5 ms·

This is a long post and merits a long response. I apologize if I'll be using HN as my draft board until I have answered or conceded to your points. As far as y

This is a long post and merits a long response. I apologize if I'll be using HN as my draft board until I have answered or conceded to your points. As far as your point that it's pro-Union versus pro-North, the Union in the 1860s is practically equivalent to the North. It doesn't detract from the fact that the North meant the Union, and the South the Confederation. Since all the states that attempted to secede are in the South, I think it's fair to say pro-Union is semantically equivalent to pro-North. However, pro-Union seems to be the terminology preferred by victors as it implies consensus while pro-North made it seem like regional differences (in truth it was). The Civil War was about regional differences largely over slavery. For instance, the South sometimes calls the Civil War by another name, ``the War of Northern Aggression." History is always POV. To indicate the indecisiveness on terminology, Wikipedia interchangeably refers to the Union or the North. It's absolutely about the differences with the North and the South. That's why the South attempted to leave the ``united States of America." If the South had won, I might argue that the USA wouldn't cease to exist, it just would only include a subset of the original members. -- Out to dinner, will draft when I come back --

mpyne 13y ago
There were slave states (even Southern slave states) that did not secede from the Union though. Virginia is perhaps the most exceptional case of that, the western counties of that state seceded from Virginia itself to re-join the Union as the state of West Virginia. Either way though, bikeshedding about the name of each belligerent is to miss the whole point of that wonderful long post. I encourage you to give it another look once you return from dinner before you give your fully-considered response.
bobwaycott 13y ago
You're looking at history somewhat oddly. Until the outbreak of war, the Union was the entirety of the US states. It was when Southern states seceded that the Union became the North—that is, those states upholding preservation of the Union of states and resolving the slavery issue. Once the war is underway, the Union is used interchangeably to refer to the army and the states. Among historians, pro-Union isn't a tenable position of historiography. This isn't about victors writing the history. The pro-Union nature of the conflict had everything to do with keeping the states united under the Constitution. The stupid semantics of calling the Civil War the War of Northern Aggression is far more a pro-South political statement than is prevailing historiography pro-North. That the war was regionally divided does not lend credence to equating pro-Union with pro-North. This is key. Those who fought against state secession were motivated by wanting to preserve the Union and resolve the slavery question, not by wanting to preserve the North and destroy the South. War broke to preserve the Union in the face of Southern states wishing to break it to persist in determining their own right to perpetuate enslavement of Africans. War resulted in resolving both the status of the Union and slavery.
- ScottBurson 13y ago
  Those who fought against state secession were motivated by wanting to preserve the Union and resolve the slavery question, not by wanting to preserve the North and destroy the South. Though I am inclined to agree with you, and have found your posts here extremely illuminating, I am going to play devil's advocate for a moment. The argument I have heard is not that those fighting for the Union wanted to "destroy" the south, but that they wanted to subjugate it economically. While I don't think I could be persuaded that that was the sole motivation and that the slavery issue was nothing more than a cynical cover for it, I could perhaps imagine that there was some degree of truth to it nonetheless. What do you think of this?
  - bobwaycott 13y ago
    I find that to be excessively creative given the facts. Had the buildup to civil war occurred in only the decade prior, or if the North postured aggressively and directly threatened the South, or if there was a significant body of historical evidence suggesting this case, it would be worth looking into. As it stands, however, we possess an incredible amount of primary sources which conclusively prove slavery had already been a source of political and ideological conflict among the states for a century. There was legitimate concern shared among the states about just what would happen economically in the South were slavery ousted, because Southern productivity was dependent upon the use of free, forced labor, while the Northern states were urbanizing, industrializing, and mechanizing their means of production. The largest counterpoint to this suggestion is in the primary sources themselves. If the claim were true, we should see it throughout the secessionist documents we have available. And we do not. Slavery is the primary issue prevalent in all secessionist sources that convinced the states to withdraw from the union. There was mention of worry about the Republican call for tariffs in the 1860 election, but this did not spread across the whole of the South, nor was it a rallying cry among the secessionists as they whipped up public opinion in support and defense of first the secession, and then the Confederacy itself. Ultimately, the sources speak for themselves. Take a look at the literature of the time, the pamphlets, the various arguments made for the purposes behind and need for secession and war. Wherever the states seceded, and even within those states wherever pro-Union--by which I do not and the people of the time did not mean the North, but the constitutionally declared perpetual union of the States--had an almost singularly consistent theme: slavery. There were parties and factions, candidates and referendums, that self-identified as slaveowners vs non-slaveowners. There were no demonstrable parties or groups or calls for rallying against the North and dividing the Union to repel Northern economic subjugation. [EDIT] I worry that I may have failed at directly answering the question by my chosen vector of interrogating secessionist documents, as opposed to those of the Union instead. On that front, to my knowledge, there is ample evidence to suggest that some in the North preferred to allow secession to stand than fight a war to preserve the Union. Some of this has often read to me as the kind of if-you-don't-like-it-then-good-riddance kind of attitude that occurs in these kinds of situations. I don't at the moment have much at my fingertips to state emphatically whether there is significant evidence to support the idea that the North used slavery as a cover to subjugate the South economically. Popularly speaking, this would be difficult to prove. We would need some very strong and persuasive documents from monied interests in the North with significant political power and/or connections, a direct line to the Congress and President, and demonstrated influence on Lincoln's decision to reject secession. In the end, while secessionist and Northern declarations may have included a varying number of otherwise important reasons for the conflict, there was only one issue that so polarized the nation that one side was willing to break away from the Union and the other was willing to dispute the legitimacy of such an act. --- Interestingly enough, this economic argument actually began immediately after war broke out (which, curiously for those who wish to dub the war one of Northern aggression, was initiated by the Southern states). More curious, however, is that this argument did not have primacy in America. Instead, it was found in the pages of the London press, arguing from afar that the war was one of tariffs and economic issues perpetrated against the "free trade economy" of the South by the North, had no basis in any principles beyond that of the North's lust for sovereignty, and advocating that the North ought to recognize the seceded states. And then, though certainly never taught to any American student who studies the Civil War, a (now) infamous man who was ever watchful of economic matters, particularly of matters that focused on the abuses of economic power for another group's gain, came out to dismantle these arguments in their entirety. His name? Karl Marx. Marx wrote a series of articles in 1861-62 attacking the London press and politicians for fabricating reasons to explain the war that were opposed to the facts of what was actually happening in the states. In one article, he even runs down a list of seceded states and data that was available at the time showing that border states, like Tennessee, rejected secession, but were then subjugated by force of arms from the Confederacy, who laid claim to such territory as being rightfully "theirs" and places where the institution of slavery ought to exist. * If you're interested in more of Marx's articles against the London press, these two are the earliest: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/10/25.htm http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/10/25.htm http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/11/07.htm http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/11/07.htm A complete listing of his Civil War articles can be found at http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/us-civil-war/index.htm http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/us-civil-war...

mpyne 13y ago

There were slave states (even Southern slave states) that did not secede from the Union though. Virginia is perhaps the most exceptional case of that, the western counties of that state seceded from Virginia itself to re-join the Union as the state of West Virginia. Either way though, bikeshedding about the name of each belligerent is to miss the whole point of that wonderful long post. I encourage you to give it another look once you return from dinner before you give your fully-considered response.

bobwaycott 13y ago

You're looking at history somewhat oddly. Until the outbreak of war, the Union was the entirety of the US states. It was when Southern states seceded that the Union became the North—that is, those states upholding preservation of the Union of states and resolving the slavery issue. Once the war is underway, the Union is used interchangeably to refer to the army and the states. Among historians, pro-Union isn't a tenable position of historiography. This isn't about victors writing the history. The pro-Union nature of the conflict had everything to do with keeping the states united under the Constitution. The stupid semantics of calling the Civil War the War of Northern Aggression is far more a pro-South political statement than is prevailing historiography pro-North. That the war was regionally divided does not lend credence to equating pro-Union with pro-North. This is key. Those who fought against state secession were motivated by wanting to preserve the Union and resolve the slavery question, not by wanting to preserve the North and destroy the South. War broke to preserve the Union in the face of Southern states wishing to break it to persist in determining their own right to perpetuate enslavement of Africans. War resulted in resolving both the status of the Union and slavery.

ScottBurson 13y ago
Those who fought against state secession were motivated by wanting to preserve the Union and resolve the slavery question, not by wanting to preserve the North and destroy the South. Though I am inclined to agree with you, and have found your posts here extremely illuminating, I am going to play devil's advocate for a moment. The argument I have heard is not that those fighting for the Union wanted to "destroy" the south, but that they wanted to subjugate it economically. While I don't think I could be persuaded that that was the sole motivation and that the slavery issue was nothing more than a cynical cover for it, I could perhaps imagine that there was some degree of truth to it nonetheless. What do you think of this?
- bobwaycott 13y ago
  I find that to be excessively creative given the facts. Had the buildup to civil war occurred in only the decade prior, or if the North postured aggressively and directly threatened the South, or if there was a significant body of historical evidence suggesting this case, it would be worth looking into. As it stands, however, we possess an incredible amount of primary sources which conclusively prove slavery had already been a source of political and ideological conflict among the states for a century. There was legitimate concern shared among the states about just what would happen economically in the South were slavery ousted, because Southern productivity was dependent upon the use of free, forced labor, while the Northern states were urbanizing, industrializing, and mechanizing their means of production. The largest counterpoint to this suggestion is in the primary sources themselves. If the claim were true, we should see it throughout the secessionist documents we have available. And we do not. Slavery is the primary issue prevalent in all secessionist sources that convinced the states to withdraw from the union. There was mention of worry about the Republican call for tariffs in the 1860 election, but this did not spread across the whole of the South, nor was it a rallying cry among the secessionists as they whipped up public opinion in support and defense of first the secession, and then the Confederacy itself. Ultimately, the sources speak for themselves. Take a look at the literature of the time, the pamphlets, the various arguments made for the purposes behind and need for secession and war. Wherever the states seceded, and even within those states wherever pro-Union--by which I do not and the people of the time did not mean the North, but the constitutionally declared perpetual union of the States--had an almost singularly consistent theme: slavery. There were parties and factions, candidates and referendums, that self-identified as slaveowners vs non-slaveowners. There were no demonstrable parties or groups or calls for rallying against the North and dividing the Union to repel Northern economic subjugation. [EDIT] I worry that I may have failed at directly answering the question by my chosen vector of interrogating secessionist documents, as opposed to those of the Union instead. On that front, to my knowledge, there is ample evidence to suggest that some in the North preferred to allow secession to stand than fight a war to preserve the Union. Some of this has often read to me as the kind of if-you-don't-like-it-then-good-riddance kind of attitude that occurs in these kinds of situations. I don't at the moment have much at my fingertips to state emphatically whether there is significant evidence to support the idea that the North used slavery as a cover to subjugate the South economically. Popularly speaking, this would be difficult to prove. We would need some very strong and persuasive documents from monied interests in the North with significant political power and/or connections, a direct line to the Congress and President, and demonstrated influence on Lincoln's decision to reject secession. In the end, while secessionist and Northern declarations may have included a varying number of otherwise important reasons for the conflict, there was only one issue that so polarized the nation that one side was willing to break away from the Union and the other was willing to dispute the legitimacy of such an act. --- Interestingly enough, this economic argument actually began immediately after war broke out (which, curiously for those who wish to dub the war one of Northern aggression, was initiated by the Southern states). More curious, however, is that this argument did not have primacy in America. Instead, it was found in the pages of the London press, arguing from afar that the war was one of tariffs and economic issues perpetrated against the "free trade economy" of the South by the North, had no basis in any principles beyond that of the North's lust for sovereignty, and advocating that the North ought to recognize the seceded states. And then, though certainly never taught to any American student who studies the Civil War, a (now) infamous man who was ever watchful of economic matters, particularly of matters that focused on the abuses of economic power for another group's gain, came out to dismantle these arguments in their entirety. His name? Karl Marx. Marx wrote a series of articles in 1861-62 attacking the London press and politicians for fabricating reasons to explain the war that were opposed to the facts of what was actually happening in the states. In one article, he even runs down a list of seceded states and data that was available at the time showing that border states, like Tennessee, rejected secession, but were then subjugated by force of arms from the Confederacy, who laid claim to such territory as being rightfully "theirs" and places where the institution of slavery ought to exist. * If you're interested in more of Marx's articles against the London press, these two are the earliest: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/10/25.htm http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/10/25.htm http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/11/07.htm http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/11/07.htm A complete listing of his Civil War articles can be found at http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/us-civil-war/index.htm http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/us-civil-war...