Another civil war question

[BH]

When the Confederacy fell why didn't the North punish the southern leaders in a more harsher way than they did?

When the United States won its freedom from Britain is was not all forgive and forget and let everything be hunky dory. They say about a third of Americans were on Britian's side. And these loyalists were attacked, killed, and forced to leave the country in large numbers after that war.

Why nothing like that against southern leaders?

 

[Bronzeage]

What would be gained by that? The idea of succession was pretty much put to rest. There was little threat of subversive groups continuing to fight. Lincoln set the tone with his policy of "With Malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right,...".

There's really no comparison to post Revolutionary conditions. Many Loyalists were government employees, which meant they were out of work and had few prospects. Every single Anglican Minister left the States. All of them were England born and England educated, with few roots in the Americas.

 

[skepticalbip]

My understand is that in the early 1800s the US was organized pretty much like today's EU. The states were pretty much independent governments united with a central governmental body with extremely limited powers such as regulating trade, printing money, a navy to protect the coast. The Constitution didn't address the question of secession so it was arguable whether states could secede after joining. The Southern States saw no reason they couldn't leave but the Northern States decided that they couldn't. The Southern states didn't try to overthrow the US government - they only tried to leave it.

Maybe there was not more retribution because many in the Northern States didn't think session was that clearly denied by the Constitution. Maine even today has a "Maine Secession Movement".

 

[Sarpedon]

It wasn't arguable at all. The articles of confederation states 'perpetual union' and the constitution says 'a more perfect union.' Every signer of the constitution, including those from the South understood it to be perpetual, as easily revealed by their speeches and letters. There was no question about it. The secessionist doctrine rose later, with Calhoun and is ilk. The whole idea that a state could secede because they don't like the result of an election is absurd, and to say that this was a fact is simply propaganda.

The government was gentle with the South after the war because of the kindness of Lincoln, and because of the political turmoil in the North following his assassination. Lincoln was kind, but was also capable of ruthlessness. Because he practiced his ruthlessness in private and his kindness in public, after his death we were left with one but not the other. The political turmoil came about because Johnson, the Vice President, was a 'war democrat' Lincoln brought on the 'National Union' ticket to win the election of 1864. Without Lincoln, the Republicans felt themselves losing control of the government, against the democrats, with no war to unite them with the republicans, quickly mended their fences between their peace and war wings. The return of southern states to Congress (which Lincoln hastened) further weakened the republican position. When the republicans failed to impeach Johnson, he more or less abandoned his half-hearted attempts at reconstruction, and the southern state governments quickly re-established the old power structure.

When Grant came along after the next election, this was largely complete, and he lacked the inclination to revisit the matter, being more interested in developing the West. Grants stated philosophy was 'If we have to fight, lets get it all over with quickly and then be friends.' Fought he did, and got it over with, and then to him the war was over, and it was time to be friends again.

 

[Bronzeage]

It wasn't arguable at all. The articles of confederation states 'perpetual union' and the constitution says 'a more perfect union.' Every signer of the constitution, including those from the South understood it to be perpetual, as easily revealed by their speeches and letters. There was no question about it. The secessionist doctrine rose later, with Calhoun and is ilk. The whole idea that a state could secede because they don't like the result of an election is absurd, and to say that this was a fact is simply propaganda.

The government was gentle with the South after the war because of the kindness of Lincoln, and because of the political turmoil in the North following his assassination. Lincoln was kind, but was also capable of ruthlessness. Because he practiced his ruthlessness in private and his kindness in public, after his death we were left with one but not the other. The political turmoil came about because Johnson, the Vice President, was a 'war democrat' Lincoln brought on the 'National Union' ticket to win the election of 1864. Without Lincoln, the Republicans felt themselves losing control of the government, against the democrats, with no war to unite them with the republicans, quickly mended their fences between their peace and war wings. The return of southern states to Congress (which Lincoln hastened) further weakened the republican position. When the republicans failed to impeach Johnson, he more or less abandoned his half-hearted attempts at reconstruction, and the southern state governments quickly re-established the old power structure.

When Grant came along after the next election, this was largely complete, and he lacked the inclination to revisit the matter, being more interested in developing the West. Grants stated philosophy was 'If we have to fight, lets get it all over with quickly and then be friends.' Fought he did, and got it over with, and then to him the war was over, and it was time to be friends again.

The idea that the Union was an irrevocable commitment was by no means an established and undisputed principle. If Lincoln and the remaining Congress had not sought to contest succession, everything would have gone the other way. It was an irreconcilable difference which could only be settled one of two ways, either an amiable parting, or submission by one to the other.

 

[Sarpedon]

An amicable secession? Lincoln's argument was perfectly correct: Accepting secession was equivalent to destroying the Union. The south seceded because they lost a presidential election, despite their own cheating. If states were allowed to leave just because an election went against them, that would ultimately destroy the Union. The founding fathers saw this clearly, which is why they explicitly called it a 'perpetual' union; not an alliance of convenience. Even the South's own signers of the constitution, when they brought it back to be ratified, made that perfectly explicit, and the legislature of South Carolina and Georgia signed it with that understanding. The speeches made and the resolutions passed at that time are a matter of record. The notion of State Sovereignty was invented later by the aristocratic political class that grew more powerful after independence. It is pure fiction that the United States of America was EVER considered to be an alliance from which any state could withdraw at any time, until this happened. Like many extremist movements, they invented a false history and propaganda for themselves. After the war, the north returned to its business of industry and agriculture, while the South turned to revisionism and Jim Crow. History was written by the loser in this case, because the winner was too busy to bother. For that reason, we have had a century of pro-Southern slavery apologia written into our books.

It is an absolute lie that the south wanted an 'amicable' secession: They did every thing they could to provoke war. Remember that Lincoln did NOTHING to provoke the south until after they fired on fort sumter. But even before that, the south was proving hostile: They siezed federal property everywhere in the seceded states. In Louisiana, a US customs cutter was siezed by state authorities BEFORE Louisiana had passed its ordinance of secession. Seceded states passed laws forbidding people (plantation owners mostly) who owed money to northern banks (most banks were northern) from repaying their debts. The laws caused these debts to be paid to the States themselves, effectively stealing tens of millions of dollars from the North. Oh and not to mention the plans to invade the Southwest, what is now New Mexico and Arizona, plans that were in place before Fort Sumter. And the subsequent invasions and attempts to conquer Missouri and Kentucky, that both voted against secession. Amicable separation indeed! Next you will be claiming that secession happened in a democratic way.

 

[Bronzeage]

I have to disagree with the statement, "They did every thing they could to provoke war."

There were many more things which could have been done to provoke war.

The succinct advice of George Washington was, "To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace."

Despite the public bravado of Southern politicians, southern leaders knew the Confederate States could not win a protracted war against the North. If they South were to become an independent nation, a political solution had to be forced. The only way to do this was to persuade the North that they were ready and able to fight. Their only hope was if the North lostd the political will to fight to restore the Union. This was the Confederate grand strategy, all the way up to the Gettysburg campaign.

The rest is peripheral and irrelevant.

 

[Sarpedon]

The attempted conquest of two states that voted not to secede by the supposed champions of 'states rights,' is peripheral and irrelevant? The stealing of money that was for all intents and purposes equivalent to a year's output of the South's main cash crop is irrelevant? Boy, you have a funny idea of what is and isn't a provocation. The Southerners were nothing but thieves, who were happy to accept federal money to build their forts and arsenals, hell, even to purchase their states (Florida, Louisiana, Arkansas all were purchased, at public expense, from foreign powers, only to be stolen a few decades later by people who claimed to be 'sovereigns' of land they didn't pay for)

Lincoln merely getting elected is a provocation, but seizing federal property isn't. Sending supplies to Union troops is a provocation, but seizing a government vessel legally docked without warning or even lip services to formality isn't. Raising an army to confront an army that has already been raised and has already attacked Union forces is a provocation, but the army that the south raised and the attack it carried out is perfectly justified! Your ridiculous double standards are shameful to look at. The Union was so mild that the South had to go through the trouble of actually shooting at its citizens before it would take any action whatsoever against it. At every step of the way, until the final step of raising the armies to suppress the rebellion, President Lincoln and the Union were passive and non-provocative, and it was the South that was responsible for every escalation.

 

[Bronzeage]

The attempted conquest of two states that voted not to secede by the supposed champions of 'states rights,' is peripheral and irrelevant? The stealing of money that was for all intents and purposes equivalent to a year's output of the South's main cash crop is irrelevant? Boy, you have a funny idea of what is and isn't a provocation. The Southerners were nothing but thieves, who were happy to accept federal money to build their forts and arsenals, hell, even to purchase their states (Florida, Louisiana, Arkansas all were purchased, at public expense, from foreign powers, only to be stolen a few decades later by people who claimed to be 'sovereigns' of land they didn't pay for)

Lincoln merely getting elected is a provocation, but seizing federal property isn't. Sending supplies to Union troops is a provocation, but seizing a government vessel legally docked without warning or even lip services to formality isn't. Raising an army to confront an army that has already been raised and has already attacked Union forces is a provocation, but the army that the south raised and the attack it carried out is perfectly justified! Your ridiculous double standards are shameful to look at. The Union was so mild that the South had to go through the trouble of actually shooting at its citizens before it would take any action whatsoever against it. At every step of the way, until the final step of raising the armies to suppress the rebellion, President Lincoln and the Union were passive and non-provocative, and it was the South that was responsible for every escalation.

The simplest response is, "what difference does it make?" If the southern states had not done all the things you list, but still succeeded, which included seizure of all Federal property, would that have avoided war?

 

[Sarpedon]

Given that three and a half months passed between the secession of South Carolina and the firing on Fort Sumter, during which no hostile movement was made on the part of the federal government, I say you have no grounds at all to say that the actions of the North made war inevitable. The Federal government refrained from waging war or even preparing to wage war upon the South until the South waged war upon it. During those three months no troops were raised, no ports blockaded, no ships stopped and searched. Heck, even large orders of weapons made by the southern states from northern factories were delivered as promised. No one can say what would have happened if the south had not attacked the north. But it can be truthfully said that in the period between the secession of South Carolina and the firing on fort Sumter that the federal government committed no act that any reasonable person could call an act of war. The South committed many, but most were ignored, until the South resorted to open violence. The Union even ignored the first act of violence, which was the firing upon the Star of the West. Given that so many acts of war were ignored, I think there is no justice at all in claiming that Lincoln would have attacked the South in any case. The sentiment in the north was that this was just another freak out by the southerners, and they would come crawling back once they realized their stupid confederacy couldn't be self sufficient.

 

[Bronzeage]

I have no great desire or reason to change your mind on this issue, except to point out you have over complicated an issue where there is no great controversy.

The southern states succeeded from the Union. The Union used military force to reverse this action. Those are the historical facts. At the time of the succession, political will to succeed as well as the will to use military force to insure succession was quite evident. This was their strategy to convince the North that a war would be too costly and not worth the effort. At the time of Lincoln's election, this was an open question. The fact it took the North three months to resolve this issue and take action, is not evidence of anything, other than the inertia of public policy in a democracy.

If you want to call all the actions taken to put succession into effect, "acts of war", feel free. It does not change history. If the North had not decided to regain the Southern States, there would have been no war.

 

[Sarpedon]

The decision to resist when you are attacked is not a decision at all! You might as well have said that the Empire of Japan would still exist if the United States had not 'decided' to disassemble it after Pearl Harbor!

The delay of three months was not due to indecision, but due to a desire not to resort to violence! A desire not shared by the southerners.

You choose the 'simple fact' that is convenient to you. Well I am happy to choose the 'simple fact' that I believe applies: The South attacked the North after a string of deliberate provocations failed to result in the war that they desired. The border states had not yet seceded, and the secessionists in the gulf states knew they would never amount to anything by themselves. So they forced the issue. They were only partly successful, because only some of the border states seceded. They tried to conquer the others, and failed. The decision of the North to not only defend itself, but to eliminate an obviously belligerent pseudo-state was entirely reasonable. Again, I insist that if the South had not resorted to violence, there is a good chance that the North would have simply left them to go their own way, until their mismanagement and incompetence and lack of self-sufficiency caused them to return to the fold. All the facts are on my side, and all you can do is pretend that the reasonable steps that the North undertook, always erring on the side of restraint, in reaction to hostile Southern acts were somehow the cause of the war.

 

[BH]

It is true the Confederacy declared war on the United States. It wanted more land than I think it was justified in trying to take.

As for the constitution, that was a contract between the people living at that time that those born after had no obligation to honor . And I agree with Sarpedon that the US would have probably let the Confederacy go if it was willing to constrict itself to the 11 states that it actually had power over, with maybe southern Arizona and New Mexico as they were then constituted up for discussion later.

 

[Bronzeage]

It is true the Confederacy declared war on the United States. It wanted more land than I think it was justified in trying to take.

As for the constitution, that was a contract between the people living at that time that those born after had no obligation to honor . And I agree with Sarpedon that the US would have probably let the Confederacy go if it was willing to constrict itself to the 11 states that it actually had power over, with maybe southern Arizona and New Mexico as they were then constituted up for discussion later.

I'm sure there were considerations of westward expansion on both sides, but Lincoln was determined to preserve the Union. I don't believe any promise to not expand the Confederacy would have changed that. In any case, the Confederacy would never have considered such a thing, especially before military actions began, and certainly not after.

 

[Sarpedon]

Seven. The other four only seceded after the war had started. That included Virginia, the only state of the lot with substantial industry. The Confederacy would have withered on the vine had they not used force to bring the situation to a head. Sooner or later, they would have had to come crawling back, maybe after Mexico kicked their asses or something.

 

[Sarpedon]

I don't believe any promise to not expand the Confederacy would have changed that. In any case, the Confederacy would never have considered such a thing, especially before military actions began, and certainly not after.

Bullshit. They not only considered it, they actually raised an army and invaded New Mexico and Colorado. I doubt the Golden Book of the War of Northern Aggression that you seem to get your facts from would have mentioned it, as it was a spectacular failure. The contrast between your knowledge of this subject and your usual excellent command of history shows just how big your blindspot here is.

The southern slaveowning class had all kinds of delusions of grandeur, including invading Cuba, Mexico, everywhere, all to get more land for slave plantations. They even were for reopening the slave trade from Africa in order to do it.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I tend to agree that the South overreached. Tempers were ratcheted up to secede, and that mentality rashly began a war. The fire eaters were driving events. Think of how differently it might've been viewed if there had been some Boston Massacre type incident.

The southern way of life, by which I mean their dominance of national affairs, was already over. It took the war to confirm that. There were no southern Presidents from Taylor to LBJ.

 

[BH]

There were no southern Presidents from Taylor to LBJ.

Woodrow Wilson was from Virginia and Eisenhower was from Texas.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Do you consider them southern?

 

[Bronzeage]

I don't believe any promise to not expand the Confederacy would have changed that. In any case, the Confederacy would never have considered such a thing, especially before military actions began, and certainly not after.

Bullshit. They not only considered it, they actually raised an army and invaded New Mexico and Colorado. I doubt the Golden Book of the War of Northern Aggression that you seem to get your facts from would have mentioned it, as it was a spectacular failure. The contrast between your knowledge of this subject and your usual excellent command of history shows just how big your blindspot here is.

The southern slaveowning class had all kinds of delusions of grandeur, including invading Cuba, Mexico, everywhere, all to get more land for slave plantations. They even were for reopening the slave trade from Africa in order to do it.

Allow me to clarify my statement.
I don't believe any promise to not expand the Confederacy would have changed that. In any case, the Confederacy would never have considered such a thing[a pledge of non-expansion], especially before military actions began, and certainly not after.

The invasion of New Mexico and Colorado certainly seems short sighted. That army certainly would have been more useful back home.

In any case, as detailed numerous times in The Golden Book of the War of Northern Aggression, the only possible chance for the Confederacy to survive would have been for the Union to decide to coexist with their southern neighbor. As long as the Union had the political resolve to fight, it didn't matter what the Confederacy did or did not do. It was a matter beyond their control.

As history played out, the Union never lost that resolve and as TGBWNA states in the epilogue, "That was that."