Andersonville 1864 (graphic)

[Dutchman]

On July 9, 1864, Sgt. David Kennedy of the 9th Ohio Cavalry wrote in his diary:

Wuld that I was an artist & had the material to paint this camp & all its horors or the tounge of some eloquent Statesman and had the privleage of expressing my mind to our hon. rulers in Washington, I should gloery to describe this hell on earth where it takes 7 of its ocupiants to make a shadow.

http://images52.fotki.com/v726/photos/2/28344/2133622/Andersonvillesurvivor-vi.jpg

I come across stuff when doing genealogy research.

[texaswoodworker]

Prison camps on both sides of the North/South border were horrible. 12% of all prisoners in Northern camps died, and 15.5% of all prisoners in Southern camps died. 30,000 Union and nearly 26,000 Confederate prisoners died by the end of the war. Starvation and disease were widespread.

IIRC, Andersonville was the worst camp in the South, and Camp Douglas in Chicago (17%-23% death rate) was the worse in the North.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Andersonville_Prison.jpg

[Hickory]

"It is good that war is so horrible, least we come to enjoy it."
Ulysses S. Grant

[texaswoodworker]

"It is good that war is so horrible, least we come to enjoy it."
Ulysses S. Grant

I just finished reading into more of Camp Douglas' history. The commanders there purposely made conditions worse for the prisoners several times. I think they did enjoy it. There is defiantly evil in this world.

[Love Life]

I visited Andersonville 2 weeks ago. To see the small space where they had 45,000 prisoners, and the absolute lack of shade, was humbling and intense. The streams that flow through are small as well.

[Skunk1]

My daughter is reading about this in her social studies class. I've been reading it also to help her study. A lot of interesting facts about the prison camps. I'll have to show this to her so she can get a better picture of the real life these men lived for our country. Reading is great but until you see something like this, it really gives you a different perspective on it.

[willie_pete]

My company had a mine at Andersonville which I had to visit on occasion. Every time I made a business trip there I would visit the prison site. A sobering experience each time.

wp

[Freightman]

mans inhumanity to man knows no bounds!

[w5pv]

Didn't the war start over states rights and Lincoln didn't have the support he needed for that so he tied slavery to it for the support he needed?I am asking a question.

[texaswoodworker]

Didn't the war start over states rights and Lincoln didn't have the support he needed for that so he tied slavery to it for the support he needed?I am asking a question.

There were a number of issues including states rights that led to the war. Slavery was an issue, but it wasn't the sole cause of the war. Lincoln used it as a scapegoat and as a way to make his war seem like a righteous war. History is written by the victor which is why you hear about Lincoln freeing the slaves, but you don't hear about how he was a tyrant in the true form of the word. You don't hear about his war crimes, his attack on rights, the trampling of the Constitution, or his acts of treason. You think Obama is bad? He can't hold a candle to what Lincoln did.


“What are you fighting for anyhow?”
“I’m fighting because you are down here.”
-Confederate prisoner to Union soldier.

[ascast]

There were a number of issues including states rights that led to the war. Slavery was an issue, but it wasn't the sole cause of the war. Lincoln used it as a scapegoat and as a way to make his war seem like a righteous war. History is written by the victor which is why you hear about Lincoln freeing the slaves, but you don't hear about how he was a tyrant in the true form of the word. You don't hear about his war crimes, his attack on rights, the trampling of the Constitution, or his acts of treason. You think Obama is bad? He can't hold a candle to what Lincoln did.

Not to mention "invading a sovereign foreign nation" by marching through Virginia.

[ascast]

I forgot- It is sill NOT illegal or unconstitutional to leave the union. Not one word about in the constituion before or after the Second war of Independence

[N4AUD]

Andersonville was horrible, as were the Federal POW camps as well. Two of my great grand uncles died as Federal POWs. My guess is that Andersonville was run by the losers and so is more notorious. The victors get to write the history. People are capable of unimaginable brutality to each other, unfortunately.

[texaswoodworker]

I forgot- It is sill NOT illegal or unconstitutional to leave the union. Not one word about in the constituion before or after the Second war of Independence

I think there is some law now that prohibits it, but if a state wants to leave, there's not much the Feds can really do to stop them if that state can survive on it's own. I don't think a 2nd Civil War would start like the last one. There's too much media coverage and info moves fast. If the US attacked a independent nation like Lincoln did, every politician remotely involved would be in a world of trouble.

[ascast]

I don't know about that, G.Bush did and everybody cheered, including me.

[osteodoc08]

Andersonville is indescribable in words. Been there several times. It's a feeling you get, if you will, as you walk the grounds. Eerie, fascinating, powerful and that doesn't even do it justice in words and only begins to describe it.

As as far as history and Lincoln, it's unfortunate how watered down school history lessons have become. The victor does indeed write the history books and even important texts are often forgotten, thrown away or outright destroyed. Book of Judas anyone?

[Char-Gar]

Early in the war, prisoners were exchanged or paroled, but when the war stretched on camps were established to hold them. The Confederate States had Andersonville as it's hell hole, and the United States had Camp Douglas and Elmyra as theirs. The Commandant of Andersonville was hung, and the Commandants of the Union camps should have been hung as well. However, it is the prerogative of the winner of such wars to write the history and pick and choose who is and who is not a war criminal.

Slavery was indeed a hot button issue in the election of 1860, but it was not the cause of either succession or the war. Lincoln was elected in 1860 without a single Electoral College vote from the southern states and the hand writing was on the wall. The South was left adrift and with no ability to control it's own future and laws. In order to preserve what they felt was the original Constitutional Republic they voted with their feet and left.

The cause of the war was Lincoln's invasion of the Confederate States, to force them to remain in the Union by violence and warfare. He had to violate the Constitution on several levels to accomplish his bloody goal. Obama is a piker as a lawless rogue President compared to Honest Abe.

Did Lincoln invade the South to free the slaves? Of course not, for he did not free the slaves in the north and there were slave states there. Slavery was even legal in Washington DC and he did nothing about that. Even a cursory understanding of the history of the time, make it plain that the war was not about freeing slaves. That bit of fiction was what Lincoln used to get men to die by the hundreds of thousands for an unpopular war. Don't forget the draft riots in New York that were only broken up when the US Navy shelled the rioters from the river.

The truth of the matter was the South had the North by the economic cajones. The mills of the North were dependent on cheap high quality Southern cotton and these same mills made up 1/3 of the US economy. There was cotton grown in Egypt, but it was poor quality and very expensive to get. With the South in charge of the Mississippi river, commerce in the middle states was strangled, for goods went up and down the river system.

The money people of the North strong armed Lincoln to not let the Southern states go their own way. And that dear children is what the Civil War was all about, money and political influence! A half a million men were killed and several times that number maimed to keep the money in the pockets of a handful of mega-rich people. The nation suffered a deep wound by the punitive military occupation of the South after the war, and that wound still festers for some.

America and the American people both North and South paid a dear price for the greed of a few. You didn't read this in your history books, neither did your parents or grandparents, but it is the truth. The history books perpetrated a massive hoax on the people of American to protect the guilty. It was the biggest cover-up in the history of the world and is successful even to this day.

"As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free"....pure horse hockie!

[osteodoc08]

And the last region/state/area to try to remove themselves from the union was The Conch Republic (lower FL Keys), but was quickly squashed.

[WILCO]

mans inhumanity to man knows no bounds!

Ecclesiastes 1:4-11

[captaint]

I believe the Commander of Camp Douglas was promoted after the war.

[ascast]

"It was the biggest cover-up in the history of the world and is successful even to this day."

'history of the world " really? that's pretty big, you sure about that?

[mold maker]

The conditions were deplorable by todays standards, but also remember that the death rates were often caused, by the fact that, many entered as a result of injury. There weren't near enough Doctors, and medical science was almost non existent.
Feeding prisoners versus standing troops was also an issue. There was a war to be won.

[Kent Fowler]

I believe the Commander of Camp Douglas was promoted after the war.

The citizens of Chicago knew what was going on in Camp Douglas and were beginning to protest the treatment of the Confederate prisoners. The camp commander at the time threatened to declare martial law on the area and charge any protester with treason. I had 2 great grand uncles that managed to survive Camp Douglas.

[waksupi]

If you have never seen the movie Andersonville, I recommend watching it.

[texaswoodworker]

I believe the Commander of Camp Douglas was promoted after the war.

A couple of them were.


The citizens of Chicago knew what was going on in Camp Douglas and were beginning to protest the treatment of the Confederate prisoners. The camp commander at the time threatened to declare martial law on the area and charge any protester with treason. I had 2 great grand uncles that managed to survive Camp Douglas.

At one point, one of the commanders did declare martial law over the entire city and had over 150 people arrested.

[azrednek]

There were a number of issues including states rights that led to the war. Slavery was an issue, but it wasn't the sole cause of the war. Lincoln used it as a scapegoat and as a way to make his war seem like a righteous war. History is written by the victor which is why you hear about Lincoln freeing the slaves, but you don't hear about how he was a tyrant in the true form of the word. You don't hear about his war crimes, his attack on rights, the trampling of the Constitution, or his acts of treason. You think Obama is bad? He can't hold a candle to what Lincoln did.

According to my high school history teacher. Lincoln favored paying a bounty on Indian scalps.

[Char-Gar]

"It was the biggest cover-up in the history of the world and is successful even to this day."

'history of the world " really? that's pretty big, you sure about that?

Well, there is no official list and ranking of cover-ups, but I would rank this one right up there at or near the top. If not the biggest at least the longest in American history.

[Thumbcocker]

Mrs. Thumbcocker had an ancestor who spent time in Andersonville. He apparently took it personally as he came home with a ring made from a Confederate soldiers knee cap. As with any war their were plenty of atrocities to go around. Missouri and Kansas bled a lot.

As far as the causes of the war they were many. Unless I am mistaken every article of secession specifically mentioned slavery somewhere in the text. The build up was a long time coming. Some southern States threatened secession during Andrew Jackson's administration. I think at some level northern states got tired of the threats.

There was a political solution on the table in 1860 including a Constitutional amendment that would have guaranteed slavery in all states that it existed in at that time. The emancipation proclamation was a masterpiece of politics. It only applied to the states in active rebellion against the union and not the border states. It also changed the dynamic about foreign intervention and pretty much killed any hope of intervention by Britain which had outlawed slavery decades or more before. Britain would not have been able to argue that they were protecting their economic interests or helping the underdog with slavery added to the mix.

Both the north and south were hardly monolithic in their views. For example one southern Illinois regiment deserted en mass when the proclamation was announced. Cairo Illinois is further south than Richmond Virginia and many people living there came from southern states. Similarly the confederacy was purposely establish with a very weak central government to protect state's rights. The President was limited to one term and was almost a de facto lame duck from the outset. North Carolina became a problem for the confederacy as there were many pro union citizens there and the governor was strong willed. I believe it was him who said, after the passage of a law exempting any plantation owner with more than x number of slaves from service, that the war was " a rich man's war and a poor man's fight." People bleeding for moneyed interests was not limited to one side. Many citizens of the mountainous parts of several confederate state's were pro union. by the same token there were riots and copper head activity as far north in Illinois Charleston. If I am not mistaken New York City also had anti war riots and many moneyed interests backed Mc Clellen against Lincoln.

It is very hard to find simple answers for something as complex as the Civil War.

[azrednek]

If I am not mistaken New York City also had anti war riots and many moneyed interests backed Mc Clellen against Lincoln.

It is very hard to find simple answers for something as complex as the Civil War.

If I recall my history correctly the New York riots were related to young men being forced into service. A young man of means could legally buy his way out of the draft and rank was also available for purchase.

[dagger dog]

Here's some more reading,http://www.scvohio.org/campchase/index.html.

Grave 130 is my ancestors resting place.

[rmcc]

"It is good that war is so horrible, least we come to enjoy it."
Ulysses S. Grant

This was Robert E Lee to General Longstreet at the battle of Fredericksburg, December of 1862

[Ballistics in Scotland]

Much is often made of the freeing of the slaves only in the South, and not in the North. In the North they were owned by citizens who had broken no law, and there was a strong likelihood that compensation or measures to combat the results of withdrawal of labour would have to be set up. This is just what happened in the British Empire, between the abolition of importation in 1807 and the abolition of slavery throughout the Empire in 1833. In states judged, rightly or wrongly, to be in a state of illegal rebellion, a simple declaration, with almost no effect in wartime, was considered enough.

The conditions in prison camps were frightful, and surely a major obstacle to peaceful reconciliation after the war. There might be slightly more excuse for the Confederacy, which was genuinely short of food, medical supplies and services etc. But there wasn't enough excuse. Lincoln, whatever his faults, did see better than many others in his government that reconciliation was needed. There has always been a tendency, in every country and in our time, to place prison camp management in the hands of people too incompetent or demented to be entrusted with military operations. The major difference is that in other wars the illegality, mismanagement and coverups happened overseas.

I remember the tragic pictures of grossly emaciated prisoners of the Serbs in Bosnia. But they were only the few at the front. It could be that they, and the most extreme of the Civil War photographs, were suffering from some wasting disease, and carefully selected for the pictures. But what we know about the more general treatment of Civil War prisoners is still indefensible. Major Wirz of Andersonville was hanged, and it probably did him a power of good. But the same could have been done with many on both sides, and there are many ways in which government policy, on both sides, was to blame.

[Col4570]

The most remarkable and encouraging thing is that the USA despite the bitterness of its Civil War progressed into a nation to be proud of.The forming of that united group of states is testimony to mans determination to forge a country built by the Blood sweat and tears of so many with differing ideologies.Shame and Triumph no matter how unpalatable are the building blocks that are the backbone of a nation.

[JFrench]

I have a great great grandfather and two great great uncles buried at Camp Chase in Columbus, Ohio. Had another great great uncle that survived Point Look Out, Maryland. Google that place.
James

[chsparkman]

The most remarkable and encouraging thing is that the USA despite the bitterness of its Civil War progressed into a nation to be proud of.The forming of that united group of states is testimony to mans determination to forge a country built by the Blood sweat and tears of so many with differing ideologies.Shame and Triumph no matter how unpalatable are the building blocks that are the backbone of a nation.

So true. As Sherman said, "War is all hell." It was devastating for many men and their families. One of my GGGrandfathers was recruited off the boat in Charleston to fight for the South. He was captured shortly after Shiloh and spent the balance of the war in a Maryland prison. Another joined an Ohio regiment and fought in the west and along the Mississippi. A third moved his slaves from Georgia to Texas to avoid the war.

In the end, however, it was their sacrifice that helped to forge the greatest nation on earth. I'm glad we're not separated. We're stronger together. We're better together. We can be proud, and in awe of, the men from both sides who accomplished unimaginable feats.

[Steve77]

I don't know if the history is accurate, but the documentary series by Ken Burns "The Civil War" was very interesting. It had lots of old photos like the one at the beginning of this thread. The DVD is available on Netflix. I especially liked listening to the portions that included the historian Shelby Foote.

[oldfart1956]

Post 17 should be required reading for all students of American history. Char-Gar has it exactly correct. When the evil one stated Lincoln was his hero and he wanted to be just like him....some of us understood. He has accomplished his goal. Audie....the Oldfart..

[xs11jack]

One of my ancestors that fought in the war(I had 5) died one day after being released from Andersonville.
Ole Jack

[Ballistics in Scotland]

The most remarkable and encouraging thing is that the USA despite the bitterness of its Civil War progressed into a nation to be proud of.The forming of that united group of states is testimony to mans determination to forge a country built by the Blood sweat and tears of so many with differing ideologies.Shame and Triumph no matter how unpalatable are the building blocks that are the backbone of a nation.

Well, yes. Some things that went on in the South until the 1960s made skin creep all around the world. Even my German father-in-law, who was a Social Democrat and joined the army to get his father out of a concentration camp, was quite shocked as a prisoner in Alabama. He'd have felt better about being badly treated (which he never was) than treated him as a superior being to innocent black Americans who had never even reluctantly harmed anybody. Not everything is right yet either.

But what has to be remembered is that no country has improved so much, without external compulsion, in only a few years.

[Char-Gar]

Much is often made of the freeing of the slaves only in the South, and not in the North. In the North they were owned by citizens who had broken no law, and there was a strong likelihood that compensation or measures to combat the results of withdrawal of labour would have to be set up. This is just what happened in the British Empire, between the abolition of importation in 1807 and the abolition of slavery throughout the Empire in 1833. In states judged, rightly or wrongly, to be in a state of illegal rebellion, a simple declaration, with almost no effect in wartime, was considered enough...

That sir is unmitigated and profound hogwash based on assumption, speculation and overwhelming ignorance of the issues beyond the superficial you read in some skewed book. It displays a lack of knowledge of the United States Constitution and how it was formed and reasons it was formed. It displays zero understanding of the Compact Theory of the Constitution as stated by Jefferson and others.

Your understanding of the American republic, the reasons for succession by the southern states and the legal basis on which they did so is shallow in the extreme.

I could further care less what some German POW thought about America in Alabama. There is so much blood and pain on German hands, that their opinion on anything moral is to be disregarded.

The thinking of Scots, Brits, Germans or any other Euro types are polar opposites from what American's think, well maybe with the exception of Obama and the far left Democrats. We fought a war in 1776 to be free of such restricted thinking and go our own way, and we like it that way. We don't want Euros shooting their hypocritical moral arrows across the pond in some sort of aura of moral superiority.

I could be more graphic about the disdain which I hold to your thinking, but to express it would get me banned from this site. You can just intuit what I would say.

[Char-Gar]

One of my ancestors that fought in the war(I had 5) died one day after being released from Andersonville.
Ole Jack

Many a good man, North and South, had his health broken in Civil War prison camps. My Great Great Grandfather, Daniel Thomas Boatwright was a 1st. Lieutenant in the 10th Texas Infantry (CSA) and was taken prisoner at Arkansas Post. He was placed in a camp for officers for almost two years. He was released in 1863 only to die a month later of disease he contracted in the camp. He is buried with several thousand other anonymous Confederate soldiers in a mass grave in Chattanooga Tennessee. He never returned to his family in Texas.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

That sir is unmitigated and profound hogwash based on assumption, speculation and overwhelming ignorance of the issues beyond the superficial you read in some skewed book. It displays a lack of knowledge of the United States Constitution and how it was formed and reasons it was formed. It displays zero understanding of the Compact Theory of the Constitution as stated by Jefferson and others.

Your understanding of the American republic, the reasons for succession by the southern states and the legal basis on which they did so is shallow in the extreme.

I could further care less what some German POW thought about America in Alabama. There is so much blood and pain on German hands, that their opinion on anything moral is to be disregarded.

The thinking of Scots, Brits, Germans or any other Euro types are polar opposites from what American's think, well maybe with the exception of Obama and the far left Democrats. We fought a war in 1776 to be free of such restricted thinking and go our own way, and we like it that way. We don't want Euros shooting their hypocritical moral arrows across the pond in some sort of aura of moral superiority.

I could be more graphic about the disdain which I hold to your thinking, but to express it would get me banned from this site. You can just intuit what I would say.

I do want you to know that I value your opinion every bit as much as you do mine. If I ever feel in need of guidance on slavery and post-slavery discrimination, I will probably look for it elsewhere. Like I got from an American friend who couldn't live in his own state with his Taiwanese wife before 1967, because they would have been jailed for it. Maybe he was ignorant or biased...

[doc1876]

In Alton IL. there was a prison that was shuttered in 1855 or so, only to be reopended for the war to hold Confederate prisoners. It was a hell hole and small pox was so rampant that the victims were taken at night to an island in the Mississippi river nicknamed smallpox island to be buried so as to not infect the rest. No matter that the river would flood and carry the disease down river. there is a real nice Confederate cemetery here in town, however the grave stones were stolen to use as foundations for some of the buildings in the area. There is only a corner of the wall still standing, and those stones were also used as building materials for the town, which is why the stories about this town being so haunted are prevalent.

[Thumbcocker]

When New York asked for federal troops to help restore order during the draft riots they were loaded on trains in Pennsylvania. Yup straight from Gettysburg. I can only imagine how those grunts, straight from 3 days of hard combat with the best of the confederacy and seeing many good men on both sides fall for their respective causes, viewed the rioters. I'm sure their sympathy knew no bounds.

[texaswoodworker]

I do want you to know that I value your opinion every bit as much as you do mine. If I ever feel in need of guidance on slavery and post-slavery discrimination, I will probably look for it elsewhere. Like I got from an American friend who couldn't live in his own state with his Taiwanese wife before 1967, because they would have been jailed for it. Maybe he was ignorant or biased...

Last I checked, racism and hate were still alive and well over in Europe, Socialism has become the norm, and between the economic problems, the threat of ISIS within your own borders, and Putin's warmongering. I'd say you need to worry more about yourself than Americas now long gone problems. You really can't claim the moral high ground here. What the British Empire did to places like India was pretty bad.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

You are speaking about a post in which I commented that those particular problems of America's were cleared up remarkably well, considering their profundity. As I believe I indicated I knew, support among Americans for slavery in the 1860s and the remnants of that attitude afterwards were very much a minority thing. They got beaten, just like in the rest of the world, although it must be admitted that Revolutionary France banned slavery before the British Empire outside the UK. Perhaps they had latched onto the idea, somewhere, that men are free and equal. I'd a lot sooner have been one of our Indians than one of yours.

As to Socialism, what could be more Socialist than expecting everyone to contribute to wars that only some of them want?

[texaswoodworker]

You are speaking about a post in which I commented that those particular problems of America's were cleared up remarkably well, considering their profundity. As I believe I indicated I knew, support among Americans for slavery in the 1860s and the remnants of that attitude afterwards were very much a minority thing. They got beaten, just like in the rest of the world, although it must be admitted that Revolutionary France banned slavery before the British Empire outside the UK. Perhaps they had latched onto the idea, somewhere, that men are free and equal. I'd a lot sooner have been one of our Indians than one of yours.

I am one of our Indians. Might I remind you that the hostilities towards Native Americans began with the British, French, and Spanish Empires?


As to Socialism, what could be more Socialist than expecting everyone to contribute to wars that only some of them want?

Socialism is a form of an economy. What your speaking of is more in tune with that of Communism, or really any other authoritarian government. As for the men that fought the civil war, at least for the south, they weren't fighting for the few rich that wanted slaves. They were fighting for their homes and their freedom from the Northern invaders lead by that tyrant Lincoln.

[seaboltm]

I think there is some law now that prohibits it, but if a state wants to leave, there's not much the Feds can really do to stop them if that state can survive on it's own. I don't think a 2nd Civil War would start like the last one. There's too much media coverage and info moves fast. If the US attacked a independent nation like Lincoln did, every politician remotely involved would be in a world of trouble.

The Texas V. White case of 1869 described mechanisms for secession. Consent of both parties is one, as I recall. That's where we are headed IMO. Or a return to a republic.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

[QUOTE=texaswoodworker;3194557]I am one of our Indians. Might I remind you that the hostilities towards Native Americans began with the British, French, and Spanish Empires?

QUOTE]

Ah, the white Americans? I think they exploited behavior between native Americans which is now well documented archaeological evidence in pre-Columbian times. Not that people didn't do those things all around the world in the medieval and renaissance periods. But historians identify even the late modern period as beginning with the French Revolution, and I see no logic in the society which produced the greatest botch-up of racial relations in the late late modern period, should feel entitled to immunity from criticism by those who didn't.

Unless it is the logic that we can forgive those who do us harm a lot more easily than we can forgive those who let themselves be harmed by us.

[Char-Gar]

In the beginning of this country, there were individual British colonies that became unified in purpose to throw off the yoke of a despotic government and gain freedom and liberty. They made common cause in this undertaking. They formed a loose confederation of sovereign states as their initial form of government. These Articles of Confederation were drafted in 1776 but not ratified by all thirteen colonies/states until 1781.

These Articles of Confederation proved not to be a workable framework, so in 1789 a new document was written, the United States Constitution. This new document provided for a chief executive (president), courts and the power of taxation to make it all work. The powers of the central government were set out and all powers not specifically delegated to the central government were reserved to the states. The states were still sovereign, but delegated certain powers to the central government.

Many of the states were not comfortable with the creation of such a powerful central government and it took the addition of the "Bill of Rights" to make the document palatable. This bill of rights were specific limitations on the power of central government. There was much conversation and argument over the nature and form of our government, but the notion of the sovereignty of the states was a central core foundation of the union. It was after all called The United States.

Jefferson and others saw the nature of the union as a "compact", an agreement between equals, with each entering on a voluntary basis. While not said, it was assumed that folks could leave when there was no longer mutual benefit or the purpose of the original compact no longer existed. Although the Constitution provided means for new territories to form states and join, it did not provided any mechanism for states to leave/unjoin/succeed.

From time to time states threatened to succeed over this or that disagreement with the central government. It was not until the election of Lincoln in 1860 that a block of states actually did succeed. They looked to the compact nature of the union as their legal basis for leaving. Lincoln never dealt with whether or not states could succeed, he took the position that rebels has taken control of the various state governments. He created the fiction that it was a rebellion IN the states and not a rebellion OF the states. His position was motivated by economics to protect the purses of the power elite of the north. The net result was he invaded the Confederate States with an army of millions.

The Confederate States of America were defeated as much by their own form of government as anything else, other than the supply of men needed. The central government of the Confederate states was to weak to fight a protracted war again an enemies with a stronger central government. The Confederate States was formed to prevent another edition of "creeping federalism" as Jefferson called it, and that lead to their defeat. They didn't intent to have to fight a war over the issue. Hostilities didn't begin until Federal troops refused to withdraw from the territory of the Confederacy. Federal troops did leave Texas in 1861 and other places, but they held tight at Ft. Sumpter and refused to go.

The military defeat of the Confederate States did not end the debate over whether or not states could succeed, which brings us to Texas v. White (USC 1869) This was a law suit brought by the puppet reconstruction government of Texas over the ownership of some US bonds owned by Texas since 1950. These bonds had been sold to help finance the war and the reconstruction government wanted the sale to be nullified, i.e. they wanted the money. The supreme court held the bonds were sold by an illegal government as it took the consent of both parties to leave the union.

This ruling is just what it is. The Federal court system used to justify an illegal war and the slaughter of a half million men. It really has no legal precedent and must be understood in it's historic context. It deals only with those bonds and does not establish any legal frame work about the right of succession by the states.

The question of whether or not States can succeed is still up in the air. It really isn't a matter of fixed black letter law. It is a political and social question. I would say that we are closer to testing the matter of succession now, more than any other time since 1861. The central government sizes more and more power and the states and the people grow weaker and weaker. Creeping federalism is no longer a concern, but a present reality. We are marching toward a totalitarian government like we fought against in 1776.

In 1776 American patriots were called traitors and rebels and troops sent to destroy them. In 1861 Southern American patriots were called traitors and rebels and troops sent to destroy them. Will another generation of patriots arise and history repeat itself...well that is an open question. The only things certain is that government will consume the citizens, if allowed to grow unchecked.

I will only add one more piece. I can't speak about all the other southern states, but I can speak of Texas history as it concerns the succession. When Texas joined the United Sates in 1846, it did so by a referendum vote of the citizens of the Republic of Texas. In 1861 a succession convention was called to discuss the issue of succession and delegates elected and sent from the various Texas counties. My Great Great Grandfather was a delegate to this convention. The convention decided that succession was the right move and would submit the proposition to the people by a referendum vote. The people of Texas voted to join the union and if they were to leave they would vote on that issue as well. The vote was held and succession carried the vote and thus Texas succeeded. So, Texas was not seized by rebels, but the citizens of Texas voted to leave the union which it has voluntary joined a scant 15 years earlier.

I do note with interest that Scotland recently held a referendum vote about leaving Great Britain and going it alone. When the vote was counted more folks desired the benefits of being a part of Great Britain than wanted Scottish sovereign independence. However that is no business of mine and the Scots can do or not do whatever they want.

I do take umbrage when some Scot or other euro type looks down their nose at our history and wraps themselves in great moral authority when the Brits and Euros have committed far more egregious acts than anything that has happened in America.

Less their be no mistake about it, slavery as practiced throughout the country was a moral evil of the highest order. The segregation laws in the post-war southern states were also wrong. I saw them growing up and as a young lawyer took part in the dismantling of such odious laws. I do not need some sanctimonious person across and ocean to instruct me in the way of right and wrong as it takes place in America. I deeply resent such arrogance. Such euro-liberals earn a place on my ignore list right along side of our mis-guided home grown squirrels.

My family came to this country in 1619 (Jamestown) and we have been here ever since, adding new branches along the way. We fought the French and Indians, The British twice, the Mexicans twice, the Comanche, the Spanish, The German's twice, the Italians and the Japs. We are Americans and Texans through and through and don't "give a fig", whatever that means, what folks outside our national boundaries think of or about us.

That is it lads....have a great spring here in this great land.

[RogerDat]

There were so many "root" causes for the American Civil War that it would take several books to even have a broad outline. One I have not seen mentioned is the House of Representatives. The more heavily populated and industrial north was gaining an unstoppable majority over the agrarian and less populated south due to the representation based on population. If enough states came in on the "northern" side it would have tipped the Senate and Electoral College.

The economics of slavery and if it was going to be allowed in the territories becoming states was another huge issue. The south had much of its capital tied up in slaves, if those slaves could not be used in the new states it certainly would curtail the ability of the southern "businessman" in agriculture to expand his business. The north on the other hand had the population to create smaller private farms in the new territories and the North's businessman was more likely to be in durable goods manufacturing which allowed northern business to expand into the markets that were created in the new states.

The cost of slaves was on a course to outstrip the production capacity of the slave in agriculture. Making slave ownership unprofitable. No one knows how that would have worked out. Would breeding slaves have been a growth industry? Or would industrial farming have made the number of farms using them decline to the point where the majority did not favor it?

One side was as a rallying point fighting for the rights of the states to succeed and withdraw from the agreement the other side was fighting as a rallying point to preserve the union formed by the original agreement. No "win-win" there. Both can't have what they want. And for what it is worth I think our country would have been crippled by civil war in the expansion westward. Which country USA or CSA would get which chunk of the west would have been enough to lead to war eventually even if the initial split had avoided open warfare. Have to wonder if Mexico would have held onto more or all of the southwest if the CSA and USA were busy fighting over Kansas, Nebraska & Colorado. It is even possible Texas or some of its territory or economy would have been reclaimed by mexico if Texas citizens were engaged in a war or hostile relations with the USA that extended well beyond the time the civil war ended. A lot of those old Spanish land grants were overrun by northern families looking for a new home. If there were hostilities between Texas/CSA and those areas would that have worked?

Lincoln was just as much of an abolitionist as he needed to be in order to get their votes, stopping short of offending all the rest of the white north to the point where they would not vote for him. Nothing new in politics, and still goes on today. You can see it in the way the presidential candidates campaign in the primaries to the base of their parties and then shift toward the center for the general election. Most viable candidates are just as "liberal" or "conservative" as they need to be to get the more impassioned base in the primary.

One thing those that think the US can't "handle" a bloody war might want to consider is what we were willing to accept as losses during the American civil war. Those prison camps serve as a reminder that once we start thinking of human being as "us" and "them" or "enemies" and "friends" it becomes very easy to justify treating those on the other side in inhuman ways. Which is often the result of war, and becoming more common in our "wedge" form of politics that divides us for political gain. Seems to me that too often the other side is spoken of as being evil or un-American or what have you as opposed to as being our fellow citizens holding a view we disagree with.

[Char-Gar]

There were so many "root" causes for the American Civil War that it would take several books to even have a broad outline. One I have not seen mentioned is the House of Representatives. The more heavily populated and industrial north was gaining an unstoppable majority over the agrarian and less populated south due to the representation based on population. If enough states came in on the "northern" side it would have tipped the Senate and Electoral College.

The economics of slavery and if it was going to be allowed in the territories becoming states was another huge issue. The south had much of its capital tied up in slaves, if those slaves could not be used in the new states it certainly would curtail the ability of the southern "businessman" in agriculture to expand his business. The north on the other hand had the population to create smaller private farms in the new territories and the North's businessman was more likely to be in durable goods manufacturing which allowed northern business to expand into the markets that were created in the new states.

The cost of slaves was on a course to outstrip the production capacity of the slave in agriculture. Making slave ownership unprofitable. No one knows how that would have worked out. Would breeding slaves have been a growth industry? Or would industrial farming have made the number of farms using them decline to the point where the majority did not favor it?

One side was as a rallying point fighting for the rights of the states to succeed and withdraw from the agreement the other side was fighting as a rallying point to preserve the union formed by the original agreement. No "win-win" there. Both can't have what they want. And for what it is worth I think our country would have been crippled by civil war in the expansion westward. Which country USA or CSA would get which chunk of the west would have been enough to lead to war eventually even if the initial split had avoided open warfare. Have to wonder if Mexico would have held onto more or all of the southwest if the CSA and USA were busy fighting over Kansas, Nebraska & Colorado. It is even possible Texas or some of its territory or economy would have been reclaimed by mexico if Texas citizens were engaged in a war or hostile relations with the USA that extended well beyond the time the civil war ended. A lot of those old Spanish land grants were overrun by northern families looking for a new home. If there were hostilities between Texas/CSA and those areas would that have worked?

Lincoln was just as much of an abolitionist as he needed to be in order to get their votes, stopping short of offending all the rest of the white north to the point where they would not vote for him. Nothing new in politics, and still goes on today. You can see it in the way the presidential candidates campaign in the primaries to the base of their parties and then shift toward the center for the general election. Most viable candidates are just as "liberal" or "conservative" as they need to be to get the more impassioned base in the primary.

One thing those that think the US can't "handle" a bloody war might want to consider is what we were willing to accept as losses during the American civil war. Those prison camps serve as a reminder that once we start thinking of human being as "us" and "them" or "enemies" and "friends" it becomes very easy to justify treating those on the other side in inhuman ways. Which is often the result of war, and becoming more common in our "wedge" form of politics that divides us for political gain. Seems to me that too often the other side is spoken of as being evil or un-American or what have you as opposed to as being our fellow citizens holding a view we disagree with.

An excellent and well thought out post, reflecting a good understanding of the times in question. History is always much clearer in the rear view mirror than it is through the windshield. Lots of us like to reflect on the "what ifs" of the turns of history.

One think I would throw into your mix, it is dubious that Mexico would reclaim parts of Texas. In the run up to succession Sam Houston was governor and he was trying to bamboozle the central government into funding a very large Ranger force, much larger in fact than was needed to deal with Comanche raids and Mexican incursions. It was Houston's goal to use this force to invade Mexico and incorporate it into a greater Texas.The feds didn't bite and succession and resulting war sunk Houston's favor with the people of Texas. He retired and died in 1863. The vision of a Texas Empire stretching all the way to Panama died with Houston.

The vote to succeed was an easy one for Texans, with just a few counties dominated by recent German immigrants voting the other way. The bigger issue was whether or not to join the Confederate States. Texans were not as unified on that, with some including Houston and my Great Great Grandfather in favor going it alone again as the Republic of Texas. There was a debate between succession and joining the Confederacy, but loyalty and ties to the southern states carried the day. Houston was removed from office of governor because he refused to take an oath of allegiance to the Confederate States. My Great Great Grandfather didn't have to make that choice as he died on Onion Creek on his way back from the Succession Convention. He did have three sons that did serve in the army of the Confederacy including my Great Grandfather. All of them served in Texas units and fought in the Trans-Mississippi theater. These units had a somewhat different view of their service than other more traditional units from the south. The Texas units saw themselves as a buffer between the enemy and Texas. For the most part they were successful in keeping the Yankee out of Texas, but a few battles were fought, mostly because of federal efforts to cut the cotton trade from the south, through Texas into Mexico and then on Mexican boats to others places in the world. Texas thanks to these units was spared the type of destruction that others states in the south suffered. However Texas was not spared from the harsh punitive military occupation after the war, which is euphemistically called "reconstruction".

So I am left with the "what if" Texas had not joined the Confederacy and "what if" Houston was once again the President of an independent Texas. The only things certain is if that did occur, things would have gone badly for Mexico. Profirio Diaz once said; "Pity poor Mexico, so far from God and so close to Texas.".

The Federal government tried to negotiate a separate peace with Texas in 1865 via General Lew Wallace. Col Ford and General Slaughter took the proposal to their senior commanders where it was quickly quashed. Wallace had promised that after the end of the war, the union government would join Texas in kicking the French out of Mexico, which presumably meant Texas would get the spoils. However the separate peace never got off the ground and Benito Juarez took care of the French all by himself.

Oh yes, you are 100% correct that slavery as a system of converting capital into profit was rapidly proving to be unworkable. It was on it's last legs in 1861 and would have fallen of it's own weight in a generation or less. Not only was it immoral but was rapidly become unprofitable as well.

Lincoln wanted to recolonize Africa with the freed slaves, but Booth took care of that plan and it never happened. "The ***** question" as it was called in Lincoln's day was never answered or resolved, but left to play itself out.

Again, kudos for a fine post.

[Col4570]

Gentlemen,some inroads where made by the USA to repatriate Slaves back to Africa leading to the establishment of Liberia.Originaly a colony but now a sovereign State.http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A7x9Unh.zhVVFQ8ALcF3Bwx.;_ylu=X3oDMTBydWpobjZ lBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2lyMgR2dGlkAw--/RV=2/RE=1427521278/RO=10/RU=http%3a%2f%2fen.wikipedia.org%2fwiki%2fHistory_ of_Liberia/RK=0/RS=JQkQIhA_5bGz4JtyFpomXpe2Qcc-

[shooter93]

I don't think there is even one country on the planet without blood on their hands. Britain certainly didn't rule most of the world at one time by being sweethearts. As noted there are a myriad of reasons for the Civil War here and I'm equally sure no one supports slavery or discrimination. But that was then and this is now. It's history and part of ours.....good or bad. In many ways reconstruction was worse than the war itself....again....part of our history. I've always thought that war needed to be fought, I believe men like Jefferson expected those growing pains and we have grown quite a bit. I also believe the North had to win in that I hate to think of a divided nation and I don't believe there ever would have been a huge Confederate States of America but rather we would have become more like Europe with a group of small countries instead of one Nation.
One can speculate what history of the world would have been had that happened but it would not have been pleasant for sure. Fear causes emotions to rise and fear is often the cause of the tensions and discriminations people suffer. There have been times when it was not great here for Irish, Chinese, Polish and on and on. Despite that we have grown and can unite in times of dire need. Whether or not succession is legal or not is not relevant. It happened and it could happen again. An out of control government can only push so far and people finally say no. The Founders knew this and expected it.

[woodbutcher]

Thanks to all for an interesting and informative thread.
Good luck.Have fun.Be safe.
Leo

[largom]

As bad as the Civil War was it paled compared to what this country did to the Native Americans.

Larry

[Char-Gar]

As bad as the Civil War was it paled compared to what this country did to the Native Americans.

Larry

The Indians did some very bad and brutal things to the whites as well. Nobody had the moral high ground in that mess.

[texaswoodworker]

The Indians did some very bad and brutal things to the whites as well. Nobody had the moral high ground in that mess.

Well, the US did break most of those treaties, and lumping all Native Americans together doesn't really work since all the different tribes were basically different countries. Read up on the Cherokee and the Trail of Tears and you'll see how evil Uncle Sam can be.

[Rick N Bama]

I have a great great grandfather and two great great uncles buried at Camp Chase in Columbus, Ohio. Had another great great uncle that survived Point Look Out, Maryland. Google that place.
James

I had a Great Grandfather that also survived Point Lookout. When he was released he walked home to Griffin GA.

[quilbilly]

Didn't the war start over states rights and Lincoln didn't have the support he needed for that so he tied slavery to it for the support he needed?I am asking a question.
Pretty much but the people of the South didn't really like being told how to live by the Ivy League ruling class of the NE. Kinda like today.

[quilbilly]

As bad as the Civil War was it paled compared to what this country did to the Native Americans.

Larry The Indians had been committing genocide routinely for thousands of years too. Just look at the wounds Kenniwick man suffered.
Only difference is that in this country, we do reparations indefinitely and some are on a terminal guilt trip.

[Char-Gar]

Pretty much but the people of the South didn't really like being told how to live by the Ivy League ruling class of the NE. Kinda like today.

That is quite true. The independent spirit that was once common in this country was in 1860 still strong in the south. It remains strong to this day. A look at the econome of this country shows that these southern states are leading in job creation and the attraction of business. This is caused by the low burden of regulation and taxation plus a work force with a strong work ethic.

Folks in the north like to portray the people in the south as ignorant redneck racists. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Most southerners today are educated and sophisticated people, they just don't share the liberal views of the north. The lamp of liberty and independence burns far brighter in the south than most other places in this country.

[dtknowles]

...................... Most southerners today are educated and sophisticated people, they just don't share the liberal views of the north. The lamp of liberty and independence burns far brighter in the south than most other places in this country.

You might want to reflect on that a little more and include Miami, Orlando, Atlanta, Birmingham, New Orleans, Houston, and Austin in that train of thought. The south is less urban than the North East and North Central U.S. that is more a factor than southern culture.

Tim

[shooter93]

Most North Eastern states are very divided Char-Gar including New York. Appalachia is a different planet for sure and the rural areas of the Northeast are full of extremely independent people. Lumping all northerners together in their thinking that southerners are all rednecks is the same as southerners lumping all northerners as liberal ivy league dinks. The resistance to government intrusions here is far stronger than you imagine.

[texaswoodworker]

You might want to reflect on that a little more and include Miami, Orlando, Atlanta, Birmingham, New Orleans, Houston, and Austin in that train of thought. The south is less urban than the North East and North Central U.S. that is more a factor than southern culture.

Tim
Austin is still more conservative than any city in Marxachusetts. Just sayin :P

Vermont and Maine are pretty good.

[Thumbcocker]

My view is that it is not so much a north south thing today as it is an urban rural thing.

[MaryB]

Exactly! In Minnesota we have the Twin Cities metro corridor that is die hard liberal versus the out state conservatives with the exception of the iron range, unions there make them liberal. Our worthless governor wants to spend billions on mass transit yet the out state roads are turning into cow paths they are so broken down. Pretty much fed up with spending only on big city needs!

[Kent Fowler]

Austin is still more conservative than any city in Marxachusetts. Just sayin :P

Vermont and Maine are pretty good.

I'm not too sure of that. When I lived there in the early '70's, they had a lot of voter apathy and the liberal block vote by the UT students kept Austin from having a decent city government. Their current police chief Art Acevedo, an LA Kalifornia liberal who doesn't believe in the 2nd Amendment, recently on the news, urged the citizens of Austin to call the police and turn in their neighbors if they knew or suspected the neighbor had a "large amount of guns". Chief Acevedo hails originally from Cuba, where it appears he was pretty well indoctrinated by the Castro regime.

[shooter93]

It's been rural versus urban since the beginning of the Republic.

[texaswoodworker]

I'm not too sure of that. When I lived there in the early '70's, they had a lot of voter apathy and the liberal block vote by the UT students kept Austin from having a decent city government. Their current police chief Art Acevedo, an LA Kalifornia liberal who doesn't believe in the 2nd Amendment, recently on the news, urged the citizens of Austin to call the police and turn in their neighbors if they knew or suspected the neighbor had a "large amount of guns". Chief Acevedo hails originally from Cuba, where it appears he was pretty well indoctrinated by the Castro regime.

Yep, they are more Liberal than the rest of Texas, and they have their fair share of crazys, but there are also a lot of Conservatives in that city. You can not only carry your CCW into the State Capitol building, but actually get in faster. Try doing that in Boston. :D

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/state/headlines/20100719-concealed-carry-gun-permits-let-holders-bypass-texas-capitol_s-metal-detectors.ece

[doc1876]

the day Lincoln signed the Emancipation proclamation, he authorized the hanging of 24 Indians just because they were Indian

[texaswoodworker]

the day Lincoln signed the Emancipation proclamation, he authorized the hanging of 24 Indians just because they were Indian
He was a great man wasn't he? :sarcasm:

[waksupi]

the day Lincoln signed the Emancipation proclamation, he authorized the hanging of 24 Indians just because they were Indian

There is a lot more to The Great Sioux Uprising than that. All brought about by sleezy government agents, so the civilian population suffered for the government's sins (sound familiar?), and Indians, guilty or not hung. Originally they were going to hang over 100, and I believe they actually ended up hanging 30 some. I've been to the Sharp Cabin where the Spirit Lake Massacre was many times, and the site where the Uprising began. I believe Inkpaduta was the leader of the natives. It's been 40+ years, so my memory has some holes in it.

[35remington]

No matter what is thought of Lincoln, by whichever side you're on, there's no question about one thing......preserving the Union was has overriding goal, and this country would not be what it is today nor would it have accomplished as much as it has had it become two separate nations.

Here I suppose I am appealing to the "southern" sense of being trampled on in the process, but the forgoing paragraph is undoubtedly true. It was a worthy thing to end slavery as well, but that was not Lincoln's primary goal, and he said as much repeatedly.

He wanted to preserve the Union, and he did. For that, and the ending of slavery, we have at least some reason to be thankful as current citizens of this country. You may not agree with the rest of it, but being upset about it won't change a thing about the past. It is done.

Quite a few people do think he was a great man, and he ranks as one of the "greatest presidents" by many accounts. I'm sure that's not true in the southern part of this country.......but reflect on the fact that it is one country, not two. That's why many think he was great. It would have been all too easy to be less steadfast in his view of preserving the Union. We judge presidents on results in trying times, and his was probably one of the most trying presidencies of all time.

[texaswoodworker]

No matter what is thought of Lincoln, by whichever side you're on, there's no question about one thing......preserving the Union was has overriding goal, and this country would not be what it is today nor would it have accomplished as much as it has had it become two separate nations.

Here I suppose I am appealing to the "southern" sense of being trampled on in the process, but the forgoing paragraph is undoubtedly true. It was a worthy thing to end slavery as well, but that was not Lincoln's primary goal, and he said as much repeatedly.

He wanted to preserve the Union, and he did. For that, and the ending of slavery, we have at least some reason to be thankful as current citizens of this country. You may not agree with the rest of it, but being upset about it won't change a thing about the past. It is done.

Quite a few people do think he was a great man, and he ranks as one of the "greatest presidents" by many accounts. I'm sure that's not true in the southern part of this country.......but reflect on the fact that it is one country, not two. That's why many think he was great. It would have been all too easy to be less steadfast in his view of preserving the Union. We judge presidents on results in trying times, and his was probably one of the most trying presidencies of all time.

I'm not so sure that we're better off as one. States rights were violated and continue to be violated today, we are in a constant battle for our rights (all of them, not just the 2nd), and parts of this country look more like the USSR than the USA. No one can say with certainty we are better off as one, because history could have went in a million different directions. I love this country, but personally, I think we'd be better off without New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Illinois, and California.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

No matter what is thought of Lincoln, by whichever side you're on, there's no question about one thing......preserving the Union was has overriding goal, and this country would not be what it is today nor would it have accomplished as much as it has had it become two separate nations.

Here I suppose I am appealing to the "southern" sense of being trampled on in the process, but the forgoing paragraph is undoubtedly true. It was a worthy thing to end slavery as well, but that was not Lincoln's primary goal, and he said as much repeatedly.

He wanted to preserve the Union, and he did. For that, and the ending of slavery, we have at least some reason to be thankful as current citizens of this country. You may not agree with the rest of it, but being upset about it won't change a thing about the past. It is done.

Quite a few people do think he was a great man, and he ranks as one of the "greatest presidents" by many accounts. I'm sure that's not true in the southern part of this country.......but reflect on the fact that it is one country, not two. That's why many think he was great. It would have been all too easy to be less steadfast in his view of preserving the Union. We judge presidents on results in trying times, and his was probably one of the most trying presidencies of all time.

It would be hard to name another president before Theodore Roosevelt that anybody took much notice of. I wonder if it is true (it may not be) that Lincoln said the ***** issue was like the drains. When they give trouble they stink pretty badly, and something has to be done, but he would very much rather they just stayed quietly out of sight.

[Sin Nombre]

Roger that

[Sin Nombre]

I'm not so sure that we're better off as one. States rights were violated and continue to be violated today, we are in a constant battle for our rights (all of them, not just the 2nd), and parts of this country look more like the USSR than the USA. No one can say with certainty we are better off as one, because history could have went in a million different directions. I love this country, but personally, I think we'd be better off without New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Illinois, and California.
As do I!

[35remington]

Texas, I don't care for the liberal tendencies of those states you mention either but it's hard to imagine the U.S. intervening in WW1 and 2 in any meaningful way had it been not been the United States.

History would likely been negatively written in the worst possible way. This nation is greater whole than less the South. I'm sure Southerners would agree with that sentiment ever if they don't agree with how it came about.

Yes, some may view Lincoln as a tyrant, but the result of that terrible war in terms of positives may well have been worth it. Alternatives to the current situation will never be known. It's all we've got and "what ifs" can never occur.

[texaswoodworker]

Texas, I don't care for the liberal tendencies of those states you mention either but it's hard to imagine the U.S. intervening in WW1 and 2 in any meaningful way had it been not been the United States.

History would likely been negatively written in the worst possible way. This nation is greater whole than less the South. I'm sure Southerners would agree with that sentiment ever if they don't agree with how it came about.

Yes, some may view Lincoln as a tyrant, but the result of that terrible war in terms of positives may well have been worth it. Alternatives to the current situation will never be known. It's all we've got and "what ifs" can never occur.

There was nothing positive to come from that war, and as I said before, you cannot say with any certainty how history would have went. Who says the CSA and the USA could not have settled their differences as far as being allies goes, and worked together in WWI and WWII?

[35remington]

I also cannot say with certainty the two sides would have cooperated as separate nations. It is quite likely they would have taken contrarian views simply to be contentious. We'll never know.

Some will view the preservation of the Union as one positive. I am of that viewpoint myself but do not claim it for everyone as an absolute certainty.

[Thumbcocker]

I would imagine that there would have been at least three nations North, South, and West. Intrigue and power politics would have been a mess with European powers trying to play everyone off against the other as part o their greater agenda. Zimmerman telegram ring a bell.

[Thumbcocker]

I find it sad that entire States are judged by the actions of their governments and urban centers and media coverage. I have had annoying experiences with individuals from other states and don't write them off. Any geographic area has it's share of jerks and blowhards that may make you miss the folks going about their lives and business. I am glad that there are shooters, casters, and hunters in Massachusetts, New York, Illinois, and California who continue to hold onto their hobby and lifestyle despite what might be fashionable in the big cities.

[Char-Gar]

Yesterday, April 12 was the day Lee surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia at Appomattox starting the end of the war. There were six more battles to be fought, but it was the beginning of the end of the Confederate States of America. What followed was a period of great economic destruction wrought on the Southern States from which it took almost 100 years to recover. The Southern states paid a dear price for their desires to be free from "righteous fleas" and live life as it was intended by the founders of the American republic.

It is nothing but a guessing game to try and figure out what would have happened if the Confederate States of America had managed to retain it's independence, but I for sure would like to have found out. I am not yet reconciled to living in occupied Texas. Our beloved Lone Star State is teeming with Federal troops, police, bureaucrats and sycophants. They have their stinger in us and we are being slowly poisoned by their foreign liberal ways.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

I find it sad that entire States are judged by the actions of their governments and urban centers and media coverage. I have had annoying experiences with individuals from other states and don't write them off. Any geographic area has it's share of jerks and blowhards that may make you miss the folks going about their lives and business. I am glad that there are shooters, casters, and hunters in Massachusetts, New York, Illinois, and California who continue to hold onto their hobby and lifestyle despite what might be fashionable in the big cities.

That is a very wise and sensible attitude which many share - up to the three mile limit and one of America's land frontiers. It might even apply most other places.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

There was nothing positive to come from that war, and as I said before, you cannot say with any certainty how history would have went. Who says the CSA and the USA could not have settled their differences as far as being allies goes, and worked together in WWI and WWII?

I can't remember whether it was Lincoln or Churchill I've seen described as a good man, excellently well equipped by nature to understand bad ones. It could have been either. Churchill, in the days when he needed the money, wrote a fantasy short story entitled "If Lee had not won at Gettysburg". Despite postulating a situation pretty much like actually happened, it described a situation in which the South won its independence, but North America remained an armed camp with an economy-sapping arms race in which both nations were scared stiff of war breaking out again. The British Empire, to avoid this, brokers a settlement by means of an Association of the Engish Speaking Peoples, in which all were pledged to unite in war against anyone who attacked any one of its members. In 1914 they issue an ultimatum against breaching the neutrality of any of its members' allies, and the Kaiser collapses, muttering "Saved!" Not that he couldn't have saved himself in real life, but he didn't.

It would be hard to find a better example of the achievements of socialism than America, where it didn't actually happen. It wasn't the vote alone that pushed America, in the early twentieth century, to give an almost unique status and standard of living to the skilled and semi-skilled manual worker. Governments are all pretty good at their universal aim of overcoming the democracy problem. It was the vote plus the seductive allure of that competing ideology. Even nowadays American manual workers can solve problems which in many countries would be left to a graduate engineer.

At the moment I am in Saudi Arabia, which is no stranger to idleness or administrative chaos, and yet their best, just like black people, are as good as anybody's best. But there is a grave unemployment problem among educated young men, because Pakistanis etc. are cheaper and more easily controlled, and can do most jobs until a complication comes along, or nobody is looking. I wonder what would have been the chances of creating a high quality working class in an independent South, with education and rewards on even a late 19th century standard?

I don't suppose Jefferson Davies ever signed a black person's death warrant, let alone 24 in a day. Nobody can deny that in a couple of decades of the twentieth century America improved its social relations to an extent probably unknown in any country without force from outside. But a just and successful society owes a lot to extremes - to hard men you don't really want in your neighbourhood in peaceful times, and to its liberals too.

[sundog]

Charles, very well said, sir.