The American Civil War

[xoxoxoBruce]

I'll buy that.

[Cloud]

for a dollar.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by glatt

It amazes me still. It was centuries ago, people!

Well, strictly speaking it was 142 years ago. Still more than a century, I know, but less than two. I took a history class on the Civil War in college, from a professor who taught nothing but Civil War-related topics. I don't remember whether the idea was his or another scholar's, but he told us that statistically, considering all the civil wars in the world that we have records of, it usually takes a country about 200 years to completely recover from a civil war.

2065, here we come!!

[Jeboduuza]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

don't remember whether the idea was his or another scholar's, but he told us that statistically, considering all the civil wars in the world that we have records of, it usually takes a country about 200 years to completely recover from a civil war.

The United States is not a "usual" country, for whatever that's worth. I think we have fully recovered if not become far greater than statistically what we should be.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Well, strictly speaking it was 142 years ago. Still more than a century, I know, but less than two.

I'll admit I took liberties, but only because I knew I could fall back on the idea that you don't have to have a number greater than 2 to use the plural. It was 1.42 centuries ago.

Edit: Of course, using that logic, the Iraq war has been going on for centuries. (0.04 centuries, to be exact.)

[Chewbaccus]

The general trend of any history class - as I've seen - is that you get the simple answer early on (The Civil War was about slavery), and then as you get older, the gray starts to come in (differing economic structures, social movements, international reactions, etc). From there comes the arguments.

I've always held on to an argument I came across in my junior year of high school - that the Proclamation was issued to make the war about slavery in order to use moral superiority to forestall any English or French intercession - military and/or otherwise - on the Southern side. To wit: post-Proclamation, as much as the English and French may have wanted to check the development of America as an economic rival, they could not rouse their populace to fight on behalf of (what was then perceived to be) the continuance of slavery.

[glatt]

Chewie de-cloaks to make an interesting point!

[xoxoxoBruce]

By 1860, I think the English had pretty much given up the Idea of reclaiming parts of the US. That said, it would be to their advantage to keep up the animosity between the North and South. The South provided the materials the wanted/needed, and market for their manufactured goods, competing with the North for that market. Plus two countries would be weaker than one, in the future.
That's why they were helping the South with money and supplies, and could have very well committed troops, being one of those rare times with no wars of there own going on(except New Zealand, I think).

So Chewbacca may be right as to the Emancipation Proclamation being a deterrent for foreign intervention. But I think it's prime effect is to set the stage for a huge insurgency within the CSA territory. Even if the slaves didn't openly revolt, they would be less inclined to help their masters.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Chewbaccus

I've always held on to an argument I came across in my junior year of high school - that the Proclamation was issued to make the war about slavery in order to use moral superiority to forestall any English or French intercession - military and/or otherwise - on the Southern side. To wit: post-Proclamation, as much as the English and French may have wanted to check the development of America as an economic rival, they could not rouse their populace to fight on behalf of (what was then perceived to be) the continuance of slavery.

That was the conclusion of the paper I wrote.

It was a twofer but the bottom line was foreign intervention was the only way the CSA was going to survive. They lacked the men and material to continue. The South actually debated freeing their slaves as a way to increase manpower. We forget that even for slaves the South was home and the blue army was foreign. The Northern Army was full of immigrants who considered freed slaves to be competition for jobs. The slaves were not universally treated well by the invading army, creating weird dynamics in places where slaves were treated decently (inside the context of the times).

More free blacks fought for the South than for the North, FAR more. There are still many predominantly black chapters of the Sons of Confederate Soldiers. Some close to here. They were integrated and had the same supplies and equipment in the South. Not by a long shot in the North. They got dregs and not all were even armed.
They were ordered into the most deplorable conditions, impossible odds... often. They were not wanted.
No so in the South, they were part of the regular army.
Southern free solders when taken as prisoners of war by the North were shot, just shot.
The South treated Northern black soldiers the same as Northern prisoners of war, same barracks, same food, same supplies.
Europe, having abolished slavery, many nations for a hundred years backed the South knowing that we had a long-term plan and our cause was just.
If the war was about slavery, this would never have happened.
"Freeing" slaves with no infrastructure caused many deaths and much disease, this was the tactic of the North, it was cruel to the slaves, more-so than to anyone else and was intentional.
Lincoln did not want slaves to be free or part of the Union, he stated this many times. How his legacy became what it is, is still a mystery.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Rkzen, are you trying to tell me, among other things, the 54th Massachusetts went into Battery Wagner without arms or equipment? Most improbable.

Several battalions of blacks were constituted in Virginia about February 1865. They never received arms nor saw any action.

I did not say "without" at all. I notice you did not quote me.. that would have looked silly.
They were amazing because they had sub-standard equipment and many shared guns and shoes. Many of those picked off the corpses of the fallen of both sides during previous battles, not issued.