The Civil War through the lens of time

[ZRod]

Quote

Savage Husker

@ZRod No one is denying it’s not about slavery, but I don’t suggest omitting timelines to make this war about nobility of the north in regard to slavery,  when the first and foremost cause of the war was to preserve the Union. 

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/thenceforward-and-forever-free

For as much bashing on the confederate states, the Union could have as easily freed the slaves prior to any secession or battle, instead they waited and used them as a political ally to win the war through recruitment with the promise of being freed. Does that not raise concern to you that their freedom was contingent on winning the war? 

 

@whateveritis1224 I have read that quote mentioned at the end of the article and I understand why people feel the way they do about Lee, then again, that sentiment was held by the majority of people at the time, even Lincoln didn’t think black people deserved the same rights as whites, ie. voting, serving as jurors, etc. So when do we cancel Lincoln?

@Savage Husker I figure it's best to continue the conversation in P&R

 

The first and foremost cause of the war was to preserve the Union which was fracturing over the issue of slavery. This isn't about nobility of one side over the other. Any nobile acts of the Confederacy are far outweighed by what they stood for. Lincoln and his subordinates did many regrettable things, but they ultimately did them for a righteous cause. As any good politicians recognizes he needed the support of then people in order to maintain his presidency, unfortunately that meant using slaves as political pawns (a lesser of two evils).

 

I don't understand why we are trying to put blush on the pig that was the Confederacy. It was a government founded on the principal that all men are not created equal, in direct opposition to the founding of The United States. Lee knowingly fought for the side that wished to maintain slavery. There will always be moral ambiguity around slavery and civil rights depending on the times we are talking about, but when the choice is as clear as it was in the 1860's I don't think there is much grey area there. 

[Savage Husker]

I do agree with you and the point you are making. I’m not painting any blush or intending to diminish any aspect by pointing out that there other reasons people fought in that war, as Teach touched on.

 

6th (non-italicized) paragraph down, I think that helps provide aide to this discussion and your first sentence in your second paragraph. 
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/making-sense-of-robert-e-lee-85017563/

There are other references that discuss Lee’s dilemma over slavery, in both pro/con narrative. There are also more references that he sided with his state no matter which side they chose. I’m not arguing your points in morality, I understand where you’re coming from.

[ZRod]

14 hours ago, Savage Husker said:

I do agree with you and the point you are making. I’m not painting any blush or intending to diminish any aspect by pointing out that there other reasons people fought in that war, as Teach touched on.

 

6th (non-italicized) paragraph down, I think that helps provide aide to this discussion and your first sentence in your second paragraph. 
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/making-sense-of-robert-e-lee-85017563/

There are other references that discuss Lee’s dilemma over slavery, in both pro/con narrative. There are also more references that he sided with his state no matter which side they chose. I’m not arguing your points in morality, I understand where you’re coming from.

 

It's just weird that people (not necessarily you) still want to defend him as some kind redeemable character. At best he couldn't take a stand for his own beliefs and do the right thing because he was conflicted. At worst he knew what the right thing was and chose instead to follow the herd. There really aren't many redeeming qualities in his choices, and if anything he's an example of how not to choose your path in life.

 

He's actually terrifying to me because I can see a lot of his indecision and unwillingness to make a tough decision in myself.

[BigRedBuster]

1 hour ago, ZRod said:

 

It's just weird that people (not necessarily you) still want to defend him as some kind redeemable character. At best he couldn't take a stand for his own beliefs and do the right thing because he was conflicted. At worst he knew what the right thing was and chose instead to follow the herd. There really aren't many redeeming qualities in his choices, and if anything he's an example of how not to choose your path in life.

 

He's actually terrifying to me because I can see a lot of his indecision and unwillingness to make a tough decision in myself.

I agree with your original post in this thread.  Some people seem to want to glorify the confederacy as some type of "states rights" battle.  In reality it was about slavery and one side couldn't stand the fact that they were going to have to free their slaves.

 

Lee is an interesting character because he was against slavery, but he couldn't stand to see his state destroyed.  On the flip side, Grant owned slaves and only fought for the Union because Lincoln asked him to.  So...I guess everyone can make their own judgement on the morality of each man.

[ZRod]

5 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

I agree with your original post in this thread.  Some people seem to want to glorify the confederacy as some type of "states rights" battle.  In reality it was about slavery and one side couldn't stand the fact that they were going to have to free their slaves.

 

Lee is an interesting character because he was against slavery, but he couldn't stand to see his state destroyed.  On the flip side, Grant owned slaves and only fought for the Union because Lincoln asked him to.  So...I guess everyone can make their own judgement on the morality of each man.

Trust me, I have family down south. They are actually very progressive people, but it's still framed as the war of northern agression.

[Savage Husker]

On 6/19/2020 at 1:04 PM, BigRedBuster said:

Lee is an interesting character because he was against slavery, but he couldn't stand to see his state destroyed.  On the flip side, Grant owned slaves and only fought for the Union because Lincoln asked him to.  So...I guess everyone can make their own judgement on the morality of each man.

 

This was the impetus of this thread. Jefferson Davis was hunted down with a bounty on his head, while Lee lived his life out and is taught as if he is a noble statesman. 
 

Outside of abolitionists (not a political party), I don’t think any political party has any claim to “freeing” slaves. Lincoln would rather have seen slaves freed through legislation as political move - enough evidence to verify that. Seems more like to the victors go the spoils. 

Discussing this topic made me have to  remember how much Kansas’ desire for pro-slavery and being above the Mason-Dixon Line played into the lead up of the war - also makes more sense about Kansas in general. 
 

On 6/19/2020 at 6:19 PM, ZRod said:

Trust me, I have family down south. They are actually very progressive people, but it's still framed as the war of northern agression.

The North also put a lot of pressure on the South with high trade prices while placing tariffs on foreign goods - albeit who were trying to undercut the North to break apart the US. If it weren’t for the unintended consequences, the civil war is just a terrible smear in US history. I say that with caution due to the current climate we are living in, plus foreign nations are actively trying to implode the US, many domestic government leaders are overreaching with their control, and who knows if someone tries to suspend habeas corpus because unfortunately that’s probably not out of the question. 

[RedDenver]