but if you haven't, it's a great look into the 4 main migration groups (Royalist Anglican, Scot-Irish, Quaker, Puritans) into the American colonies and their cultural and political impacts. Totally changed how I thought about culture and politics TODAY.
I don't know much about the Scottish angle in South Carolina, but South Carolina did nearly attempt to secede 30 years before the Civil War during the nullification crisis.
In short, a protective tariff had been passed to help develop northern industry. This angered southerners, who saw the costs of their wares go up and all that money go north. It was basically a vacuum cleaner of money from South to north. VP John Calhoun, who was from South Carolina, began making the argument that states should be the ones to decide what laws are constitutional (instead of the Supreme Court). Any state could nullify any federal law it wanted - like the tariff now, or, say, any restrictions on slavery in the future. He resigned from the vice presidency and became a S.C. Senator again to lead this fight and S.C. Soon passed a law nullifying the tariff.
President Andrew Jackson responded by calling for a force bill to allow him to send troops to enforce the tariff. S.C. Passed a bill to raise an army. That's about when Calhoun realized S.C. Was all on its own and would get smashed by the U.S., so he jumped at a compromise offered by Henry clay to slowly lower the tariff over a decade if he'd drop the nullification idea.
The crisis was averted, but everyone knew it was only kicking the can down the road. Jackson predicted a future fight would be prompted by the south over slavery, and Calhoun wrote a crazy letter to his supporters saying, "We are growing daily. Our cause would be better understood, our strength increased, and the temper of the south and the other sections better ascertained. To take issue now would be to play into the hands of the administration, while to delay the issue would derange all of their calculations. I feel confident; we want only time to ensure victory."
In short, a protective tariff had been passed to help develop northern industry. This angered southerners, who saw the costs of their wares go up and all that money go north. It was basically a vacuum cleaner of money from South to north. VP John Calhoun, who was from South Carolina, began making the argument that states should be the ones to decide what laws are constitutional (instead of the Supreme Court). Any state could nullify any federal law it wanted - like the tariff now, or, say, any restrictions on slavery in the future. He resigned from the vice presidency and became a S.C. Senator again to lead this fight and S.C. Soon passed a law nullifying the tariff.
President Andrew Jackson responded by calling for a force bill to allow him to send troops to enforce the tariff. S.C. Passed a bill to raise an army. That's about when Calhoun realized S.C. Was all on its own and would get smashed by the U.S., so he jumped at a compromise offered by Henry clay to slowly lower the tariff over a decade if he'd drop the nullification idea.
The crisis was averted, but everyone knew it was only kicking the can down the road. Jackson predicted a future fight would be prompted by the south over slavery, and Calhoun wrote a crazy letter to his supporters saying, "We are growing daily. Our cause would be better understood, our strength increased, and the temper of the south and the other sections better ascertained. To take issue now would be to play into the hands of the administration, while to delay the issue would derange all of their calculations. I feel confident; we want only time to ensure victory."
Thanks and gig'em
The kicker to the whole thing, it's my understanding that Calhoun is the one who proposed the higher tariff.
If you say you hate the state of politics in this nation and you don't get involved in it, you obviously don't hate the state of politics in this nation.
I recently read " Madness Rules the Hour". It's a detailed look at Charleston leading up to Secession.
I strongly urge those looking at what led up to " the late unpleasantness " to take in that book.
I strongly urge those looking at what led up to " the late unpleasantness " to take in that book.
Jefferson & Polk expanded and more than doubled the territory of the US with the Louisiana Purchase, North West Territory ( Lewis & Clark ) and the Mexican War and Lincoln didn't want to be the President that lost it !
Mort Rainey said:
Serious question here. Why not let the southern states just go? Is it really worth 600,000 to keep the same number of states in the country?
I know people like to say it was for the abolition of slavery, but Lincoln made the decision to fight years before the emancipation proclamation. Why is he hailed as a hero for deciding that hundreds of thousands needed to die?
Lincoln's first (and foremost) reason for "invading" the Confederacy was to preserve the Union. It was NOT initially about slavery. Slavery was a secondary reason, especially when Northern, non-slave states became resigned to the fact that, due to vast increases in the Southern states' slave populations, the 3/5ths compromise (and resulting greater apportionment of congressional seats to the South) actually legislatively empowered the Southern states' ability to block any congressional acts to eliminate slavery after 1808 (refer Article I, Section 9). When it became obvious that the South had no intent of relinquishing their slaves, furtherance of the war became further justified.
rca21978
ATM Softball - the lady dancing in the stands and the backstory
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
6