O/T The Rise and Fall of Nazi Germany vs. The American Confederacy

[mcgivney]

People who think the Civil War was about slavery were asleep in history class.

People who think the Civil war was about State's Rights' payed attention in history class.

People who *know* the Civil War was really about slavery thought about what they learned in history class.

[guachi]

In response to Elijah:

Under what law did the Southern states have to legally secede?

On what moral grounds does ANY state or nation have to argue that slavery should be legal?

Elijah, you didn't read what I wrote. I DID NOT say that freeing the slaves was the MAIN goal of the ACW. I said that it become a war policy exemplified by the Gettysburg address. And yes, the non-existent rights of blacks would have been worse had the South won.

There WERE clashes of arms over slavery in the newly settled territories in the West.

Second, do you not have ANY idea what the governments stance was towards slavery? Even IF EVERY citizen in the North opposed slavery, the PROPER method of abolishing it would have been to pass a law. ONLY THEN would it have been okay to send troops into the South to enforce the law.

Gee, I would think that the reason the blacks had little Civil Rights was because of racist laws implemented by Southern whites.

I notice no one refuted my statement that the Southern states were hypocritical in their claim of state's-rights.

Jason

I still maintain that slavery was the ultimate cause of the ACW. No dispute over slavery, no ACW.

Certainly, the North wanting the South in the Union was the PROXIMATE cause.

Using 'underlying' may have been misleading as the terms I have always seen in history books (or scientific journals) are ultimate and proximate.

Proximate causes are often meaningless. E.g., Loss of blood may be the proximate reason someone died, but it tells you nothing of the ultimate reason leading up to them getting shot with a gun in the first place.

[Hamstersss]

Gauchi,

Slavery did become a rallying cause of the war, after Union wore thin. As far as the right to secede, our Constitution does not prohibit it and those states would never have joined the union if they thought they couldn't leave. Lincoln's election radicalized the United States, until then there wasn't much of a federal government (No draft, no income tax, only 3 amendments to the constitution after nearly 100 years, a string of presidents that didn't rock the boat and the death of the Federalist party).

As to those evil Southerners oppressing the poor black people, how does that explain the oppressed in Chicago, New York, LA, Detroit, etc.? Northerners and the Union didn't give a fig about the blacks and if you think otherwise, you're going to have an immensely difficult time backing up your argument.

------------------

You wouldn't know the dust of Thermopylae if it came up to you, handed you a business card reading "Dust of Thermopylae, 480 B.C.E.", then kicked you in the shins.

-Hakko Ichiu

[Formerly Babra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by guachi:

In response to Elijah:

On what moral grounds does ANY state or nation have to argue that slavery should be legal?

...Second, do you not have ANY idea what the governments stance was towards slavery?

...Gee, I would think that the reason the blacks had little Civil Rights was because of racist laws implemented by Southern whites.

I notice no one refuted my statement that the Southern states were hypocritical in

their claim of state's-rights.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess they're not the only hypocrites. The following is an excerpt from an article by Dr. Michael Hill

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Few authors and commentators on the war have dared present one basic fact that overthrows the myth of Yankee beneficence toward the slaves. On 2 March 1861, the 36th U. S. Congress (minus, of course, the seven seceded states of the Deep South) passed by a two-thirds majority a proposed amendment to the Constitution. Had it been ratified by the requisite number of states before the war intervened and signed by President Lincoln (who looked favourably on it as a way to lure the Southern states back into the Union), the proposed 13th Amendment would have prohibited the U. S. government from ever abolishing or interfering with slavery in any state.

The proposed 13th Amendment reads: "No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."

Note well that this amendment was designed to be unrepealable (i.e. "No amendment shall be made . . . .") This gives the lie to claims that a righteous North went to war in 1861 to free the slaves. Moreover, it undermines the claim that the South seceded to preserve the institution of slavery. If that had been the South's goal, then what better guarantee did it need than an unrepealable amendment to the Constitution to protect slavery as it then existed?"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Edit: And just to throw some fuel on the fire about who were most like the Nazis I'll toss this in...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Those who claim US Grant was anti-Jewish have ready ammunition, which Grant provided with his own hands. It is his infamous "General Orders Number 11," written in Oxford, Mississippi, on December 17, 1862. This document essentially excluded Jews from his department and its racist content has earned him justifiable censure ever since. The offensive portion of the order was in the initial paragraph: "The Jews, as a class, violating every regulation of trade established by the Treasury Department, and also Department orders, are hereby expelled from the Department." The actual order was signed by the General's chief of staff, John Rawlins, and zealous supporters of Grant sometimes use this to absolve their man from blame. Unfortunately, this doesn't wash. Whether Grant's signature was on the order or not, he was responsible for both the prevailing sentiment and the order itself.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

------------------

Sounds like 100% weapons-grade bolonium to me.

[This message has been edited by Formerly Babra (edited 08-26-2000).]

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elijah Meeks:

As far as the right to secede, our Constitution does not prohibit it and those states would never have joined the union if they thought they couldn't leave.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

May want to read STATE OF TEXAS v. WHITE, 74 U.S. 700 (1868), U.S. Supreme Court

"The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and [74 U.S. 700, 725] arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?"

"The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States. [74 U.S. 700, 726] When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States."

Cav

[This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 08-26-2000).]

[This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 08-26-2000).]

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elijah Meeks:

The Civil War was not truly a civil war and more resembled a war between nations than any civil war. Contrast the Russian Revolution, the American Revolution and the French Revolution with the Civil War. You will see that the States of America were, for all intents and purposes, seperate nations with the right to secede from the Union.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Irrational rationalization, IMO.

[Hamstersss]

Um CavScout, that case was in 1868. How else do you think the Supremes would have ruled in 1868?

Oh, and your other argument, is no argument.

------------------

You wouldn't know the dust of Thermopylae if it came up to you, handed you a business card reading "Dust of Thermopylae, 480 B.C.E.", then kicked you in the shins.

-Hakko Ichiu

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elijah Meeks:

Um CavScout, that case was in 1868. How else do you think the Supremes would have ruled in 1868?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well it is the ONLY court tested case that I am aware of. Southern sympathizers may argue otherwise but they have neither LAW nor victory of war to back-up their claims.

Cav

[Formerly Babra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout:

Southern sympathizers may argue otherwise but they have neither law nor victory of war to back-up their claims.

Cav<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Certainly not victory.

The only legal case that could be made for any State's secession is if that State can prove the Federal Government was not upholding the Constitution. The Constitution is the covenant between the Federal and State Governments. It is a matter of common law that where one party fails to uphold a contract, the covenent is void.

------------------

Sounds like 100% weapons-grade bolonium to me.

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Formerly Babra:

Certainly not victory.

The only legal case that could be made for any State's secession is if that State can prove the Federal Government was not upholding the Constitution. The Constitution is the covenant between the Federal and State Governments. It is a matter of common law that where one party fails to uphold a contract, the covenent is void.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unfortuantly the S.C. disagreed...

go read the decision it is an interesting read.

Cav

[Formerly Babra]

The right of secession is some sticky territory and I don't want to delve into it. I just find it amusing the way the facts of history get (often unintentionally) twisted.

To stray again back to the original contention that there is some similarity between the rise and fall of Nazi Germany and the Confederacy, I would have to say that the North bears a closer kinship than the south. Both started their war to regain control of territory they believed theirs by right, and both conducted officially sanctioned pogroms.

------------------

Sounds like 100% weapons-grade bolonium to me.

[guachi]

Babra, I am aware of that amendment.

If that is the amendment I am thinking of, it ALSO would have barred ANY new states from having slavery.

Elijah, you are saying that Northerners cared as much about blacks than Southerners did? Many Northern states had abolished slavery. I think outlawing slavery shows a little more concern for blacks than that showed by the South. What kind of opression are you referring to? Certainly SLAVERY is the ultimate form of opression.

If Northerners didn't 'give a fig' about blacks, why, then, did Emancipation become a goal of the war? Certainly it would have had no effect on the uncaring Norhterners you refer to.

You are right. No Northerner ever cared about any black. How could I have been so stupid. The Abolitionists were a dream. The many speeches by Northern preachers of the evils of slavery but an illusion. Give me a break.

Babra, I believe the South would have been the side that started the War when it illegally seized property of the US government. The first shots at Fort Sumter were fired by Southern troops when they attempted to take, by force, property of the US government.

Jason

CavScout - Thanks for the SC ruling. I wait with baited breath for any info Elijah has that might indicate that secession is legal. Like the American Revolution, the only way secession could have been 'legal' was with the force of arms to back it up.

[Hamstersss]

Oh posh, the abolition movement was a minority. Slavery was abolished in the North because it was a terribly inefficient institution that was only re-made useful when the Cotton Gin was invented. Finally, simply, might does not make right.

------------------

You wouldn't know the dust of Thermopylae if it came up to you, handed you a business card reading "Dust of Thermopylae, 480 B.C.E.", then kicked you in the shins.

-Hakko Ichiu

[This message has been edited by Elijah Meeks (edited 08-26-2000).]

[Formerly Babra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by guachi:

If that is the amendment I am thinking of, it ALSO would have barred ANY new states from having slavery.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have hit the nail right on the head, Guachi, and THAT is why the South seceded -- to protect a right they did not yet have. It's a bizarre dichotomy to be sure. An examination of the slavery issues between 1820 and 1860 will bear this out. They wanted as many slave states as free states in the union to ensure proper representation of their interests in Congress. If they had agreed to the amendment, free states would soon outnumber them and slavery would cease through outside pressure.

Of course abolotionism was strong, and it was getting stronger. There were abolotionists in the south too. There was international pressure as well. But the war was NOT fought over this issue. Emancipation did not occur until 1863, two years after it began.

The right and wrong of who started the shooting is another twisted issue. One can fairly argue that Sumter was Union territory and thus the Union was right to defend its interests. One could also argue just as fairly that keeping a fortress in the harbour of a foreign power was a provocative act and the south was right to defend ITS interests. Again, it boils down to whether or not secession was legal.

Do people have the right to self determination or not?

------------------

Sounds like 100% weapons-grade bolonium to me.

[Major Tom]

Being a close foreigner (up here in Canada) we are a little more objective toward the History of the American Civil War, which I have studied extensively both personally and educationally.

These silly terms like 'War of Northern Aggression' and the 'War against the Evil of Slavery' are pure propaganda. They both speak the truth, and are both filled with lies.

The North did however have the benefit of fighting for the side of greater morality. States rights are not important, if its existence depends on individual rights to be ignored. Indeed, the average Slave in the South was treated inumerately better than a Jewish person during the Nazi rule, but, their lives were still pretty horrid.

Yet, what is still majorly ignored in the history books is that more than 100 million Africans lost their lives in the 600 years of slavery (not ALL America's fault!). Kind of makes the scale of the Jewish Holocaust seem insignificant and a little less organized!

PS. Even after the Missouri Compromise, which broke the rule that a new slave state cannot exist above a certain paralell, the South still felt threatened enough to leave the union. This was done so that the South will have an equal say in the US Senate (each state had 2 senators) even though their population was drastically smaller.

So, it was about the South's ability to act independently, HOWEVER, if the South and North were both slave free, then there would have been no argument over state rights, or, an American Civil War.

[This message has been edited by Major Tom (edited 08-27-2000).]

[Vanir]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elijah Meeks:

So let me get this straight, the main aim of the war was to end slavery, as evidenced by actions a year into the war and the Gettysburg Address (Greatest speech of all time). Also, the civil rights of the blacks would be deplorable had the south won the war.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You didn't get it straight. Either you are responding to someone elses post here or you completely misunderstood what I wrote. I never said the main goal of the war was to end slavery. In fact I said the following:

Ever heard the term "United we stand, divided we fall"? That's why the North fought the war. Lincoln and most of the Northern soldiers knew that both the northern and southern states would never be as strong as seperate nations as they would as one. The US is today the most wealthy and powerful nation in the world, and the southern states are sharing in that prosperity. This would not have happened if the South had won (at least not to the same degree).

The fact that the North was not fighting to free the slaves (for the most part) does not change the fact that the South did practice slavery and would have continued to do so if allowed to.

I stand by my statement (which you ignored) that slavery would have continued into the 20th century had the South won. I would like to see your arguements as to why the civil rights of blacks wouldn't have been deploreable (in the South) today, not in the few years after the war.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This was a war of subjugation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly. The South had to be subjugated to preserve the Union. When the South seceeded a war of conquest was the only choice. The alternative was to allow America to be divided into 2 smaller, weaker nations instead of one stronger one (currently the strongest in the world).

To sumerize: the South needed to be subjugated for 2 reasons:

1. Preserve the Union

2. End slavery.

The fact that the North was primarily interested in the first does not change the fact that both are good reasons to be glad the North won.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Second, Reconstruction failed. Terribly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct again. Much of that can be blamed on a Southern patriot named John Wilkes Booth. There were 2 camps in the North after the war. One wanted to help the South rebuild and the other thought the North owed them nothing. Lincoln was in the first camp, but was killed shortly after the war ended. His succesor was from the other camp and that's how things stayed from then on.

In addition, if you really think the US is such a bad place, you can always move to Canada. They're real friendly up there and they've never conquered anyone

[This message has been edited by Vanir (edited 08-27-2000).]

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Tom:

Yet, what is still majorly ignored in the history books is that more than 100 million Africans lost their lives in the 600 years of slavery (not ALL America's fault!). Kind of makes the scale of the Jewish Holocaust seem insignificant and a little less organized!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If one considers the Germans killed their 6 million or so in roughly a decade (600,000 per year) versus the 100 million [i doubt this number myself] over 600 years or about 167,000 a year.

Cav

[Big Iron]

After all these years of studying grand tactics ..

I still don't get the Robert E. Lee thing.

Everybody thinks he's such a god. I contend, he was a moderate ass.

Many different reasons but to simplify ..

What the hell was he doing in Pennsylvania?

Jhees

And Gettysburg. What a fool.

It was a war of DEFENSE for a rebel nation.

They weren't trying to DEFEAT and CONQUER the Union. I mean lay aside all these technical mumbo jumbo this that and another thing on why he had to do it.

Think about the big picture.

Washington never invaded Wales.

I have thought about this long and hard and I have searched for many reasons why I am wrong in my reasoning. I've only come up with theories that are too small.

In The Big Picture...

I honestly think Lee was an arrogant ass.

He should have won that war. The Southern boys beat the North's brains out every single battle every single time ..

Until he committed waaaay too much to Gettysburg for a rebel nation with only one purpose and that was not to CONQUER.

I can't find anybody else historically that says this so ... I just assume I am wrong.

I wish I coulda had a shot at commanding that army.

Those damn Southern boys were mean.

They could fight like hell.

Iron

[Vanir]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Iron:

I can't find anybody else historically that says this so ... I just assume I am wrong.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, your wrong

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What the hell was he doing in Pennsylvania?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He was trying to capture Washington D.C. He knew the South's only chance to win the war was to do something to demoralize the North so much they would sue for peace. Fighting a totally defensive war was a recipe for certain defeat for the South as they were hopelessly outmatched in manpower and manufacturing capacity.

Picket's charge at Gettysburg was his one great mistake, which he admitted.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>He should have won that war. The Southern boys beat the North's brains out every single battle every single time ..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't know where you got this, as it is a long ways from reality. The North won a lot of battles. General Lee's army (The Army of Northern Virginia) was rarely beaten mainly because of it's All-Star cast of leaders:

Robert E. Lee

His 3 corp commanders : Stonewall Jackson, A.P. Hill, James Longstreet.

His Cavelry commander Nathen Bedford Forrest (possibly the best General on either side of the war).

The other Southern armies were not as well led and had few successes agains the Federal armies.

[This message has been edited by Vanir (edited 08-27-2000).]

[Major Tom]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout:

If one considers the Germans killed their 6 million or so in roughly a decade (600,000 per year) versus the 100 million [i doubt this number myself] over 600 years or about 167,000 a year.

Cav

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, so it would have been ok if the Germans would have spread out their murder then... Seriously though, the duration and exact numbers of killed (some people don't think 6 million Jewish people were killed in the Jewish Holocaust) is irrelavent. Even if just 10 million Africans over a period of 1000 years were killed directly through the slave trade it would still be a dreadful holocaust.

Actually, the Western slavers took a REALLY acurate count of those who died during the slave voyages alone, and this number is astounding. Most slaves were worked to death during the first few hundred years of African slavery in the New World, and it wasn't until England blocaded African slave trading in the Atlantic that the Slavers decided to breed their own slaves instead of importing new ones.

PS. What makes you do you doubt this number anyway?

[Olduvai]

Formerly Babra asked:

Do people have the right to self determination or not?

==========

That's an interesting question. Certainly my bleeding liberal blood says well of course they do.

However, we in Washington State USA a couple of years ago were almost confronted by an interesting extension of this argument. Our state house actually passed a bill which stated to effect that secession could be accomplished legally by passing a simple majority of the individuals who wanted to secede. This was the result of a local neighborhood wanting to remove itself from a county plan for urban growth. Now obviously this is a far cry from the secession movement of the South prior to the ACW, and i'm not actually trying to link it to that. What I am struggling with is my liberal bent toward the right of self-determination and what I think was a radically bizarre and stupid law. Perhaps I'm not as liberal as I think! I guess this is a microcosm of that tangled web which is the social contract (ie, as individuals how do we balance the need for society against the needs of the individual). I'm pretty sure I don't have a point here; maybe I'm asking "what do you think?"

On a side note, I have to admit that the SC position has been presented here in a whole new light for me. I also would never have thought to compare either the North or South position with that of Nazi Germany, and that's been some interesting thinking.

[Cav Gunner]

You are all quite silly.

[Formerly Babra]

Couple of points:

Nathan Bedford Forrest did not serve in the Army of Northern Virginia. The cavalry commander was JEB Stuart. (all these tank names -- see, we ARE on topic )

The question IS very interesting, Olduvai. If the South was "in the wrong" by seceding, then so is the United States as a whole for doing the same thing. Bit of a quandary, what?

------------------

Sounds like 100% weapons-grade bolonium to me.

[Vanir]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Formerly Babra:

Couple of points:

Nathan Bedford Forrest did not serve in the Army of Northern Virginia. The cavalry commander was JEB Stuart. (all these tank names -- see, we ARE on topic )

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Damn, got me on that one It's been too long since I read up on this stuff. It was Stuart. He was pretty good too. Confederacy did have some kick ass cavalry.

[This message has been edited by Vanir (edited 08-27-2000).]

[Formerly Babra]

Re the Supreme Court decision:

"These lawyers are of the opinion that anything that hath been done before, may legally be done again; and so they take great care to record the decisions of the courts, and these they compile into volumes, which they term Precedent. They then cite these authorities to support any calumny or absurd notion; and the judges never fail of directing accordingly..." (Anonymous)

------------------

Sounds like 100% weapons-grade bolonium to me.