# American Civil War



## Garek (Oct 27, 2011)

Can anyone recommend any good books on this? I am suffering from choice overload! Preferably books that don't tout the standard line.


----------



## anchorage (Oct 27, 2011)

Battle Cry Of Freedom by James M. McPherson is the best i have read.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 27, 2011)

yeh, that's good.


----------



## marty21 (Oct 27, 2011)

anchorage said:


> Battle Cry Of Freedom by James M. McPherson is the best i have read.


Yep, a good book on the topic

you could also watch the Ken Burns documentary - made about 20 years ago -


----------



## Garek (Oct 27, 2011)

anchorage said:


> Battle Cry Of Freedom by James M. McPherson is the best i have read.



Cheers, will check that out.



marty21 said:


> Yep, a good book on the topic
> 
> you could also watch the Ken Burns documentary - made about 20 years ago -



Ooooh, £26 on Amazon. Cheers. I do like a good documentary.


----------



## Bakunin (Oct 28, 2011)

I can certainly recommend the Ken Burns series as being absolutely wonderful, and my pick of the single-volume books on the war would be John Keegan's 'American Civil War'.


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 29, 2011)

Shelby Foote who appeared in Burns series wrote a 3 volume series The Civil War: A Narrative Vols 1. 2 and 3. Apparently very well thought of. Leans heavily towardfs the military history as opposed to the social end political themes, which are touched on but play a supporting role in the books.


----------



## Sue (Oct 29, 2011)

Gone With the Wind.


----------



## twistedAM (Oct 29, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> Shelby Foote who appeared in Burns series wrote a 3 volume series The Civil War: A Narrative Vols 1. 2 and 3. Apparently very well thought of. Leans heavily towardfs the military history as opposed to the social end political themes, which are touched on but play a supporting role in the books.



Foote is a bit of a southern romanticist and MacPherson covered and analysed more ground in one volume than he did in three.

Macpherson is good and the Burns series is too.


----------



## Lock&Light (Oct 29, 2011)

For the last year I’ve been following a great series run by the New York Times, called “Disunion”. It’s a blog that appears four or five times a week with short articles on the activities of that day 150 years ago. In order to avoid the New York Times 20 free visits a month system it’s best to access the series via Facebook.

http://www.facebook.com/nytimescivilwar


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 29, 2011)

twistedAM said:


> Foote is a bit of a southern romanticist and MacPherson covered and analysed more ground in one volume than he did in three.
> 
> Macpherson is good and the Burns series is too.



He is a bit, but his opinions on numerous Union leaders makes him a lot less 'romantic' than many of his detractors think. The problem with Foote's books is that he looks far more at the actual militaria and the battles rather than the political context. He's a bit more 'trainspotterly' in his approach I think.

The Burns series was/is fantastic.


----------



## marty21 (Oct 29, 2011)

Bakunin said:


> I can certainly recommend the Ken Burns series as being absolutely wonderful, and my pick of the single-volume books on the war would be John Keegan's 'American Civil War'.


I read Keegan's book too, it is pretty good.


----------



## twistedAM (Oct 29, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> He is a bit, but his opinions on numerous Union leaders makes him a lot less 'romantic' than many of his detractors think. The problem with Foote's books is that he looks far more at the actual militaria and the battles rather than the political context. He's a bit more 'trainspotterly' in his approach I think.
> 
> The Burns series was/is fantastic.



Actually there's also  a problem with MacPherson's book to in that it does't really look at the issue of western expansion (and the resultant genoicde) that much, which is one of the main reasons why the war was fought. To divorce the Civil War from the rest of the American agenda in that period of history hides a lot of the issues at play.


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 30, 2011)

twistedAM said:


> Actually there's also a problem with MacPherson's book to in that it does't really look at the issue of western expansion (and the resultant genoicde) that much, which is one of the main reasons why the war was fought. To divorce the Civil War from the rest of the American agenda in that period of history hides a lot of the issues at play.



Problem is though that such a book would totally de-mythologise the US narrative that the war was a simple case of Good (The Union) defeating the bad (The Confederacy) .


----------



## dilute micro (Oct 30, 2011)

twistedAM said:


> Actually there's also a problem with MacPherson's book to in that it does't really look at the issue of western expansion (and the resultant genoicde) that much, which is one of the main reasons why the war was fought. To divorce the Civil War from the rest of the American agenda in that period of history hides a lot of the issues at play.



Western expansion was certainly in progress before, during and after the war but it wasn't the reason for the war.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 30, 2011)

There was no single reason - or was there?


----------



## dilute micro (Oct 30, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> There was no single reason - or was there?



Yes there was a reason.  It's not uncommon for a country to have a handful of issues at any given time but they don't necessitate going to war over them.  And countries typically don't go to war over them.  War is triggered when a problem arises that can only be dealt with by brute force.  Civil war historians will usually write about all the 'many causes' of the war while intentionally failing to recognize that those many causes had been going on for decades.  Only one issue was new and that was the free trade zone in the south which would have destroyed the northern economy.  There was no other way to prevent it than war and as actual history records it - that was the issue the Lincoln administration couldn't deal with.  It was suggested by a member of the cabinet that the south should be allowed to go but still have to pay taxes to the US by off-shore revenue ships.  That idea was rejected....not that the south would have agreed to paying tribute anyhow. Everyone knew war was coming to South Carolina and the others anyway from the 75 thousand man army called up by Lincoln whether they were a part of that army or not.

The MacPhersons, the Foners and the other 'political' historians can only write by editing out what doesn't fit their story.  It's amazing really what gets edited out...and how willing people are to turn a blind eye.  The 'many causes' is just a ruse to obscure not only the events of the time but also to fill in the gaps left by editing out the stuff that tells a different story.


----------



## Random (Oct 30, 2011)

dilute micro said:


> The MacPhersons, the Foners and the other 'political' historians can only write by editing out what doesn't fit their story. It's amazing really what gets edited out...and how willing people are to turn a blind eye.


I've never heard of these historians, so when you say they're poliical, what do you mean?

To reply to the OP, War Nerd's been doing some very enjoyable articles on the ACW recently.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 30, 2011)

Oh dear. You do realise that a thread on the American Civil War is bound to attract the attention of deluded microbe?

It won't be long before he's repeating his usual spiel. Oh shit! He already has.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 30, 2011)

dilute micro said:


> Yes there was a reason. It's not uncommon for a country to have a handful of issues at any given time but they don't necessitate going to war over them. And countries typically don't go to war over them. War is triggered when a problem arises that can only be dealt with by brute force. Civil war historians will usually write about all the 'many causes' of the war while intentionally failing to recognize that those many causes had been going on for decades. Only one issue was new and that was the free trade zone in the south which would have destroyed the northern economy. There was no other way to prevent it than war and as actual history records it - that was the issue the Lincoln administration couldn't deal with. It was suggested by a member of the cabinet that the south should be allowed to go but still have to pay taxes to the US by off-shore revenue ships. That idea was rejected....not that the south would have agreed to paying tribute anyhow. Everyone knew war was coming to South Carolina and the others anyway from the 75 thousand man army called up by Lincoln whether they were a part of that army or not.
> 
> The MacPhersons, the Foners and the other 'political' historians can only write by editing out what doesn't fit their story. It's amazing really what gets edited out...and how willing people are to turn a blind eye. The 'many causes' is just a ruse to obscure not only the events of the time but also to fill in the gaps left by editing out the stuff that tells a different story.


There was a single reason and it was



> the free trade zone in the south



Was the 'free trade zone' in the south connected to any other developments? Demographic, political, global?


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 30, 2011)

What about the southern landed gentry? They were a bit too lazy, no?


----------



## Random (Oct 30, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Was the 'free trade zone' in the south connected to any other developments? Demographic, political, global?


 Was there more than one reason for the free trade zone? Nice try young man, but it's turtles all the way down.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 30, 2011)

The south was just about to fuck over the north. The fucking north.


----------



## dilute micro (Oct 30, 2011)

Random said:


> I've never heard of these historians, so when you say they're poliical, what do you mean?



Literature on the war can focus on anything from politics to food to medicine and anything in-between.  Foner and MacPherson are two of the most prominent authors that write on politics.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 30, 2011)

It's all politics though. If you think you can produce history texts free from ideology (as opposed to politics), you're sadly mistaken.


----------



## dilute micro (Oct 30, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Was the 'free trade zone' in the south connected to any other developments? Demographic, political, global?



Of course. The US had its own industry producing the same type things that was coming out of England but couldn't produce it in the same volume or as cheaply. Those goods being imported to southern states would have been cheaper even when resold to the north. The north's industry couldn't compete with the UK. That was the reason for the protectionist tariffs. If you're trying to suggest that the driving cause behind it was slave 'demographic' you'll have to consider that no one cared about the slaves. The north even passed an amendment banning federal authority to end slavery. That amendment happens to be one of the things erased and edited out of American history.


----------



## dilute micro (Oct 30, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> It's all politics though. If you think you can produce history texts free from ideology (as opposed to politics), you're sadly mistaken.



What about producing history texts by selectively removing stuff (such as the 13th amendment) that doesn't jibe with the story you're trying to tell?

Why do you support telling a lie and calling it history?


----------



## colbhoy (Oct 30, 2011)

The Killer Angels by Michael Shaara is very good. Is the story of the battle of Gettysburg.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 30, 2011)

dilute micro said:


> What about producing history texts by selectively removing stuff (such as the 13th amendment) that doesn't jibe with the story you're trying to tell?
> 
> Why do you support telling a lie and calling it history?



And he's off!


----------



## twistedAM (Oct 30, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> Problem is though that such a book would totally de-mythologise the US narrative that the war was a simple case of Good (The Union) defeating the bad (The Confederacy) .



I'm sure there's a decent book out there chronicling the link.
Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee alludes to the speed in which the likes of Custer were deployed from Civil War victory to professional scalping out west.


----------



## Lock&Light (Oct 30, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> Oh dear. You do realise that a thread on the American Civil War is bound to attract the attention of deluded microbe?
> 
> It won't be long before he's repeating his usual spiel. Oh shit! He already has.



Why do you still find it nessessary to snipe at those you don't agree with?

Why not use some sort of argument?


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 30, 2011)

Lock&Light said:


> Why do you still find it nessessary to snipe at those you don't agree with?
> 
> Why not use some sort of argument?



LOL!The holier-than-thou L&L strikes again.

It has nothing at all to do with me agreeing or not agreeing with dilute. If you agree or disagree with dilute, why don't _you_ try engaging with him? Or is it the case you're just looking for an excuse to have a pop?


----------



## Lock&Light (Oct 30, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> LOL! Why do you still find it necessary (note the correct spelling) to pop up and snipe?



The trouble with finding spelling so important is that it makes you look rather foolish. I know how you hate to look foolish, so why do you use that tactic?


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 30, 2011)

Give it rest, Noddy.


----------



## Lock&Light (Oct 30, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> Give it rest, Noddy.



Still growing up, I see.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 30, 2011)

And you're still going around thinking you have something useful to say. Like I said, give it a rest.


----------



## Lock&Light (Oct 30, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> And you're still going around thinking you have something useful to say.



That's very funny, Nino.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 31, 2011)

Glad you like it.


----------



## anchorage (Oct 31, 2011)

colbhoy said:


> The Killer Angels by Michael Shaara is very good. Is the story of the battle of Gettysburg.



Gods And Generals and The Last Full Measure by his son Jeffrey Shaara are great reads too. I have a lot of books about single battles, each one well read.


----------



## rover07 (Oct 31, 2011)

dilute micro said:


> Yes there was a reason.  It's not uncommon for a country to have a handful of issues at any given time but they don't necessitate going to war over them.  And countries typically don't go to war over them.  War is triggered when a problem arises that can only be dealt with by brute force.  Civil war historians will usually write about all the 'many causes' of the war while intentionally failing to recognize that those many causes had been going on for decades.  Only one issue was new and that was the free trade zone in the south which would have destroyed the northern economy.  There was no other way to prevent it than war and as actual history records it - that was the issue the Lincoln administration couldn't deal with.  It was suggested by a member of the cabinet that the south should be allowed to go but still have to pay taxes to the US by off-shore revenue ships.  That idea was rejected....not that the south would have agreed to paying tribute anyhow. Everyone knew war was coming to South Carolina and the others anyway from the 75 thousand man army called up by Lincoln whether they were a part of that army or not.



Just been reading about the Free Trade stuff, very interesting.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2011)

...and the single reason?


----------



## dilute micro (Oct 31, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> ...and the single reason?



tax money

Lincoln entertained the prospect of collecting tax money with the off-shore revenue ships.  He even put the US navy under the control of the Revenue Service.  Then shortly after he and his cabinet instead opted for war.  Actually his cabinet didn't want war except for the Treasury Secretary who had been in favor of it from the beginning.

The north was confused at first on what effect the secession would have on the US.  It was the Wall Street crowd who were the first to realize the implications.

Pay attention - countries don't commit to war at any and every problem.  They usually deal with them through politics and diplomacy.  War is rolling the dice.  It's foregoing any and all political means of addressing the issue.  Back then especially, it wasn't a sure thing that you're going to win.  The free trade zone in the south was the one thing that the US government couldn't deal with and it meant certain doom for the US economy.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2011)

I thought it was free trade last night. Now it's a related issue. I wonder if there are any other issues related to this single clear and easily defined  reason?


----------



## dilute micro (Oct 31, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I thought it was free trade last night. Now it's a related issue. I wonder if there are any other issues related to this single clear and easily defined reason?



You really need it explained?

It seems you're trying hard to hold on to the 'official' reasons for the war in the delusion that there was a humanitarian cause hidden somewhere in it all.  It's fiction.  That's why neither you nor nino have an argument when actual facts are laid out in the open.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2011)

dilute micro said:


> You really need it explained?
> 
> It seems you're trying hard to hold on to the 'official' reasons for the war in the delusion that there was a humanitarian cause hidden somewhere in it all. It's fiction. That's why neither you nor nino have an argument when actual facts are laid out in the open.


That's right,everyone else is holding onto the official reasons, reasons which you can obliterate. Rather than them pulling you up on your claimed single reason for the war - a single reason which you manage totally undermine all by yourself.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 31, 2011)

dilute micro said:


> You really need it explained?
> 
> It seems you're trying hard to hold on to the 'official' reasons for the war in the delusion that there was a humanitarian cause hidden somewhere in it all. It's fiction. That's why neither you nor nino have an argument when actual facts are laid out in the open.



This is your problem: you demand "facts" yet the "facts" that you produce (and which you declare as unassailable) are full of gaps and have embedded within them a particular strain of ideology. But you continue to deny this and claim that you have some sort of superior epistemological framework from which to draw your thesis.

It is you who has no argument and time and time again, you have demonstrated that you cannot fathom anything outside of your revisionist comfort zone. You slip and slide about and then start shouting that people "don't understand the facts". You're self-parody of a self-parody.


----------



## rover07 (Oct 31, 2011)

What is the official reason?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2011)

rover07 said:


> What is the official reason?


It'sa n easy dealt with claim of an honorable war to free the slaves. That is literally what dilute thinks everyone else thinks.


----------



## dilute micro (Oct 31, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> That's right,everyone else is holding onto the official reasons, reasons which you can obliterate. Rather than them pulling you up on your claimed single reason for the war - a single reason which you manage totally undermine all by yourself.



Tax money came from the tariffs - from the trade.  If the US doesn't control the ports - they don't get the tariff money.

And yes you're absolutely clinging to the 'many causes' theory.  Somehow you're unable to go into any detail.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 31, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> It'sa n easy dealt with claim of an honorable war to free the slaves. That is literally what dilute thinks everyone else thinks.


Yet, he will often use the "State Rights" argument as a defence.


----------



## dilute micro (Oct 31, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> This is your problem: you demand "facts" yet the "facts" that you produce (and which you declare as unassailable) are full of gaps and have embedded within them a particular strain of ideology. But you continue to deny this and claim that you have some sort of superior epistemological framework from which to draw your thesis.
> 
> It is you who has no argument and time and time again, you have demonstrated that you cannot fathom anything outside of your revisionist comfort zone. You slip and slide about and then start shouting that people "don't understand the facts". You're self-parody of a self-parody.



You're problem is that you demand no facts and the "facts" you produce are full of gaps (ie. conveniently leaving out things) and have embedded within them a particular strain of ideology (humanitarianism, patriotism, nationalism).

Remember - you're borrowing someone else's argument.  You're using someone else's set of 'facts'.  That set of facts are designed for their use and purpose.  You're under the delusion that the things you read and borrow from the official version have no ideological motive.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2011)

dilute micro said:


> Tax money came from the tariffs - from the trade. If the US doesn't control the ports - they don't get the tariff money.
> 
> And yes you're absolutely clinging to the 'many causes' theory. Somehow you're unable to go into any detail.


So one thing was related to another. I see. Is the need for taxes and the mechanisms by which they're collected related to anything else?


----------



## rover07 (Oct 31, 2011)

To me it reads as if the South would have become a virtual colony of Britain. Being almost entirely dependent on cotton production.

Something the Northern states couldnt allow to happen.


----------



## rover07 (Oct 31, 2011)

The means by which the cotton was produced looks a secondary issue.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 31, 2011)

dilute micro said:


> You're problem is that you demand no facts and the "facts" you produce are full of gaps (ie. conveniently leaving out things) and have embedded within them a particular strain of ideology (humanitarianism, patriotism, nationalism).
> 
> Remember - you're borrowing someone else's argument. You're using someone else's set of 'facts'. That set of facts are designed for their use and purpose. You're under the delusion that the things you read and borrow from the official version have no ideological motive.



You're (please note the correct use of the apostrophe) making this all up in your tiny head. You make a series of baseless allegations that spring from your own ideological position. For instance your insistence that slavery wasn't so bad because there were 'good' slave-owners and not all slaves worked under overseers is fundamentally dishonest. You tell everyone else that they know less than you, which is nothing less than arrogance.

But what gets me is the way you make ungainly statements like this,



> Remember - you're borrowing someone else's argument.



So are you or are you trying to tell us that you are the primary source for this, er, 'knowledge'?



> You're using someone else's set of 'facts'.



And so are you. You rely on 'facts' from the Ludwig von Mises Institute and, in particular, Donald Livingston.This could go on forever but I have neither the time nor the inclination to spend pandering to your already vastly inflated ego.



> You're under the delusion that the things you read and borrow from the official version have no ideological motive



Whereas what you read is produced in an ideological vacuum? Please, grow up.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2011)

rover07 said:


> The means by which the cotton was produced looks a secondary issue.


Free-wage-labour vs slavery was actually quite important. If dilute wants to argue that it was purely economically driven then i wonder why he chooses to ignore this rather central economic question.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 31, 2011)

http://www.unitedstatesaction.com/neo-confederates.htm


----------



## dilute micro (Oct 31, 2011)

rover07 said:


> To me it reads as if the South would have become a virtual colony of Britain. Being almost entirely dependent on cotton production.
> 
> Something the Northern states couldnt allow to happen.



The US as a whole was dependent on cotton production.  In 1860 the south's exports were $214 mil compared to the north's $47 mil.  Still the US made most of its own cloth and only less than 25% was imported.

Britain imported over a billion pounds a year...for its 2650 cotton milling factories.  The UK owned the world's cotton manufacturing.  There was basically nowhere else to go and the south (actually the US) named the price.

The north could make cloth but it couldn't make the other things people bought at the store competitive to what was coming out of the UK which is why the Morrill tariff went +50% on iron products and up to +250% on other things.


----------



## rover07 (Oct 31, 2011)

But when the war came, Britain just switched cotton production to India and Eygpt.


----------



## dilute micro (Oct 31, 2011)

rover07 said:


> But when the war came, Britain just switched cotton production to India and Eygpt.



Which meant less profit.  That was why they had previously switched from Egypt to the US (who produced >66% of the worlds cotton).


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 31, 2011)

Try as he might, dilute still cannot completely disentangle the issue of slavery from the US Civil War.
http://cwemancipation.wordpress.com/2011/10/24/origins-of-the-faithful-slave-myth/

He will reply by saying that the civil war wasn't fought over the issue of slavery but, like it or not, slavery was and remains an issue.


----------



## rover07 (Oct 31, 2011)

dilute micro said:


> Which meant less profit.  That was why they had previously switched from Egypt to the US (who produced >66% of the worlds cotton).



Less profit but since Britain was the main manufacturer of cloth. The Southern states were wholly dependent on Britain.

A colony in all but name. I agree the tariffs were a main factor, that would have determined who controlled economic activity in the US.


----------



## dilute micro (Oct 31, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> Try as he might, dilute still cannot completely disentangle the issue of slavery from the US Civil War.
> http://cwemancipation.wordpress.com/2011/10/24/origins-of-the-faithful-slave-myth/
> 
> He will reply by saying that the civil war wasn't fought over the issue of slavery but, like it or not, slavery was and remains an issue.



I've never said slavery wasn't an issue.  It just wasn't a cause of the war.

Neither the north or the south wanted to end slavery.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2011)

Such illusions you destroy.


----------



## dilute micro (Oct 31, 2011)

rover07 said:


> Less profit but since Britain was the main manufacturer of cloth. The Southern states were wholly dependent on Britain.
> 
> A colony in all but name. I agree the tariffs were a main factor, that would have determined who controlled economic activity in the US.



There was more to it than that.  Britain told the southern farmers exactly what type of cotton to grow and the southern US was far and away the best for that type.  I have info somewhere on the details but all in all it wasn't a matter of Britain being able to simply switch to another supplier.


----------



## dilute micro (Oct 31, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Such illusions you destroy.



No you're the sort that thinks they know what they're talking about.  That's why all you're good for is grumbling.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 31, 2011)

dilute micro said:


> I've never said slavery wasn't an issue. It just wasn't a cause of the war.



Oh really? You're saying that slavery "wasn't an issue" and then you contradict yourself by saying "it just wasn't a cause of the war". Like it or not, slavery was a factor and it fired up many abolitionists to take up arms against the confederacy. Ergo, it was a cause; one of many causes. But to offer a one-sided analysis that rests entirely on a classical liberal defence of the South's economic relationships is dishonest. The trouble with neo-confederates, in common with the dewy-eyed Dixie romantics, is that they have a deep-seated sense of victimhood and your thesis is a rationalisation of this sense of victimhood.


----------



## dilute micro (Oct 31, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> Oh really? You're saying that slavery "wasn't an issue" and then you contradict yourself by saying "it just wasn't a cause of the war". Like it or not, slavery was a factor and it fired up many abolitionists to take up arms against the confederacy. Ergo, it was a cause; one of many causes. But to offer a one-sided analysis that rests entirely on a classical liberal defence of the South's economic relationships is dishonest. The trouble with neo-confederates, in common with the dewy-eyed Dixie romantics, is that they have a deep-seated sense of victimhood and your thesis is a rationalisation of this sense of victimhood.



Nobody was taking slavery away.  The 13th amendment to the US constitution which was passed by an entirely northern congress and senate prevented abolition.

You're making up stuff so that you can believe slavery was a cause of the war.


----------



## twistedAM (Oct 31, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> Oh really? You're saying that slavery "wasn't an issue" and then you contradict yourself by saying "it just wasn't a cause of the war". Like it or not, slavery was a factor and it fired up many abolitionists to take up arms against the confederacy. Ergo, it was a cause; one of many causes. But to offer a one-sided analysis that rests entirely on a classical liberal defence of the South's economic relationships is dishonest. The trouble with neo-confederates, in common with the dewy-eyed Dixie romantics, is that they have a deep-seated sense of victimhood and your thesis is a rationalisation of this sense of victimhood.


 
There's a difference between issues and causes. The north changed tack significantly after Burnside's debacles.
While there were some abolitionists at the start of the war they were in a minority. They realised that to smash the southern states means of production and to win the war, they had to abolish slavery. It also proved handy for recruiting frontline infantry for the north.

I've no time for neo-feds or southern romantics but neither have I much time for the Americans of today claiming it was an altruistic war (not accusing you of that, btw). That's why i brought western expansion and genocide up in the first place cos it's a fucking weird rewrite of history that has the northeast pictured as the champions of abolition whilst forgetting what they did to the Sioux etc.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 31, 2011)

dilute micro said:


> You're making up stuff so that you can believe slavery was a cause of the war.



Laughable. How am I making stuff up? You'll need to demonstrate how I am "making stuff up" or STFU.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2011)

twistedAM said:


> There's a difference between issues and causes. The north changed tack significantly after Burnside's debacles.
> While there were some abolitionists at the start of the war they were in a minority. They realised that to smash the southern states means of production and to win the war, they had to abolish slavery. It also proved handy for recruiting frontline infantry for the north.
> 
> I've no time for neo-feds or southern romantics but neither have I much time for the Americans of today claiming it was an altruistic war (not accusing you of that, btw). That's why i brought western expansion and genocide up in the first place cos it's a fucking weird rewrite of history that has the northeast pictured as the champions of abolition whilst forgetting what they did to the Sioux etc.


The _effect_ of slavery was a cause.It was an issue. A huge determining one.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 31, 2011)

twistedAM said:


> There's a difference between issues and causes. The north changed tack significantly after Burnside's debacles.
> While there were some abolitionists at the start of the war they were in a minority. They realised that to smash the southern states means of production and to win the war, they had to abolish slavery. It also proved handy for recruiting frontline infantry for the north.
> 
> I've no time for neo-feds or southern romantics but neither have I much time for the Americans of today claiming it was an altruistic war (not accusing you of that, btw). That's why i brought western expansion and genocide up in the first place cos it's a fucking weird rewrite of history that has the northeast pictured as the champions of abolition whilst forgetting what they did to the Sioux etc.



Yes, fair enough but dilute, when he embarks on his economic discourses, tends to isolate slavery from the equation. Though Kansas-Nebraska (and Bleeding Kansas) was something of a precursor to the main event.

I agree, the Feds were butchers but that doesn't mean that the Confederacy were saints either. But getting dilute to admit to that is like trying to get blood from a stone.


----------



## twistedAM (Oct 31, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> The _effect_ of slavery was a cause.It was an issue. A huge determining one.



Oh, economically of course it was.  All I'm saying is that the North didn't go into the war with the wellbeing of the slaves at the top of their to do list.



nino_savatte said:


> Yes, fair enough but dilute, when he embarks on his economic discourses, tends to isolate slavery from the equation. Though Kansas-Nebraska (and Bleeding Kansas) was something of a precursor to the main event.
> I agree, the Feds were butchers but that doesn't mean that the Confederacy were saints either. But getting dilute to admit to that is like trying to get blood from a stone.


I've obviously  missed previous threads on this. Can't see how  the issue of slavery can be divorced from the southern economy.


----------



## dilute micro (Oct 31, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> Laughable. How am I making stuff up? You'll need to demonstrate how I am "making stuff up" or STFU.



No you need to show how, why, when, where, and who when you claim it was a factor. Slavery wasn't even in jeopardy. It had nothing to do with the 75 thousand man army Lincoln called up to attack South Carolina et al. In fact Lincoln called up slave states to attack South Carolina. Those slave states that were teetering on which side to join weren't determining it on the issue of slavery. My own state voted by referendum to stay in the union. It wasn't until they were told by Lincoln to help attack South Carolina that they revoted by referendum to join the Confederacy. <----each time by 2/3rd margin.  Same for other states as well.

You're out in left field. The facts aren't on your side.


----------



## dilute micro (Oct 31, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> The _effect_ of slavery was a cause.It was an issue. A huge determining one.



No it wasn't. Had Lincoln not ordered up an army to attack South Carolina (which was outside the authority of the president) both the US and the Confederacy would have supported slavery and been made up of slave states.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2011)

Yeah, it was. Why?


----------



## dilute micro (Oct 31, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Yeah, it was. Why?



All you and nino can do is keep repeating yourself. The facts aren't on your side.

People like you aren't interested in actual historical events. You don't see 'history' to be more than an opportunity to tell a story with a moral narrative - the way children's stories are written. You take it as an insult to the people who were slaves that they weren't important enough to cause a war and want to believe that in some way slavery was. Despite what anyone says - nothing in America was more secure than slavery. The facts tell as much.

Why was the 13th amendment passed? Got a clue? You're willingly blind to whatever doesn't fit your ideology. The 13th amendment was so destructive to the revised version of the war that it was ERASED FROM HISTORY. Incidentally there is no method for erasing an amendment to the constitution in American government. If an amendment gets added that people think better of later - it has to be cancelled by an additional amendment (ie. prohibition). The very fact that the original 13th amendment was erased from memory pretty much tells the story.


----------



## rover07 (Oct 31, 2011)

What was in the original 13th amendment?


----------



## dilute micro (Oct 31, 2011)

rover07 said:


> What was in the original 13th amendment?



It banned abolition by the US government.



> _"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." - _13th Amendment - passed 3 March 1861


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 31, 2011)

> All you and nino can do is keep repeating yourself. The facts aren't on your side.



You're a fucking comedian.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 31, 2011)

dilute micro said:


> You're out in left field. The facts aren't on your side.



Way to put together an argument.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 31, 2011)

dilute micro said:


> No you need to show how, why, when, where, and who when you claim it was a factor. Slavery wasn't even in jeopardy. It had nothing to do with the 75 thousand man army Lincoln called up to attack South Carolina et al. In fact Lincoln called up slave states to attack South Carolina. Those slave states that were teetering on which side to join weren't determining it on the issue of slavery. My own state voted by referendum to stay in the union. It wasn't until they were told by Lincoln to help attack South Carolina that they revoted by referendum to join the Confederacy. <----each time by 2/3rd margin. Same for other states as well.



Ah, the old dm debating trick.  "I'm not going to answer that. It's you that's wrong".  I'm not interested in your flannel. How about a reply to the question instead of fart-arseing about?

FFS, how old are you anyway?


----------



## dilute micro (Oct 31, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> Ah, the old dm debating trick. "I'm not going to answer that. It's you that's wrong". I'm not interested in your flannel. How about a reply to the question instead of fart-arseing about?
> 
> FFS, how old are you anyway?



See nino - there's loads of info that shows the war wasn't over slavery.  I've given some in this thread.

You and apron don't address things like the 13th amendment, the makeup of the union prior to the call for Lincoln's army, the plans of Lincoln's administration, and anything else that shows the myth of slavery being a cause of the war.

Why don't you explain them then?


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 31, 2011)

dilute micro said:


> See nino - there's loads of info that shows the war wasn't over slavery. I've given some in this thread.
> 
> You and apron don't address things like the 13th amendment, the makeup of the union prior to the call for Lincoln's army, the plans of Lincoln's administration, and anything else that shows the myth of slavery being a cause of the war.
> 
> Why don't you explain them then?



You don't address the other's person's post. You just keep repeating the same old mantra, "You don't have facts".

I think we should all start playing dilute micro bingo. I reckon I've got my full house by now.


----------



## dilute micro (Oct 31, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> You don't address the other's person's post. You just keep repeating the same old mantra, "You don't have facts".
> 
> I think we should all start playing dilute micro bingo. I reckon I've got my full house by now.



A few posts up I even wrote out the original 13th amendment.

Tell me how the war was caused by slavery when it was never in jeopardy and was guaranteed by US law.

I'll wait.

Here it is again....



> _"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." - __13th Amendment - passed 3 March 1861_


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 1, 2011)

dilute micro said:


> A few posts up I even wrote out the original 13th amendment.
> 
> Tell me how the war was caused by slavery when it was never in jeopardy and was guaranteed by US law.
> 
> ...



Yep, I've got a full house. Bingo!


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 1, 2011)

It's funny how obsessed with minutiae this guy is. I often find that people who focus on tiny details have something to hide. What's your secret, dilute? Are you a member of the Sons of the Confederacy?


----------



## rover07 (Nov 1, 2011)

He has a good point though.

That amendment clearly endorses slavery.

The war was started to prevent the splitting up of the USA not to abolish slavery.


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 1, 2011)

rover07 said:


> He has a good point though.
> 
> That amendment clearly endorses slavery.
> 
> The war was started to prevent the splitting up of the USA not to abolish slavery.



Yes, we all know this but dilute labours under the assumption that we don't. He thinks everyone else is ignorant of history except him.  He had the cheek to accuse me of buying into the Lincoln myth when I did nothing of the sort.

I'll have to post some links to his handiwork on the World News forum.


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 1, 2011)

Here's one that he hijacked earlier.
http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/a-frightening-us-pres-candidate-bachmann.276788/


----------



## dilute micro (Nov 1, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> It's funny how obsessed with minutiae this guy is.



That "minutiae" is called history - actual history instead of the edited and revised version you prefer.


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 1, 2011)

No, it's called pedantry, obfuscation and deflection. You're also quick to tell everyone how they see history, which is not only dishonest, but shows up your debating skills for what they are: shit.

According to you, we all believe in the Lincoln myth except you.


----------



## dilute micro (Nov 1, 2011)

twistedAM said:


> While there were some abolitionists at the start of the war they were in a minority. They realised that to smash the southern states means of production and to win the war, they had to abolish slavery.



Slaves weren't emancipated during the war.  That's yet another myth.  The emancipation proclamation didn't free slaves and wasn't intended to.  It said all the slaves in the territory the US didn't occupy were 'free'.  However slaves within the US held areas were still forced to be slaves.  It was a political tool meant to get England and France off the US's back and to hopefully cause an uprising of slaves in CS territory.  The explicit wording calling for the massacre of slaveholders was removed from the released version.


----------



## dilute micro (Nov 1, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> According to you, we all believe in the Lincoln myth except you.



You argue using the edited version of history, the one meant to obfuscate and deflect.


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 1, 2011)

dilute micro said:


> Slaves weren't emancipated during the war. That's yet another myth. The emancipation proclamation didn't free slaves and wasn't intended to. It said all the slaves in the territory the US didn't occupy were 'free'. However slaves within the US held areas were still forced to be slaves. It was a political tool meant to get England and France off the US's back and to hopefully cause an uprising of slaves in CS territory. The explicit wording calling for the massacre of slaveholders was removed from the released version.



<shrugs> So what? What the fuck are you trying to say now?


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 1, 2011)

dilute micro said:


> You argue using the edited version of history, the one meant to obfuscate and deflect.



No, in your arrogance and wilful ignorance, you presume that.


----------



## dilute micro (Nov 1, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> Yes, we all know this but dilute labours under the assumption that we don't. He thinks everyone else is ignorant of history except him. He had the cheek to accuse me of buying into the Lincoln myth when I did nothing of the sort.
> 
> I'll have to post some links to his handiwork on the World News forum.



For all your ranting and raving you turn right around and lie about your position.  You're not welcoming at all towards any discussion of the subject if it entails historical facts.  You'd rather spout off one-liners claiming the war was caused by slavery without any critique or examination of actual events.

You have an idealistic version of it all in your head and you can't stand anything that shows it to be false.


----------



## dilute micro (Nov 1, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> <shrugs> So what? What the fuck are you trying to say now?



That the US didn't have to abolish slavery to win the war.  And they didn't.

The notion that they did is part of the revision of events taught from the 'official' version.


----------



## dilute micro (Nov 1, 2011)

twistedAM said:


> I've obviously missed previous threads on this. Can't see how the issue of slavery can be divorced from the southern economy.



That would be any economy - US, CS and arguably the UK.


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 1, 2011)

dilute micro said:


> That the US didn't have to abolish slavery to win the war. And they didn't.
> 
> The notion that they did is part of the revision of events taught from the 'official' version.



There's a very nasty discourse lurking beneath this innocent-looking façade.


----------



## dilute micro (Nov 1, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> There's a very nasty discourse lurking beneath this innocent-looking façade.



No, again, that's just fact.

See. Even people back then recognized it as such.



> "We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free." - *William Seward, Sec of State, US*





> "Things had gone from bad to worse, until I felt we had reached the end of our rope on the plan we were pursuing; that we had about played our last card, and must change our tactics or lose the game. I now determined upon the adoption of the emancipation policy." *- Lincoln*


 Lincoln was referring to international and domestic pressure to end the war - not simply army against army.  It's true the north had been beat down but they weren't in any danger of losing militarily...at least they didn't think so.


> "The President has purposefuly made the proclamation inoperative in all places where we have gained a military footing which makes the slaves accessible. He has proclaimed emancipation only where he has notoriously no power to execute it. The exemption of the eccessible parts of Louisiana, Tennessee, and Virginia renders the proclamation not merely futile, but ridiculous." - *New York World*





> "To the few surviving chiefs of that great anti-slavery struggle in England, and the representatives of those who are gone, will have nothing to do with the hypocritical adoption of their cherished principles as a pretext in the last resort for further shedding of human blood." *- Manchester Guardian, 20 February 1863*





> "The principle is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States." *- London Spectator*


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 1, 2011)

You clearly have no idea what a discourse is - even though you put one forward. Why doesn't that surprise me, O wilfully ignorant one?


----------



## tim (Jan 8, 2021)

The last known widow of a Civil War soldier died in December (on my birthday), which considering the war ended 155 years ago is quite surprising.

Woman believed to be last remaining widow of US civil war soldier dies

She was one of four who survived into the Twenty-First Century. All, obviously, young women who married much older men.

American Civil War widows who survived into the 21st century - Wikipedia


----------



## tim (Jan 8, 2021)

Oh dear, me and my fat uncoordinated fingers.


----------



## A380 (Jan 10, 2021)

This is actually really interesting and something I hadn’t seen heard about before. Thanks.

When I was in Charslton I brought a local history book which was basically abstracts of recordings made by people who had been slaves talking about their experiences. What shocked me was that the recordings had been made in the late 1930s. They were of elderly people who had been slaves in their teens. That was a real kick to my gut rather than intellectual understanding of the States. 

I also picked up a book about the British intelligence network run against the confederacy from Charleston which challenged more of my assumptions.

( We never talked about slavery and our man in Charleston BTW.)


----------



## tim (Jan 11, 2021)

A380 said:


> This is actually really interesting and something I hadn’t seen heard about before. Thanks.
> 
> When I was in Charslton I brought a local history book which was basically abstracts of recordings made by people who had been slaves talking about their experiences. What shocked me was that the recordings had been made in the late 1930s. They were of elderly people who had been slaves in their teens. That was a real kick to my gut rather than intellectual understanding of the States.
> 
> ...



Texts of slave narratives are available on the Library of Congress Website: Search results from Born in Slavery: Slave Narratives from the Federal Writers' Project, 1936 to 1938, Available Online, Online Text
One very short film:




And some recordings are on Youtube:






And one very short film:



This is Rebecca Latimer the first woman and the last slave owner to become a US Senator, albeit for only one day. One of the vilest aweet old ladies you'll ever come across:


----------



## Fez909 (Jan 11, 2021)

tim said:


> The last known widow of a Civil War soldier died in December (on my birthday), which considering the war ended 155 years ago is quite surprising.
> 
> Woman believed to be last remaining widow of US civil war soldier dies
> 
> ...


----------

