The Last Battle of the civil War (1 Viewer)

Saintman2884

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Dec 17, 2003
Messages
15,059
Reaction score
2,864
Offline
Um, guys I was reading about a new book called the Last battle of the Civil War and it may seem too simplistic in its themes and intentions but basically it taks about the Reconstruction policies of Lincoln and Johnson and later the formation of Jim Crow in the American South after wards which lasted until the mid 60's and was resisted heavily by southenr politicians and segregationists like George Wallace and Lester Maddox, I ordered it today at a local bookstore here in mobile and will read it and report when I get the full gist of it all.

But I was wondering to the history reps and buffs is if they have heard of this book too, are we in a way still battling the last battle of the Civil War in the sense of doing away wit the last vestiges of segregation and racism that was so rampant after the Civil War and REconstruction?

It makes for good debate or discussion I Think as a history major in that field.
 

Det. Brees

E tan e epi tas
Joined
Jul 21, 2002
Messages
8,237
Reaction score
3,620
Age
51
Offline
To say your statement or question were true would indicate that the civil war was all about slavery.
There are to many different schools of thought on what was the cause of the civil war.
Personally i do not believe that in the south the overall thought was we are fighting to keep slavery. I think is was about here goes the federal gov. taking away more of the rights of the states. Several of the New England States stated they would withdraw from the Union simply on that matter if in fact that was what Lincoln was trying to do.
 

RebSaint

Lint smoker
Joined
May 8, 2002
Messages
36,822
Reaction score
7,174
Location
Alexandria, LA
Offline
Personally i do not believe that in the south the overall thought was we are fighting to keep slavery. I think is was about here goes the federal gov. taking away more of the rights of the states. Several of the New England States stated they would withdraw from the Union simply on that matter if in fact that was what Lincoln was trying to do.


And what right was the federal government going to take away from the states? (at least those who left the union).

Well, read the Mississippi secession proclamation to find out.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/missec.htm

From the document:

<!--StartFragment -->"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth."

To diminish the role of slavery in the coming of the Civil War is to simply ignore the historical record.

Got another exercise which is interesting. Run through the prominent political compromises/events during the sectional crisis and just about every point of contention or the cause of such event boils down to a controversy over slavery.

The southern states seceded over the issue of slavery.
 
OP

Saintman2884

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Dec 17, 2003
Messages
15,059
Reaction score
2,864
Offline
REb, using my own historical insight, it seems that the South seceded indeed over slavery but felt that their was no available recourse to do so, in that I mean they felt that Lincoln was a radical abolitionist and driven to ruin the South's economy that as driven by slave labor. I guess it goes on character assination, Lincoln got put into the position of being a man dead set on ruining the South and its ways and in many ways he wasnt that type of person, he didnt want a war with the South nor did he want any fight, the reasoanable people like Henry Clay were being shut out in favor of radical abolinionists like William Henry Garrison who openly preached conflict and John Brown who murdered and killed becuase he thought God told him too. In a logical conclusion to me the anti-slavery people deserve some of the blame for starting the Civil WAr, slavery had to end, no one id deabting that, but the means in which the aboliionist crowd I cannot condone becuase it was amoral in so many instances.

The south was wrong for seceeding, bottom line but to understand its reasons, it may have been pushed to do so rather then listen to reason becuase of many in the abolitnist movement who preached for war or the total destrcution of the South
 

Det. Brees

E tan e epi tas
Joined
Jul 21, 2002
Messages
8,237
Reaction score
3,620
Age
51
Offline
Let me ask these questions.
when was slavery in the north ended and when was it ended in the south.
and what was the name of the document that ended slavery.
also why did the north wish to end slavery.
i think a study of these 3 questions would answer what the war was about.


It in my opinion the south did not take offense to slavery being ended because it was right or wrong.
its also my understanding the southern states were looked down up and 2nd class states.
 
Last edited:

Safety_In_Numbers

Is it gameday yet?
VIP Contributor
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
450
Reaction score
28
Age
43
Offline
The emancipation proclamation didn't end slavery, it just ended slavery in the south. Think about that one for a while. It was still legal to own slaves in the North at that time.

Regarding segregation, just go and check out the link below. The schools in East Baton Rouge Parish, for instance, have still never desegregated from the order of the 60s. It's a big mess.

http://speakout.com/activism/apstories/10063-1.html
 

Det. Brees

E tan e epi tas
Joined
Jul 21, 2002
Messages
8,237
Reaction score
3,620
Age
51
Offline
If in fact the war was about ending this horrible act of slavery. then slavery would have been ended prior to the war. As i said it was about the federal gov. coming to the southern states the telling them there was something they were not allowed to do.
the reason this was so heated was not because it was the first time the federal gov. had taken action toward southern states. The issue of ending slavery in the south was the final straw for the southern states. It has nothing to do with weather or not slavery was right or wrong.
yet we still have answered my 3 questions.
when was slavery ended in the north and the south.
what document ended slavery.
and why did the north wish to end slavery.
 

JimEverett

More than 15K posts served!
Joined
Mar 18, 2001
Messages
24,977
Reaction score
7,835
Offline
The Northern states had abolished slavery 60 years before the civil war.
 

Det. Brees

E tan e epi tas
Joined
Jul 21, 2002
Messages
8,237
Reaction score
3,620
Age
51
Offline
This timeline covers events from 1774 when the Continental Congress approved a resolution prohibiting slave importations and further American participation in the slave trade and concludes when John Brown led a raid on the federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry, Virginia.
the above statement is all i can find without going into lenghty search. it shows that further slave trade was forbiden but never show slavery was outlawed. several states adopted reforms to slowly end slavery but nothing to suddenly stop it.
ive always found this topic extremly interresting.....


the following Amendment the 13th abolished slavery legally in 1865...
if the act of slavery itself being evil/or wrong , which it is, was the reason for the war then why did the federal gov. not end it prior to the war. Also why did they end it in the southern states a few years before ending it in the northern states.
we all know the reason . lincoln believed it would cripple the southern states and help end the war.



Amendment XIII (the Thirteenth Amendment) of the United States Constitution officially abolished slavery and, with the exception of allowing punishments for crimes, prohibits involuntary servitude. In actuality the Amendment affected only Delaware and Kentucky. Everywhere else slavery had been abolished by state action or the Emancipation Proclamation. Abraham Lincoln was the main author of the Amendment, insisting it was needed to guarantee the permanent abolition of slavery.

The article states:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
The thirteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States was proposed to the legislatures of the several states by the Thirty-eighth Congress, on January 31, 1865. Although it was ratified by the necessary three-quarters of the states within a year of its proposal, its most recent ratification occurred as recently as 1995, in Mississippi, which was the last of the thirty-six states in existence in 1865 to ratify it.
 
Last edited:

RebSaint

Lint smoker
Joined
May 8, 2002
Messages
36,822
Reaction score
7,174
Location
Alexandria, LA
Offline
If in fact the war was about ending this horrible act of slavery. then slavery would have been ended prior to the war. As i said it was about the federal gov. coming to the southern states the telling them there was something they were not allowed to do.
the reason this was so heated was not because it was the first time the federal gov. had taken action toward southern states. The issue of ending slavery in the south was the final straw for the southern states. It has nothing to do with weather or not slavery was right or wrong.
yet we still have answered my 3 questions.
when was slavery ended in the north and the south.
what document ended slavery.
and why did the north wish to end slavery.

To answer your three questions:
Slavery ended in the northern states during the immediate post-war (Revolutionary) period.
The 13th Amendment ended ALL slavery.
Lincoln passed the emancipation proclamation to make slavery PART--here's the key--PART of saving the Union.

Claiming that the war was CAUSED by the issue of slavery and claiming that the United States fought the war to free slaves are two different issues.

At first, the war was about saving the Union, and only saving the Union--which doesn't negate the fact that the Confederacy wasn't established out of a fear that the insitution of slavery was threatened.

Lincoln used emancipation and abolishing slavery as part of the larger effort to preserve the union.

Claiming that the stated goal of ending slavery changed regarding Lincoln's vision for a new union doesn't take away slavery's role in causing the war. Or put another way, the Confederacy was still established out of a fear that eventually the United States was going to slowly--or immediately get rid of the institution of slavery.

I don't understand this obsession many have with wanting to diminish the role of slavery by claiming "the war was about federal government interference in the South's affairs," or "states' rights.." Which are basically two rather meaningless, vague statements to make when the salient issue was unmistakably over the future of the institution of slavery.
 

Det. Brees

E tan e epi tas
Joined
Jul 21, 2002
Messages
8,237
Reaction score
3,620
Age
51
Offline
To answer your three questions:
Slavery ended in the northern states during the immediate post-war (Revolutionary) period.
The 13th Amendment ended ALL slavery.
Lincoln passed the emancipation proclamation to make slavery PART--here's the key--PART of saving the Union.

Claiming that the war was CAUSED by the issue of slavery and claiming that the United States fought the war to free slaves are two different issues.

At first, the war was about saving the Union, and only saving the Union--which doesn't negate the fact that the Confederacy wasn't established out of a fear that the insitution of slavery was threatened.

Lincoln used emancipation and abolishing slavery as part of the larger effort to preserve the union.

Claiming that the stated goal of ending slavery changed regarding Lincoln's vision for a new union doesn't take away slavery's role in causing the war. Or put another way, the Confederacy was still established out of a fear that eventually the United States was going to slowly--or immediately get rid of the institution of slavery.

I don't understand this obsession many have with wanting to diminish the role of slavery by claiming "the war was about federal government interference in the South's affairs," or "states' rights.." Which are basically two rather meaningless, vague statements to make when the salient issue was unmistakably over the future of the institution of slavery.

its does not make sense the south was breaking away from the union over slavery being ended if in fact it had not occurred.
I do not understand the obsession many have with wanting to diminish the fact that states rights in the south were being influenced by the federal govt. , and the final act was the talk of ending slavery . A person can not deny there was bad blood between the northern and southern states long before the war and to not take that into account is just as wrong as failing to state that slavery had a role in the war.
I have to stand behind my arguement that the ending of slavery was not the cause of the war ,but the fact that the federal gov. was forcing its will on the states.
 

RebSaint

Lint smoker
Joined
May 8, 2002
Messages
36,822
Reaction score
7,174
Location
Alexandria, LA
Offline
its does not make sense the south was breaking away from the union over slavery being ended if in fact it had not occurred.

Sure, it makes perfect sense, if you read the secession proclamations. The Southern states feared that a Republican president would eventually interfere with the institution of slavery which is what the states who left the union stated in their secession proclamations. They foresaw a future policy regarding slavery which they could not live with and left the union. It was that simple despite the Republican Party official platform to limit the spread of slavery while not interfering where it already existed.

In short, like I stated earlier, the issue of slavery caused the southern states to leave the Union and while ending slavery was not a primary objective in the beginning of the war, Lincoln decided that preserving the Union and ending slavery would go hand in hand.

Secession of the states caused the war, and the states left the union over the issue of slavery--despite northern promises to not interfere with the institution where it was legal.
 

saintfan

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Jun 14, 2002
Messages
3,497
Reaction score
1,437
Age
72
Location
New Orleans
Offline
The emancipation proclamation didn't end slavery, it just ended slavery in the south. Think about that one for a while. It was still legal to own slaves in the North at that time.

Regarding segregation, just go and check out the link below. The schools in East Baton Rouge Parish, for instance, have still never desegregated from the order of the 60s. It's a big mess.

http://speakout.com/activism/apstories/10063-1.html

Actually, the emancipation proclamation only ended slavery in those areas occupied by union forces. Slaves in areas still under the military control of the confederacy were not freed. I guess it was a case of enforcement.

Regarding segregation, desegregation laws in some areas have had a reverse effect. Many schools then that were mostly (if not entirely) white are now mostly (if not entirely) black. In some areas, segregation laws only resulted in black schools closing and the student population ended up in better facilities.

When schools were first desegregated, the doctrine of separate but equal was actually (and correctly) determined to be separate but unequal. The disparity between the education standards for whites vs. blacks was great. The courts assumed that desegregating schools, the academic performance of black students would rise as the students were the higher standards used in white schools.

The reality is that the academic performance standards have been lowered over time, so rather than requiring students to reach a goal, the goal has been lowered, making things less challenging. As students failed to reach the lower goal, the goals were lowered again, such that today, rather than making students attain certain performance standards, today we have dumbed down all students.

The reality is that we have created many segregated schools as those with the financial wherewithall choose to move their children to private schools, abandoning public schools to the lower economic class.
 

DadsDream

Dreaming of a SAINTS Super Bowl!
Joined
Jul 9, 2001
Messages
41,540
Reaction score
6,191
Location
Hancock County
Offline
Where I lived:

The black high school became the junior high.

The white high school became the high school for everybody.

The black junior high was deemed beyond repair and torn down.

The white junior high became an elementary school.

I once found a closet full of district and even state championship trophies at the formerly all-black high school. An old janitor had kept them. Their mascot and athletic records had basically been discarded.

The formerly all-white high school's trophies, mascot, athletic records, everything was preserved and passed on as everybody's trophies and mascot.
 

Bleu Raeder

Tasty
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Subscribing Member
Joined
Feb 3, 1998
Messages
23,449
Reaction score
6,253
Age
62
Offline
I am looking for some good and accurate books on the reconstruction. Suggestions?
 

SBin2008

Banned
Joined
Jun 18, 2008
Messages
2,191
Reaction score
320
Location
Slidell
Offline
The constitution proclaimed states could succed from the union.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

 

New Orleans Saints Twitter Feed

 

Headlines

Top Bottom