When Was the American Civil War a Done Deal?

[Julie]

Shek, my point is, had not black soldiers contested this pay discrimination, by their actions evidenced above, what would the liklihood of it being rectified by the Government? Your opinion?

[Shek]

Shek, my point is, had not black soldiers contested this pay discrimination, by their actions evidenced above, what would the liklihood of it being rectified by the Government? Your opinion?

It would have been rectified under the Congress elected in the 1864 election at the latest. For an interesting read on the topic, here's a recent article that touches on this subject.

The Intersection between Military Justice and Equal Rights: Mutinies, Courts-martial, and Black Civil War Soldiers
Civil War History - Volume 53, Number 2, June 2007

Interestingly, William Walker, who is the poster child in the source you used, had a past history of mutiny against both white and black leaders in his unit. That doesn't negate that the issue was also brought up in other contexts, where the courts-martial demonstrated the fairness and non-discriminatory nature of the application of military justice in the whole.

[Julie]

It would have been rectified under the Congress elected in the 1864 election at the latest. For an interesting read on the topic, here's a recent article that touches on this subject.

The Intersection between Military Justice and Equal Rights: Mutinies, Courts-martial, and Black Civil War Soldiers
Civil War History - Volume 53, Number 2, June 2007

Interestingly, William Walker, who is the poster child in the source you used, had a past history of mutiny against both white and black leaders in his unit. That doesn't negate that the issue was also brought up in other contexts, where the courts-martial demonstrated the fairness and non-discriminatory nature of the application of military justice in the whole.

fairness and non-discriminatory nature of the application of military justice in the whole.? You're kidding right?

Beside the fact that they should have gave them equal pay from the start like they were promised. Don't ya think?

[Shek]

fairness and non-discriminatory nature of the application of military justice in the whole.? You're kidding right?

No, I'm not kidding. The scholarly article lays out a very compelling argument. For example, it presents a case of a mutiny where the soldiers were acquitted and the commander instead put on trial because he was an a$$hole. It also lays out some isolated examples where excessively harsh punishments weren't discriminatory in nature - both blacks and whites suffered the same under particular commanders. This would be a case where it wasn't fair, but not because of discrimination.

Beside the fact that they should have gave them equal pay from the start like they were promised. Don't ya think?

I agree that they should have, but Congress didn't appropriate the necessary funds because they used the 1862 Militia Act as the authorization, and so while the Administration (Secretary Stanton) approached the Congress in late 1863, they couldn't get legislation through until 1864 to fulfill what had been promised. Heck, maybe they should have been paid extra money since the Confederate policy was to execute them without trial if captured (a policy never rescinded but stopped after the Union promised in-kind retaliation).

[Shek]

As for something "worse than slavery", there is a grain of truth to that. For centuries Black people in the South were regarded by Whites as a class of servants and anything else was considered unnatural. As a result most Blacks in the South considered themselves to be members of their master's household - albeit as "property" - and there was no large organized movement to free all the Black slaves and give them an identity as an independent race of people. In fact, once the slaves were emancipated, the protection of their masters was lost and they became the target of persecution by the KKK and other Whites who did not like the new state of affairs.

This analysis requires that there is no benefit to freedom. Was life harsher for some former slaves in terms of material goods? Sure. Was it for all? No.

Emancipation was the perfect pretext for the Union to go to war with the South. I doubt that President Lincoln was intent on freeing Black slaves in the South on moral grounds - even though this is the version of history taught as historical fact in all US public schools.

First off, emancipation was not the pretext for mobilization after the Confederacy had fired upon a federal fort.

Second, Lincoln's position on slavery was rooted entirely on morals, and his written record reflects that as far back as it goes . However, it was packaged and sold/socialized in terms of the war effort.

[Shek]

Welcome to Bushwhacker Museum

John Brown Museum

2 different views on the same topic.

John Brown was a terrorist.

The James brothers et all were simply brutal thugs.

[Albany Rifles]

John Brown was a terrorist.

The James brothers et all were simply brutal thugs.

Exactly....yet each are nearly canonized by their respective constituencies.

[Crocodylus]

Life after the war

This analysis requires that there is no benefit to freedom. Was life harsher for some former slaves in terms of material goods? Sure. Was it for all? No.

True. For one, the Union Army stayed throughout the Reconstruction period, so there wasn't any mass starvation and things were kept pretty much in order. However, once the Union Army left the South, Blacks in general became subject to Jim Crow laws and the like. Blacks could no longer be enslaved since slavery was outlawed by the 13th Amendment, but they were still being treated as second-class citizens and therefore became subject to various forms of racial discrimination, such as the Jim Crow laws.

Not that this made them long for their former state of servitude, though.

First off, emancipation was not the pretext for mobilization after the Confederacy had fired upon a federal fort.

I must have omitted something Emancipation as a pretext comes into the picture a bit later. The Union's reaction after Fort Sumter was an entirely natural one; an answer to an act of aggression by an (illegitimate) foreign state.

Second, Lincoln's position on slavery was rooted entirely on morals, and his written record reflects that as far back as it goes . However, it was packaged and sold/socialized in terms of the war effort.

True. Lincoln did not want slavery to spread any further than the Southeast States and actually wanted it to become obsolete ASAP, but he also knew that the White majority would not accept Black freedmen as equals in the short term. So, Emancipation would've been a hard sell without some repackaging. Also, there was the Confiscation Act, which punished Confederate supporters by freeing their slaves without compensation to the owner.

I believe that the abolition of slavery appealed to Northerners because it would erase the advantage that the Southern States enjoyed as a result of being able to undercut Northern industry pricewise.

[Shek]

I believe that the abolition of slavery appealed to Northerners because it would erase the advantage that the Southern States enjoyed as a result of being able to undercut Northern industry pricewise.

This doesn't follow. Northerners abolished/emancipated slaves as they industrialized. While some of the states abolished slavery because of their moral convictions, in other states, it just gradually disappeared. If there was advantage to having slaves in industry, then it wouldn't have just disappeared. Given that, why would they fear Southern industrialization? If anything, disrupting Southern society would force them to seek sectors beyond agriculture, which would then mean competition.

[Blue]

The Union's reaction after Fort Sumter was an entirely natural one; an answer to an act of aggression by an (illegitimate) foreign state.

Guess that depends which side you were on huh?

Nine years before the war, when lincoln was an Illinois rep, he said was secession was legal and the duty of the citizens when when they found themselves being oppressed by the fed gov. Guess when the rules are convenient you abide by them huh?

[Tarek Morgen]

After reading this (?and all the other threads here) I still have quite some trouble to understand how the South was oppressed? Which rights did they not have that the rest of the union enjoyed?

And when was Lincoln ever a Senator??

[Blue]

After reading this (?and all the other threads here) I still have quite some trouble to understand how the South was oppressed? Which rights did they not have that the rest of the union enjoyed?

And when was Lincoln ever a Senator??

My bad, I was thinking of something else while typing. He was a state rep.

In short, they where paying the majority of the taxes, they felt they where being treated unfairly by the Northern staes, ie, the fed gov, so they seceeded. Lincold flip flopped as prez because the South was fixin to be recognized as a sovereign country by other countries, so for the so-called "good of the union" they where made by force to rejoin the union at the cost of around 640,000 American lives. Course thats only one version. You'll get the other here shortly i'm sure.

[Shek]

Nine years before the war, when lincoln was an Illinois rep, he said was secession was legal and the duty of the citizens when when they found themselves being oppressed by the fed gov. Guess when the rules are convenient you abide by them huh?

Care to share that speech and the context? I think you'll find that it's actually very consistent with his arguments against Southern secession. ;)

[Tarek Morgen]

My bad, I was thinking of something else while typing. He was a state rep.

In short, they where paying the majority of the taxes, they felt they where being treated unfairly by the Northern staes, ie, the fed gov, so they seceeded. Lincold flip flopped as prez because the South was fixin to be recognized as a sovereign country by other countries, so for the so-called "good of the union" they where made by force to rejoin the union at the cost of around 640,000 American lives. Course thats only one version. You'll get the other here shortly i'm sure.

I looked into the declaration of seccession form the states of South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia and Texas. Only the first one even mentions taxes (and not in the context of being a tool of opression by the federal government). ALL of them frequently mention slavery.

So what am I missing? If for the southern states feld oppressed by the north by "having to pay the majority of taxes" why is there no mention of this in theํr declarations?

[Shek]

Lincold flip flopped as prez because the South was fixin to be recognized as a sovereign country by other countries, so for the so-called "good of the union" they where made by force to rejoin the union at the cost of around 640,000 American lives. Course thats only one version. You'll get the other here shortly i'm sure.

The South required a major victory to be recognized by Britain, as it was seen as an internal affair (but watched with keen interest) initially. Napoleon III of France was ready to recognize England before that, but he would have found himself on the short end of the stick in his own backyard and so had to follow along with England. The closest that the South came to being recognized was in September of 1862, when the issue was about ready to be pushed to the floor in light of the reversals the Union faced around the map after the earlier successes in the Western Theater as well as because the cotton embargo by the South was finally beginning to force layoffs in England.

However, the Union victory at Antietam shut the door on recognition for the time being, and only a complete triumph by Lee in 1863 in light of the Emancipation Proclamation would have brought about recognition, and even then it would have been most likely only because of the Union negotiating a settlement with the CSA.