Conference smurf::civil_war

    RE 29.9:
    
    	"Secession posed no threat to the Federalist philosophy."  !???
    
    	Wes, secession was a _direct_ challenge to the Federalist
    philosophy.  The main difference between a _Fed_eration and a
    _Confed_eration lies in the assumption about its divisibility.  The
    United States had tried a confederate form of government, based on the
    idea of state sovereignty; it had not worked.  The Constitution
    established a federation, in which the elements forming the union
    agreed to surrender some of their "sovereignty" to the common
    government.  In simple terms, they gave up the right to "take their
    ball and go home" if they didn't like something the government did;
    they were provided with means to participate in that government, but
    were _not_ provided with a guarantee that things would always go to
    their liking.  No aggregation of human beings formed to try and
    accomplish something will get very far if _each_ member has an absolute
    veto.
    
    	Note the problems the Confederacy ran into in trying to run the
    war, and you can see many of the practical problems which arise when a
    "confederation" philosophy tries to deal with the friction between
    individual desires and group necessity.  I'm not at all saying that the
    common government always does the right thing, or that the North was as
    helpful and sympathetic to the problems faced by the South as it
    could/should have been; I'm saying that secession _is_ a threat, and an
    intolerable one, to a voluntarily formed federation.  (Think about how
    a volunteer regiment _has_ to react to desertion, if it is to remain an
    effective fighting force.)
    
    MikeR

Confederation -> Federation.  From the Articles of Confederation to the
Constitution.

One thing the Constitution did not guarantee explicitly, for the very
reasons detailed in .1, was the right to secede.  The Declaration of
Independence said that a people have the right to throw off a form of
government they find oppressive, but the intent of that phrasing was to
indicate that the right exists in re: an *imposed* government, not one
that the people have agreed to.

we cheer the peoples of the former Soviet Union for gaining their
freedom from that oppression; would we cheer the people of France for
overthrowing their duly constituted participatory government?  I think
not.

-d

    It's certainly true that the Constitution doesn't provide any
    mechanism for states to leave; therefore secession is, kind of by
    definition, unconstitutional.
    
    On the other hand, this seems more like a legalism than a
    constitutional principle, like those explicitly embodied in the Bill of 
    Rights, for example. Especially since secession is not mentioned at all in
    the Constitution. Note that the Constitution specifically gives
    all powers not explicitly vested in the Federal government to the
    states and/or people.
    
    Under these circumstances, it seems that
    any group of people have a natural right to secede, and the existing
    government has a natural right to attempt to prevent that secession.
    
    I wouldn't go so far as to say the Constitution sanctions secession,
    despite the above, but simply doesn't cover it.
        
Ken

    The constitution doesn't make any statement about secession.
    It was, I think, left ambiguous.  Perhaps this was on purpose;
    perhaps to get all of the states to ratify it, they couldn't
    make any statements about it one way or another.
    
    Similarly, allowing slavery in a nation founded on the
    philosophical principles of the U.S. was a glaring contradiction
    in the founding of the U.S.  Such a contradiction was bound to
    lead to trouble some time.
    
    On the issue of the legality of secession, last year I read
    a book on General Lee's years after the war that contained some
    interesting data.  Apparently, there were many in the North who
    wanted to try him for treason.  To this end, there were some
    congressional hearings at which he was compelled to testify.
    At these hearings, Lee testified that he had acted in what he
    believed was a constitutional manner; i.e., he did not think
    secession was illegal.
    
    Of course, Lee wasn't tried for treason.  The author suggested
    that one reason may have been that, in such a trial, the issue
    of the legality of secession would have been paramount; it
    would have to have been decided.  Suppose the court had decided
    that secession wasn't illegal; what then would have become of
    the union after the war?  Perhaps it was thought better to let
    sleeping dogs lie.  (I don't know how much of this is the author's
    conjecture; I'll dig out the reference tomorrow.)
    
    At any rate, I don't believe that there has ever been any kind of
    legal decision in the U.S. regarding the right of a state to
    secede (or lack of such right).  (The question of whether a
    free society *should* allow secession is, I think, an interesting
    one, but a rathole in this conference.  This question cannot
    be answered outside of the context of the *reason* for secession:
    is it to form a nation with less freedom, or is it because the
    old national government has become oppressive, or some other
    reason?)
    
       Jay

    re:  Mike R.
    
    Secession does not threaten a Federalist system.  Sorry, Mike, but
    I disagree with you.  The Federal system can continue to govern
    the remaining states with no hinderance.  Now I will grant you that
    secession DID threaten the U.S. treasury!  Almost 80% of the tax
    revenues in the Federal government came from Virginia, North and
    South Carolina, and [I think] Georgia.  (Four Southern states, anyway.)
    
    What secession does is to challenge the principle of an all-powerful,
    absolute dictatorship.  If a Federal government were to remain just
    and honorable, and respect its commitments to *ALL* its people,
    it would not be threatened at all by secession.  (I don't how secession
    would ever come up under such a government.)
    
    However, if a Federal government has reneged on its responsibilities
    and has embarked on a path of systematic and calculated infringements
    on the rights of part of its citizens, then that government might
    feel threatened by any group of those citizens' having the guts
    to stand up to it.  This was the viewpoint of American secessionists
    in 1860.
    
    They said the government they had voluntarily joined had ceased
    to exist.  A new and despotic government had risen in its place.
    They owed no allegiance to such a new government.  The Constitution
    had been so thoroughly trodden upon as to be virtually meaningless.
    Participation in such a government, for the purpose of reforming
    or even redirecting it is a contradiction in terms:  if it could
    have been reformed or redirected by the people, it would have been
    a despotic government.
    
    Southerners did not try to overthrow the U.S. government except
    by rejecting it and trying to get out from under its thumb.  Such
    rejection would be a threat only to a despotic government that could
    ill afford to allow such an independent spirit.
    
    In my opinion, the authors of the Constitution left out the matter
    of secession for one of two reasons:  either the question was just
    too hot to handle (remember they were *REALLY* under the gun to
    get that thing ratified!) or they figured that if the government
    became so corrupt that anyone might want to leave it, the question
    would be made academic by a revolution to overthrow it.  (That's
    why they put in the 2nd Ammendment; to ensure the opportunity for
    an armed rebellion should one become necessary.  If the Constitution
    didn't recognize secession, it tacitly recognized revolution!)
    
    RE:  Lee's trial
    
    The same was true of Jeff Davis' trial.  Johnson was told by [I
    think] Seward that if he put Davis on the witness stand, Davis would
    totally gut every argument against secession and thus every
    justification for the war.  That is the real reason Davis and Lee
    were never brought to trial.  Spirit of reconcilliation and charity?
    Right.
    
    
    Wess

    RE .5:
    
    Careful, Wes!  No government can ever satisfy _all_ of the people under
    it _all_ the time.  Any restriction of a behavior (and that is what
    government is about - regulating behaviors at some level in some areas)
    will be seen as unacceptable by some people.  Some governments permit a
    small minority to prosper at the expense of many people; some (like the
    one formulated under the Constitution) try to place controls on the
    arbitrary exercise of power.  Cooperative endeavor requires some
    subordination of individual preferences.
    
    The problem, of course, lies in deciding _when_ that subordination is
    "excessive", and then in deciding _what_ can be done about it.  If an
    individual decides that some law is too restrictive, and breaks it, we
    apply the label "criminal".  We even do that with some groups, and
    consider such "personal rulemaking" unacceptable, and a threat to
    society.  So what is the magic size of group that does _not_ threaten
    society?
    
    Even the Confederacy did not follow the logic that _any_ group of
    people could "opt out" of a government they perceived to be
    undesirable.  They allowed _states_ to secede, but not parts of states
    - or at least they tried hard (by force) to restrain West Virginia,
    east Tennessee, and scattered other groups of residents from staying
    with the U.S.  Evidently they perceived some "threat" to their
    government in such action.
    
    I was _not_ trying to say that the Confederacy threatened the remaining
    states, as government to government.  I was pointing out that the
    concept of unilateral withdrawal from an association like the United
    States (i.e. the _idea_ and _fact_ of secession, not the Confederacy
    per se) _was_ threatening to the basis of a federal government - that
    it is in fact exactly the kind of action a _federal_ system is supposed
    to exclude.
    
    Now a revolution is a different discussion...
    
    MikeR
    

    re: .6
    
    Since, as you said, government is about regulating behavior, all
    governments tend toward tyranny.  That is why the best government
    is the least government, which is the position of state's rights.
    The idea is to keep as much power as possible concentrated in
    relatively small, local governments.  When several such governments
    are united into a single nation, ie, "These United States," the
    independence of the states can only be assured by a true republican
    form of government.  That is what our Founding Fathers established
    - not a democracy, or an oligarchy, or Federation in the sense that
    Lincoln applied the concept.  They set up a republic, comprised
    of representatives from the several states.
    
    Now I'm not saying the Confederation approach is flawless, either.
    It is very hard to wage a major war with such a government.  The
    CSA was, in some ways, destroyed by its own ideals.
    
    I don't want this to go down a ghastly rathole, but I think the
    erosion of our rights today is directly attributable to the destruction
    of the repbulic in 1865.  The principles of unlimited federal power
    have been applied on a local level to corrupt state and city
    governments.  When the Constitution was written, state governments
    were intended to give individual citizens more access to their
    government, and to provide a layer of insulation between the citizens
    and the national government.  Today state governments are nothing
    more than little imitators of the national government, totally under
    its power, providing an added [and more personal] layer of bureaucracy
    and tyranny.  Where they originally provided citizens with a hedge
    against a despotic national government, they now provide a despotic
    national government with a hedge against organized resistance.
    
    The ideals of the two nations that fought the War Between the States
    are brought into sharp contrast by the attitude of our national
    government today.
    
    The doctrine of State's Rights was not a pragmatic ploy to keep
    from having to change.  It was a legitimate and very well-conceived
    political philosophy.  It differed from federalism in many very
    important ways.  Frankly, I don't know that two large segments of
    a society - espeically if they are pretty well regionalized - could
    ever get along if one held to federalist doctrine and the other
    to states' rights.
    
    Wess

    Another way to look at  the secession question is this:
    
    suppose the federal government of the time had respected the rights
    of the seceding states. I think in fact a majority of southerners,
    at least white southerners, would have approved their secession from
    the union, so in a sense secession was their 'right'.
    
    the question is, what now happens to the rights of that other bloc
    of southerners, namely the slaves? well, i suppose you could rather
    callously say, nothing, since they never had any rights to begin with.
    on the other hand, despite what individual southerners might have said
    about freeing the slaves, the society as a whole was not about to
    do so, at least not for a long while.
    
    so you have a case where, on the eve of secession, that is, while the
    southerners are still citizens of the u.s., there is a big chunk
    of people that are being oppressed by the status quo in the south,
    essentially with no rights whatsoever - to the slaves, the constitution
    was just a piece of paper; while another, bigger, chunk of people,
    namely the white southerners, were being 'oppressed' by the
    northerners, or threatened with 'oppression' - this oppression being,
    of course, preventing them from oppressing another segment of the
    people.
    
    i would tend to think that, in the balance, the rights of the slaves
    would take precedence over the rights of the white southerners; does
    a slave-owner have a 'right' to enslave? the trend of thinking at the
    time, except of course in the south, was toward the view that he did not.
    
   in other words, to protect the blacks, at least tentative citizens of
    the country, certainly working towards that status, from being removed
    from the union, and subject to oppression from a new confederation, with 
    little hope for freedom, a war to oppose secession was justified.
    
    ken

    re: .8
    
    SEveral points here and I have only a few minutes.  The North was
    not fighting against slavery. The North was not fighting against
    secession so it could eliminate slavery.  The North was fighting
    against slavery so it could continue to loot the Southern states
    via taxation and tarrif.
    
    Very few - under 10% - white Southerners owned slaves.
    
    There was a very strong anti-slavery movement in the South.  It
    was not as radical or vocal as that in the North, but more than
    half of all anti-slavery societies in the U.S. in 1861 had originated
    in the South.  Many were still there.
    
    Slavery and the feudal system that had grown up around it was not
    tenable in the world economy.  Southerners would have very quickly
    had to face that fact.  It was only the industriailization of the
    North that allowed slavery to prosper.  Break that tie and slavery
    would become an economic disaster.  The pressure of world opinion
    was growing very strong against slavery.  The South would have also
    been faced with being viewed as  barbaric in the world, and the
    nationalist ego that had sprung up could not have endured that for
    long.
    
    In my opinion, slavery could not have existed another 20 years.
     Southerners would have had to end it on their own terms, by their
    own means and initiaitive.  That would have meant perhaps another
    decade of slavery, but when the institution had been abolished,
    the blacks would have been ever so much better off than they were
    in 1865.  The U.S. and the C.S. would have 600,000 more people to
    come up with ideas - billions of dollars more capital with which
    to deal with the issue - and most important, withOUT the hatred
    and trauma that attended the war and reconstruction.
    
    It would not have taken American Blacks more than 100 yers to become
    full citizens.
    
    Wess

    Just as a point of discussion, which is the more immoral situation?
    
    The opinion of a small majority, at best, that Blacks should be
    slaves, with a strong majority opinion that ALL men should be free,
    and a powerful sense of contradiction driving the entire society
    to deal morally with the issue of slavery.
    
    or
    
    The opionion of a strong majority that all men, of whatever race,
    should be utterly subservient to the national government and the
    will of the majority, and with no consideration given at all to
    freedom or moral principles.
    
    I say the North was, ON PRINCIPLE, more in favor of slavery than
    was the South.  A slim majority in the South might have favored
    *BLACK* slavery, but a majority in the North favored *HUMAN* slavery.
    
    Wess

    re: .9, .10
    
    A lot of interesting points. I'd like to take some of them up. If
    I'm misquoting or misinterpreting, please let me know. Also, the
    questions I'm going to ask are not intended to be ironic, but
    are actually intended to get information.
    
    1. Why was the South hurt more than the North by taxation? Or were
    they just smart enuf to see it and 'not stand for it'?
    
    2. Why do you think the blacks would have better off in an
    independent South than in the post-Civil War Union? Notice that it
    took the blacks in South Africa until now to achieve political
    freedom. I don't want to get into a rathole about South Africa, but
    my point is simply that there are many ways to keep a people down
    (as we know from the actual history of the blacks after the
    Civil War).
    
    3. I agree that the North didn't, at least initially, fight the
    Civil War 'to free the slaves'. I think a point can be made, however,
    that slavery was the main reason the South LEFT the Union, thus
    precipitating the war.
    
    4. The fact that only 10% of the South owned slaves doesn't seem
    relevant to me - what's the point?
    
    5. The issue of states' rights seems different from the issue of
    slavery. The issue seems to be that, if a group of states decide
    the federal government has too much power, do they have a right
    to secede peacefully, to create a country of their own with their
    own 'constitution'? Another issue is, even if you allow them to do
    so, in principle, how to you handle the issue of slavery in detail?
    Until secession, as I suggested before, the slaves were in a sense
    protected by the American Federal Government. Did that government have
    a right to let them go into uncertain status in a new south?
    
    I know I had some more points, but I can't think of 'em right now!
    
    Ken

My view on some of this:

I see slavery as the underlying issue of the war.  This was the issue
that had to be finessed during the Constitutional Convention, and that
had to be compromised several times (1820, 1850 ?).  But the issue did
not go away.  Slavery, in the 1850's, was showing no signs of "withering
away".  Each compromise was increasingly more difficult to arrange.  The
abolitionists were becoming more strident and the elected officials of
the slave-holding interests were become more intransigent.  The ability
of the lawmakers to work things out within the given framework was not
up to the task.

If slavery had been evenly spread throughout the nation, with the same propor-
tion of slaves, slaveholders, abolitionists, don't-cares, etc., then the result
would have been far different.  If slavery had existed in only a small
portion of one state, the result would have been different.  But the fact
that slavery was uniquely associated with a large, fairly well-defined, and
possibly self-sufficient portion of the country, and a portion of the
country that was accustomed to a large voice in the affairs of the nation,
all this made the forces for disunion greater than those holding the
union together under the government of 1860.

Yes, states' rights can be pointed to as the major cause for seccession,
but I say that had states' rights been paired with any issue of the day
other than slavery, then something could have been worked out.  Slavery was
far too fundamental an issue to be finessed further.

Ben

    RE .12:
    
    One small, but I think significant, point about the situation as it had
    developed to 1860 was that the question agitating the South was not
    exactly the _existance_ of slavery, but the _extension_ of slavery.
    
    While there was an abolitionist movement, and a noisy one, it did not
    command a large political following - most people in the North were
    willing, then, to leave slavery alone where it existed.  What a lot of
    those same people were _not_ willing to allow, and one of the things
    the Republican platform spoke to in 1860, was the extension of slavery
    into new territories (and most of the compromises during the early 19th
    century had this issue in them, too).
    
    There was a small group, numerically, in the South to whom the
    containment of slavery was unacceptable - whether for economic gain, or
    a sense of property rights, or because they foresaw that containing
    slavery would eventually kill it (either through votes or through the
    failure of the crops that slavery supported by soil exhaustion).  Such
    people had a lot of influence in the Democratic party, and worked to
    prevent the selection of any "compromise candidate" (i.e. Douglas) at
    the 1860 convention.  The split in the Democrats effectively gave the
    election to the Republicans, and this gave the Southern fire-eaters the
    wedge they needed to get votes for secession.
    
    (I should stick in here that I draw a distinction, based largely on the
    testimony of the individuals who volunteered to serve in the Union and
    Confederate armies in 1861, between the issue that caused secession -
    which .12 argues convincingly was slavery (or its extension ;^}) - and
    the issue that people _fought_ for, which was preservation of the Union
    (North) and defense of their states and rights (South).  As a result, I
    see nothing dishonorable or reprehensible in what motivated most of the
    fighting men on _either_ side, or in reenactors protraying whomever
    they choose.  I tend to agree with Catton's assessment that TLUBTNATS
    settled with bullets an issue that should have been settled with
    ballots, through the working of the political process.)
    
    MikeR
    

Your point about the difference between "causes of the war" and "personal
motives for fighting" is a good one, and one that I meant to make, except
I never remember to write down everything in my head when I start a long
note.

Saying that slavery was the major cause of the war does not mean that that
would have been the motive behind the majority of enlistees on either side.

Ben

    The thing that gets me about the civil war/war between the states is
    that it is always given from one piont of view. Some say it was slavery 
    and others say states rights, but this was always given from the white
    piont of view. Rich or poor/famous or not famous north or south most
    books I read came from one side. Being black and interested in the war
    I would like to know/read what did the blacks think. Some of the more
    famous blacks during that time period wrote a few things, but what
    about the field hands/the house blacks, blacks working with the south
    and the north. It would be interesting. Oh Wess was wondering when you
    would pop up in this note file. 
    
    phillip

    That is a very good point.  I never really gave that one much thought,
    and I don't have an answer to it, but I hope that someone else can.  I
    think that would be very interesting.
    
    Ziff

    
    	Interesting viewpoint, but, in all honesty I have never seen much
    in print concerning the viewpoint of slaves, house servants, maids,
    etc.
    	I have seen and purchased two excellent books concerning the role
    of the black soldier in the Civil War. The titles are,
    
    		"The Sable Arm, The Role of the Black Soldier, 1861 - 1865"
    
    		"Forged in Battle, Black Soldiers and their Commanders"
    		(I believe that is the correct title? If not, I will
    		correctly re-post it.)
    
    	My wife also has a diary written by an Black woman from that span
    of time. I can't remember the title for the life of me! I will look it
    up and post it here. (Third shift foggies! :^) ) I think the title is,
    
    	"The Oldest Living Confederate Tells All"
    
    Odd title, I know, but I believe that is it. I post the author when I
    can dig it up.
    
    					The Alabama Slammer 

I imagine the writings of Frederick Douglas have been gathered and
published.  Although he was not a slave at the time of the war, he
had been some time previous to that.  Some of the quotes in the Burns'
movie/book are from slaves.  I'll look to see if there's a bibliography
in the back of the book.

Ben

    RE .15:
    
    I'll give a few bits and pieces I've picked up, without claiming any
    more for them than they deserve as evidence.
    
    From the start of the war, whenever Union troops appeared in part of
    the Confederacy, large numbers of blacks would come into the Union
    lines.  I don't remember if there was any clear articulation of _why_,
    but the accounts give the impression that blacks felt Union troops =
    freedom.  This kind of thing started well before the Emancipation
    Proclamation was even hinted at, at places as diverse as the Carolina
    coast, Norfolk, and Tennessee.
    
    This caused considerable trouble for the North, because no one quite
    knew how to treat slaves who had run away from Confederate masters.  I
    think it was Ben Butler who came up with the interesting theory that
    this "property" of rebels was contraband of war, like any other seized
    property, and could be "used" by the government.  (The origin of the
    term "contrabands" for escaped slaves who worked for the Union army.) 
    That theory was popular because it prevented sending the slaves back to
    their masters while _not_ making any decision about slavery per se.
    
    I have not yet read the regimental history of the 54th Mass. (I think
    Wes has), but I've heard that the movie "Glory" was pretty accurate in
    portraying the attitudes of the blacks who enlisted to fight for the
    Union (motives as diverse, probably, as those of other soldiers).
    
    However, there _were_ blacks who volunteered to _fight_ for the
    Confederacy.  It was only at the very end of the war that the
    Confederate government allowed it, and I think the units never saw any
    action, but it at least shows that there was no monolithic "black
    viewpoint" on the war.
    
    I also remember reading that news of the Emancipation Proclamation
    spread rapidly among blacks in the South, and that it intensified the
    "migration" of blacks to Union lines.  Refugee camps had to be set up
    to handle them, and some (most?) were badly run - worse physical
    conditions in some cases than the people had been in under slavery.
    
    [ A personal observation: I suggest being careful, as a historian, with
    the idea that skin pigmentation influences thought processes.  Any
    person's thoughts, attitudes, habits, etc. are influenced by
    surroundings; the attitudes of other people towards skin color (or
    accent, or religion, or economic status, or...) can _definitely_ be
    part of a person's surroundings, but the idea that a certain level of
    melanin made (or makes) a Georgia field hand think the same things as a
    Boston clerk or a Soweto merchant - or even the same things as another 
    Georgia field hand - is not supported by evidence.]
    
    MikeR

The extension of slavery into the territories was one of the primary
    causes of secession.  Even with this, though, slavery was but a
    single thread in the cloth.  Slavery was associated with a lifestyle
    and a political paradigm:  agrarianism and a decentralized, almost
    feudal power structure.  When a Southern Democrat spoke of slavery
    in the territories, he was, likely as not, packaging the whole business
    together.  The prohibition of slavery in the territories would
    eventually mean that political interests of the less-agrarian,
    less-feudal North would prevail in the Congress.  This would largely
    disenfranchise citizens living in areas that practiced the Southern
    lifestyle.
    
    The political paradigm most commonly associated with the North was
    that of Federalism and a powerful, centralized national government.
    This paradigm was antithetical to that of the Southern states in
    many ways, but not necessarily slavery.  For example, the Federalist
    viewpoints differed from the Confederationist viewpoints on interstate
    commerce, public works, public education, military service, and,
    [I think] most important, on taxation.
    
    I do not think there was any inherent conflict between the two camps
    on the subject of slavery.  If you take slavery out of the picture,
    but keep the rest of the two political paradigms intact, I think
    you still wind up with a fracture and secession.
    
    Slavery was not, as I was taught in school, withering away.  It
    was as profitable in 1860 as ever.  It was, however, evolving. 
    In the 1840's, a large majority of slaves were held in units of
    three or less.  By the outbreak of war, that majority was held in
    units of 100 or more.  In other words, slavery was being concentated
    in fewer and more wealthy hands.  Such social trends seldom survive
    long.  I do not think the institution would have "withered"  without
    considerable pressure.  Such pressure would have come from two points:
    world opinion (remember that Southerners thought themselves quite
    modern and valued highly the opinions of European leaders, espeically
    the British and the French.)  and the economic reality of being
    politically severed from the industrial base of the North.
    
    The Southern lifestyle survived as long as it did only because of
    its relationship with the Northern lifestyle.  Now here I do not
    mean the Federalist paradigm, but the lifestyle of large population
    centers and large-scale manufacturing.  Severed from the North,
    the South would have been forced to evolve or perish.
    
    Wess

    re:: opinion of Blacks
    
    With the exception of a few like Frederick Douglas, Blacks had no
    political voice in the question of secession or its repression.
    The role of Blacks was overwhelmingly that of bystanders.
    
    Slaves flocked to the Union camps because they, like many white
    Southerners, had been convinced tthat the radical abolitionist movement
    was dominant in the North.  Slaves were exposed to the propaganda
    of the abolitionist camp - "The army of the north will set you free
    and destroy your masters," - and the army of the secessionists -
    "Abe Lincoln is going to free the slaves and turn them loose on
    our womenfolk."
    
    While the Confederate government authorized the enlistment of Blacks
    very late in the war, many Blacks had been serving the Southern
    army in combat roles.  Nathan Bedford Forest supposedly had a number
    of slaves in his unit.  They had been promised freedom if they served
    well.  There are many accounts of Black servants or even slaves
    taking up arms to defend their masters.
    
    I think the enlistment of Blacks into the Confederate army is a
    very telling point in the matter of what the South was fighting
    for.  They offered slaves liberty in exchange for military service.
    It seems to me, then, that independence was more important to them
    than was slavery.
    
    [OPINION/FANTASY ALERT]  I would like to think that had a large
    number of slaves served well and faithfully and been freed, the
    Southern people and their leaders would have been forced to admit
    the basic Humanity of Blacks.  The result would have been either
    general abolition of slavery or an absolutely horrendous conflict
    of conscience.
    
    Wess

    >  ....  There are many accounts of Black servants or even slaves
    Z taking up arms to defend their masters.
    
    Sure, you bet there were.  A sure beating from your master is far worse
    than a possible gunshot wound from a Northerner who isn't out to get
    you anyway.  It's called playing the odds.
    
    -d

    I don't believe that fear of a beating was the motivating factor here,
    and I'm sure you meant that half in jest.  A much more prudent course
    would have been to hide safely away, as all slaves knew that it meant
    death to be armed except in very few areas.  Very few slaves were ever
    mistreated, despite what Uncle Tom's Cabin said, and many slaves
    actually loved their masters enough to fight and die for them.  For
    example, I put forward Stonewall Jackson's servant Jim.  He accompanied
    his master on every campaign, and in several instances put his life on
    the line alongside his master within easy running distance of federal
    troops.  
    
    Ziff

Sorry, Ziff, but no.  I wasn't kidding.  I am too astute a student of
human nature to buy your argument.

Slaves who *loved* their masters were a *significant* exception to the
normal run of human nature.  Kind treatment notwithstanding, most
slaves knew all too well that they risked flogging -- even unto death --
for disobedience or evidence of disloyalty.  If Jackson's Jim had run
for the Federal lines, it is highly likely that Jackson himself would
have shot him.  And been very sad for losing such a good and valuable
slave, but property is property.  You can't just let slaves get the idea
they can run away, that's no better than an unruly horse.

-d

    Beside the slaves the South had a large proportion of freed blacks. 
    Some of these people were southerners in every sense.  They joined the
    Confederate Army and some of them served with distinction.  Some of
    them were captured several times to returne again, or even to bring
    back prisoners.  As a matter of fact in several engagements the blacks
    served the guns, I recall one at the Bull Run.  As I recall one of the
    NY papers mentioned that against Grant the batteries were manned by
    blacks. We should remember the last person staying with Jefferson
    Davis was his slave James Jones, who tried to peotect him, and at the
    end hid the Confederate Seal. 

    re:  beating vs. loyalty
    
    I would not argue that in some cases it might have been fear of
    their masters that motivated slaves to serve, but there are many
    other cases of genuine loyalty.  An example off the top of my head
    was a slave named Uncle John who served with Co. B, 4th Texas Infantry
    throughout the war.  At Gettysburg, when the Texas Brigade was pinned
    down on the slopes of LIttle Round Top, John showed up with a sack
    full of biscuts and roasting ears.  He had crossed a half-mile or
    more of no-man's land, and had at least as good a chance of making
    it to the Federal lines as to his own company.
    
    There was another slave who belonged to a Rebel officer killed at
    Shiloh, who carried his master's body back home.
    
    It is dangerous to make flat statements about motives, but I think
    the evidence is very strong that many slaves and black servants
    acted out of loyalty and/or affection.
    
    Thousands of free blacks worked for the C.S. Corps of Engineers,
    building the breastworks that figured in some of the bloodiest battles.
    These blacks worked for wages and required no floggings.
    
    Wess

    .20 is perhaps the most objective and best-written explanation of the
    situation in the South that I have ever read. 
    
    Paul
    

    Sure, the examples which I presented are rare, but that still doesn't
    mean that slaves fought because they were afraid of beatings.  Remember
    that slaves were a very expensive investment.  One of the main reasons
    that the South didn't raise black regiments earlier is that their
    masters were worried that they wouldn't be properly recompensed for
    their "property".  With such an expensive investment, one doesn't go
    around taking chances on losing it.  Rare indeed would be the master
    who gave his slave a rifle, even with the yankees so close by.  What
    would prevent that slave from using that rifle on him?  Would you use
    your brand new mercedes to mark the end of your driveway for the plows
    after a big snowstorm?  I doubt it.  Nor would most slaveowners use
    their slaves, unless those slaves were willing of their own accord.
    I know enough about human nature to realize that if somebody who 
    mistreated me forced me to take a gun and defend his property, I would
    look for the opportunity to use it on him.  Doubly so if he gave many
    others whom he had also mistreated guns.  Especially as we would
    outnumber him since most of the male members of his family were off
    fighting with Marse Robert!  However, I would gladly put my life on
    the line to defend my home from invaders; even though that home was
    not as free as it could be.  If I grew up as a slave, slavery would be
    all I knew; and home would still be home and yankees would still be 
    threatening that home and all I ever knew.
    
    Ziff

    RE .20:
    
    No basic conflict over slavery?  Wes, if you mean that in the narrow
    sense that most people in the North were willing to let slavery
    continue where it existed, then I would tend to agree.  But the
    conflict came not because slavery _existed_; it came because the
    _expansion_ of slavery was being pushed, hard, by the South (as you
    pointed out).  The "free soil" Northwest did, in fact, trigger much of
    the conflict over slavery, so _without_ slavery, I can't see another
    issue big enough to cause the kind of intransigence that led to
    secession.
    
    Let us remember, too, that in 1860 the North was _not_ an "industrial"
    society in anything close to a modern sense.  It was _becoming_
    industrialized, and _becoming_ an area of large population centers, but
    most people, North and South, lived in small towns and were focused on
    agriculture.  And the South, even if they _had_ seceded, would not have
    been "severed" from the North economically.  (Hey, the two regions
    couldn't even stop trading _during_ the war!  Why would they stop
    _after_ the war?)  Northern industry would still have demanded cotton,
    and the South still needed salt, plus lots of manufactured goods.  The
    North was the closest place to get them.
    
    On a third point, I'm not sure that the primary prop for slavery was
    economic, and that slavery would have died when it became
    "unprofitable".  What I have read suggests that the problem of race
    relations (and fear of what freeing all blacks would mean) was a strong
    motivator for keeping slavery.  It was a convienient way of keeping the
    two races "in their place" from the point of view of many people, North
    and South.
    
    Prejudice was as common then as it is today, and there were many
    different kinds.  The U.S. had just passed through a period of intense
    anti-Irish sentiment (job discrimination, violence, segregation), and
    similar feelings were directed against German immigrants.  It may be
    that the North was actually more hostile to free blacks than the South
    was; neither region, as a region, can claim to be more "tolerant" than
    the other.
    
    I think most of your analysis in .20 is quite accurate, but unless you
    can cite some additional facts, I don't think you can lean as heavily as
    you do on regional differences other than slavery and on economics to
    explain the split.
    
    [ A side note on economics, and habit as a motivator over profit: the
    South clung to a one-crop economy long after TLUBTNATS, to the point
    where soil was becoming exhausted in many areas, and an objective view
    would have dictated change.  It took, however, a bug - the boll weevil
    - and a black man (George Washington Carver and his research on the
    economic uses of the peanut) to break the cycle.  I believe there is
    even a monument to the boll weevil in some Southern city in recognition
    of its contribution in driving the region to diversify.  Again, I'm not
    sure economic pressure would have killed slavery very quickly. ]
    
    MikeR
    

    re: .29
    
    I only have a  few seconds for this:  the North was not as
    industrialized then as it was by 1900, but was still far more so
    than was the South.  There were more manufacturing businesses in
    every county of Ohio than in the entire state of Texas!
    
    True, the image of every Yankee soldier as a denizen of NYC is bogus.
    They even do a bit of farming in Minnesota!  ;-)
    
    
    Wess

    IMS, there were more cotton mills in Lowell, Ma. than
    in the entire South!  All but 6% of Southern cotton was
    exported.
    
    I can't recall the exact figures (see the Civil War topic in
    HISTORY), but the rate of industrialization in the South was
    nowhere near the rate of industrialization in the North, even
    after the war started.
    
    							Don

    re .20 and others
    
    I think the main difference between the North and the South was the
    underlying Federal paradigm.  The South followed Jeffersonian lines as
    evidenced by its heavy emphasis on States rights and decentralization
    of power.
    
    The North followed Hamiltonian lines. Hamilton favored central govt.
    intervention and promotion of manufactures (i.e. industrialization and
    technology). This alone could account for the fracture. With the folks
    up North looking for government funds to develop roads, railroads and
    subsidize industry and the folks down South looking to keep the Feds
    out of their wallets you could see how profound the divergence was.
    
    

    RE .32:
    
    But the "Jeffersoninan" South was not only willing, but _adamant_, to
    summon "Hamiltonian" central government to protect the right of slave
    owners to take their property where they pleased, even if the
    "decentralized" power of a state or territory wanted to forbid slavery.
    
    There _were_ significant differences between the sections, but they
    were not yet in 1860 primarily "industry vs. agriculture" - the North
    had many more farmers than factory workers.  Perhaps a more profound
    difference was in the style of local government.  The town meeting
    style of New England was prevalent in the North, but most of the South
    had an almost feudal system where the local "aristocracy" held
    positions of power and ran local affairs (which was not the sort of
    system Jefferson had in mind _at all_).
    
    MikeR
    

    re .-1
    
    All generalizations are false, including mine :-)
    

    RE .19
    
    The 54th and 55th Massachsetts Regiments were composed mostly of freed
    Black volunteers.  Many of those volunteers had sacrificed their own
    businesses and personal fortunes at the time they enlisted.  
    
    The Movie "Glory" had many inaccuracies, from the unit sergeant-major,
    who was Frederick Douglass' son, Alvin, to the direction of the 54th's
    attack on Fort Wagner.  It failed to mention the 54th's first medal of
    honor winner, Sergeant William Carney, it took the Army until the
    1880's to finally award him that medal.  Contrary to the portrayal in
    the movie, Colonel Shaw was contemptuous of his Black troops until
    their last four or five months together, according to letters and
    archives I have read onthe subject.  
    
    There were over 179,000 Black soldiers who participated in the official
    U.S. regiments and another estimated 3,000 to 10,000 Blacks who'd
    served in unofficial state sanctioned units during the era.  There is
    alot more about the U.S. Colored Troops during the Civil War I could
    relate, but I have to go back to many of my old references.
    
    Doug Gray