The Civil War in the US started 150 years ago this month. When did it end?

I was talking to someone from Mississippi a couple of years back, and he said that it was a different world down there now, much changed since the civil rights turmoil of the '60s. Later in the conversation, he said when the blacks move in, heh, everyone else wants to move out. It left me wondering how much has changed.

Certainly, many southeners at the time did not accept defeat in a very whole-hearted manor. Through both covert means (the KKK), or overt means, such as lobbying and armtwisting by southern politicians in Washingtion, the South went all out to mitigate the effects of loosing the war to the North. There were even some cases of outright rebellion against northern troops in the 1870s.

Federal troops were back in the '60s, although none too welcome in many quarters in that region.

Today there are still controversies, such as South Carolina wanting to fly the Confederate flag at the state capital.

Did things change, and when? After the '60s? Or still a work in progress?

First of all, I am surprised this was not picked up, but I guess history is not as liked as say religion, politics or science.

Next, as much as I hate to be a stick in the mud, I will bring up the small aside that it was not a civil war in the traditional sense of the term. None of the southern states tried to overthrow, dismantle, disrupt, or even intrude on the rights and activities of the northern states. They simply wished to secede from the current union and be recognized as an individual coalition or confederacy. So too be honest, it was not a civil war, because it was technically being fought between two different countries. The south(South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas) did secede from the union, managed to create a constitution, and actually ran efficiently in the small window of time (February 4th, 1861-April 12-13, 1861) from when it officially began until the attacks on Fort Sumter. Next, in that window of opportunity, it was the Union's own stubbornness and refusal to withdraw Union forces from the Fort located in South Carolina that eventually escalated into an assault on the Fort thus officially causing the war to begin. So, it was not a civil war in technical sense, but since historians have so deemed it and named it, it stays. It would be correct to say it was a War Between the States.

Next, I do not know who this guy was, but he must have been a racist. Racism is not just contained in the southern states. It can be found all across the country. But regardless, you make it sounds as if the Civil War was fought primarily over slavery. It was not. Slavery was an issue, but so were states rights over both another state and the federal government, tariffs, as well as the far south was a completely different country back in that day than the North(this is known as sectionalism).

Next would it surprise you that only 20% of the southern population owned slaves? These were the rich, plantation owners. Many of the poorer farmers were against the plantations(big business) because they squandered and stole opportunities for the smaller farms to grow. So in fact a good majority of the south was against the concept of slavery because it was associated with cheap/free labor. The political force of the south, however, was not the poor man but the rich plantation owners. And due to strong sense of nationality the poor farmers and southern men supported the south. Which is why you get people such as Robert E. Lee fighting for the Confederates even when he himself was against slavery. Virginia sided with the South and because of loyalty to one's state, Lee fought for the Confederacy.

Next, put yourself in a southern man's shoes after the devastation that was havocked during the Civil War. Not a slave owner's but a normal, average southern man. Imagine coming home to Georgia after fighting in Virginia only to discover that your farm was burned and salted, you had nothing to come home to because your wife and kids were killed when William Sherman came through. So yes, the average southerner would be very upset, even belligerent to the North. Also add carpetbaggers, those northern men who saw the savage of the war as opportunity to buy land in the south for cheap and constant union military control(let us look at Iraq for a modern day example of what that does to a population) and it is no wonder things grew worse in the south after Reconstruction.

But the Civil War ended when it did in 1865. Like all things though the repercussions last well after. Like the saying goes, "Old habits die hard." I can also say that old attitudes and generalizations die hard. Many of the prejudices remained, and not just in the south, but in the North as well. Slavery did officially become abolished in the US after the war. Though racism did not.

I have a few problems with your post, wilhud.

1. The STATED reason given in their secession announcements by the states who seceded, WAS that it was all about slavery. States rights was argued as a reason why they should not be able to be forced to END slavery .

2. The idea that the Union "caused" the war, by refusing to leave Fort Sumpter, is a ridiculous, pro-confederacy rewrite without merit. For it to be true, the sequence of events would have had to have been that the state of South Carolina voted to secede, then the United States would have to ACCEPT that secession, And THEN it might have been possible to say that the Union was wrong to retain Sumpter. Sumpter was a United States fortress. To have handed it over to people who did NOT represent the officially recognized government of the United States would have been an illegal act.

3. It WAS a civil war, because the States who tried to, were never granted the right to leave. Thus it was a war of rebellion, fought entirely on U.S. soil.

4. The South DID send soldiers into the northern states, more than once. Even if they had not, to refer to the U.S. forces entering the southern states to re-establish order within the boundary of the United States, as being an "Invasion" is a contradiction of terms. A country can not invade itself.

5. That only 20% of the Southerners actually owned slaves, true or not, isn't pertinent to this discussion. Since the declared reason for the secession WAS to retain slavery, whether they were owned by every man, or only one, has no impact on this. Most wars are fought on behalf of a minority of the populace of a nation, in terms of who is actually directly threatened, so THAT point has no applicable validity either.

6. Your description of Sherman's March is wildly exaggerated. He did NOT burn down every southerners house, nor did they salt anyone's land. They didn't stay in one place long enough to do any such nonsense. This sort of lie has been put forward and proven false many times.

7. The reason things were such a mess after the war, was that the North failed to retain sufficient forces in place to prevent the violence that followed.

You ARE correct about racism. It was common to both North AND South, and was not "cured" by the war.

As to the initial question about when the U.S. Civil War did end, it ended officially in 1865, over a period of several days, with the successive surrender of various Southern armies, and the capture of Jefferson Davis (and the destruction of the Confederate government in it's entirety). It's really a bit of philosophical rhetoric to suggest that "the war never quite ended," simply because conflicts and upheaval continued. If one follows that sort of reasoning, then MOST wars were MUCH longer than are described in history books, including that World War One never ended, and World War Two never existed (it was simply a continuation of the First World War).
The Civil War was fought to end the Southern States insurrection, and it succeeded in that task, in 1865. It was NOT "the war to put an end to anyone having a bad time," so to point sadly to all that went on after that was "untoward," and drearily whine that it means that the Civil War never really ended, is silly pap.

Well said, Igor.

Will, I strongly suggest you read McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom to gain a much better understanding that the root(s) of the US Civil War was entirely about slavery - then read the archives in the NY Times over the past year - they have a column that was examining the proximate causes in a 150yr retrospective - again, it's all about slavery, then and now.

igorfrankensteen wrote:I have a few problems with your post, wilhud.

1. The STATED reason given in their secession announcements by the states who seceded, WAS that it was all about slavery. States rights was argued as a reason why they should not be able to be forced to END slavery .

I agree, slavery was a prominent wedge which drove the secession; however, there were other prominent issues that caused the South to grow exasperated with the North. Tariffs were one of them. Another issue was the handling of raw processing goods such as cotton. The south didn't have the factories, the north did. Likewise, the north did not really have the plantations, the south did. The South believed, rightly or not, that the North was bullying them out of their raw goods.

2. The idea that the Union "caused" the war, by refusing to leave Fort Sumpter, is a ridiculous, pro-confederacy rewrite without merit.

No, its not. The war started when the Confederacy opened fire upon Fort Sumter. The reason why the Confederacy open fired was because the North refused to leave the fort, and withdraw its own troops. That is like today, troops in Iraq demanding that the US leave its country, the US refuses and Iraq open fires. Who "caused" the war?

For it to be true, the sequence of events would have had to have been that the state of South Carolina voted to secede, then the United States would have to ACCEPT that secession, And THEN it might have been possible to say that the Union was wrong to retain Sumpter.

Nowhere in the US Constitution did it ever make that claim of secession procedure. There is no clause in the Constitution that deals with secession. So the South, a coalition/confederacy of states, decided they had enough of the Union and left. They declared themselves independent of the Union. Nowhere was there any law or legal provision that said they could not.

Sumpter was a United States fortress. To have handed it over to people who did NOT represent the officially recognized government of the United States would have been an illegal act.

They didn't demand it being handed over. The equipment, shipment, troops, were all told to leave. Meaning that fort was to be evacuated. The south didn't want the Northern equipment, they didn't want the fort for themselves. They wanted the Union out. The Union refused.

3. It WAS a civil war, because the States who tried to, were never granted the right to leave. Thus it was a war of rebellion, fought entirely on U.S. soil.

Granted a right to leave by whom exactly? Why was the Union all of a sudden granted the right to deny a state the right to secede from the Union, especially when there was NO BREACH to the Constitution. Next, just because the Union did not "recognize" the Confederacy, is irrelevant. The Confederacy believed themselves to be an independent country and they acted accordingly. It was the Union's fault for being stubborn.

4. The South DID send soldiers into the northern states, more than once. Even if they had not, to refer to the U.S. forces entering the southern states to re-establish order within the boundary of the United States, as being an "Invasion" is a contradiction of terms. A country can not invade itself.

1) Yes, because it was a war. Robert E. Lee and other Confederate generals realized that to win the war they would need to capture cities and states within the north. To get Lincoln and other leaders to pull troops out of the south. Lee and the confederacy did not wish to invade and capture the North. They were pressured to, to resolve the war. A means to an end. On the whole, they played a defensive war.

5. That only 20% of the Southerners actually owned slaves, true or not, isn't pertinent to this discussion. Since the declared reason for the secession WAS to retain slavery, whether they were owned by every man, or only one, has no impact on this. Most wars are fought on behalf of a minority of the populace of a nation, in terms of who is actually directly threatened, so THAT point has no applicable validity either.

State loyalty actually had a lot to do with it. Robert E. Lee fought for Virginia, even though he disagreed with slavery. Why? Because he had family and friends in Virginia and felt a close kinship with the state. Something today, Americans cannot genuinely understand since travel is so much easier. If the sole issue was slavery, many southerners would have risen up to shut down the minority elite driving the war effort. The fact was, state sovereignty and state loyalty were being tested during this war.

6. Your description of Sherman's March is wildly exaggerated. He did NOT burn down every southerners house, nor did they salt anyone's land. They didn't stay in one place long enough to do any such nonsense. This sort of lie has been put forward and proven false many times.

From the wiki:

The March to the Sea was devastating to Georgia and the Confederacy. Sherman himself estimated that the campaign had inflicted $100 million (about $1.378 billion in 2010 dollars) in destruction, about one fifth of which "inured to our advantage" while the "remainder is simple waste and destruction." The Army wrecked 300 miles (480 km) of railroad and numerous bridges and miles of telegraph lines. It seized 5,000 horses, 4,000 mules, and 13,000 head of cattle. It confiscated 9.5 million pounds of corn and 10.5 million pounds of fodder, and destroyed uncounted cotton gins and mills. Military historians Herman Hattaway and Archer Jones cited the significant damage wrought to railroads and Southern logistics in the campaign and stated that "Sherman's raid succeeded in 'knocking the Confederate war effort to pieces'."

It was total war. If the Geneva conference was already established, Sherman and the leaders who organized would be tried for war crimes. It may have been "necessary" but it was obsessive and cruel.

7. The reason things were such a mess after the war, was that the North failed to retain sufficient forces in place to prevent the violence that followed.

Politics had much to do with it.

Weaver wrote:Well said, Igor.

Will, I strongly suggest you read McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom to gain a much better understanding that the root(s) of the US Civil War was entirely about slavery - then read the archives in the NY Times over the past year - they have a column that was examining the proximate causes in a 150yr retrospective - again, it's all about slavery, then and now.

I agree that slavery was the primary root of the causation of the war. But it was not the sole reason the war was fought. Robert E. Lee did not fight for slavery; he was against slavery; he fought for the sovereignty of Virginia.

What do you mean, "end"?

No, its not. The war started when the Confederacy opened fire upon Fort Sumter. The reason why the Confederacy open fired was because the North refused to leave the fort, and withdraw its own troops. That is like today, troops in Iraq demanding that the US leave its country, the US refuses and Iraq open fires. Who "caused" the war?

Again, you are blinding yourself from the most BASIC of facts. The United States does NOT OWN IRAQ. Were you aware of that? IRAQ IS NOT A PART OF OUR COUNTRY. That means that when our armed forces are there, that they are either an occupying army, or they are an invited guest. The Iraqi's can call upon us to leave, and we would be wrong to refuse.

When the South Carolinians demanded that Sumpter be surrendered to them, they were ILLEGALLY calling for the OWNER OF THE FORTRESS to give it over to their illegally formed, and unrecognized rebel "government".

Thus your comparison is entirely without merit or logical foundation.

Get over it: you are wrong.

igorfrankensteen wrote:

No, its not. The war started when the Confederacy opened fire upon Fort Sumter. The reason why the Confederacy open fired was because the North refused to leave the fort, and withdraw its own troops. That is like today, troops in Iraq demanding that the US leave its country, the US refuses and Iraq open fires. Who "caused" the war?

Again, you are blinding yourself from the most BASIC of facts. The United States does NOT OWN IRAQ. Were you aware of that? IRAQ IS NOT A PART OF OUR COUNTRY. That means that when our armed forces are there, that they are either an occupying army, or they are an invited guest. The Iraqi's can call upon us to leave, and we would be wrong to refuse.

When the South Carolinians demanded that Sumpter be surrendered to them, they were ILLEGALLY calling for the OWNER OF THE FORTRESS to give it over to their illegally formed, and unrecognized rebel "government".

Thus your comparison is entirely without merit or logical foundation.

Get over it: you are wrong.

Why all of a sudden does this country "NEED" to be recognized. So I guess the colonies ILLEGALLY declared independence from England. England did not recognize the colonies as a separate government, but treated it as a colonial uprising. The Confederacy believed and acted itself in accordance as a separate country. If the North did not recognize it as such, so what? The South fought for independence from the North. They did nothing illegal, because there was NO constitutional or legal provision that stated secession was illegal. So when Fort Sumter was demanded to evacuate the country of the Confederacy, it does not matter that the Union recognized them or not. The South believed itself to be a separate country, and again acted accordingly. Do you understand this basic fact? Or shall we continue to place sides in this issue.

I am not pro-south, anti-union; I am an objective historian, who sees things in history as being a complicated web of blame and fault. I can read my history book and read a complete demonization of the south during the War between States. When the north was not an innocent casualty during the war trying to preserve peace and unity. The conflict was long in coming, and both sides are too blame. The Union was too blame for not recognizing the Confederacy as a separate country, even though there was no limiting law that stated they couldn't. The south failed in not finding a diplomatic solution and instead resulted in violence.

Yes, the colonies most certainly ILLEGALLY declared independence from Britian - and the fought a war to be able to separate. They won, and became a separate country.

Contrariwise, the various Southern States illegally separated from the Union - there was no resolution before the US Congress giving these States a right to separate (necessary in the same way a resolution is needed to admit a new State) - and they fought a war to try to uphold their decision. They lost.

Fort Sumter was Federal property - it did not belong to South Carolina. Federal forces were in place at the Fort. Demands for them to depart, and the following siege to force them to, were an act of war.

Yes, the United States could have passed resolutions permitting the Southern States to withdraw from the Union, and recognizing their new Constitution with all it's glorification of slavery - but they DID NOT. Thus, the rebellion was illegal.

Weaver wrote:Yes, the colonies most certainly ILLEGALLY declared independence from Britian - and the fought a war to be able to separate. They won, and became a separate country.

Contrariwise, the various Southern States illegally separated from the Union - there was no resolution before the US Congress giving these States a right to separate (necessary in the same way a resolution is needed to admit a new State) - and they fought a war to try to uphold their decision. They lost.

Maybe so with a monarchy/parlimentary system, but how exactly was it illegal for the states?

Fort Sumter was Federal property - it did not belong to South Carolina. Federal forces were in place at the Fort. Demands for them to depart, and the following siege to force them to, were an act of war.

Right, but South Carolina did not consider itself part of the Union, thus Fort Sumter was another countries military being stationed in their own country, they wanted it out.

Yes, the United States could have passed resolutions permitting the Southern States to withdraw from the Union, and recognizing their new Constitution with all it's glorification of slavery - but they DID NOT. Thus, the rebellion was illegal.

But what provision and what authority makes secession illegal? Because Lincoln the almighty dictator he was, said it was? Because senators from the north disagreed with the actions of the south? Sorry. Disagreement is not what determines legality. Force of law is what determines legality. There was no law or regulation that said that a state could not leave the Union. Entering the Union was one matter, it required a federal vote because it affected federal tax and commerce. Leaving the Union is another matter. It should have been like leaving a club membership. You sign a waiver and you leave, the club owner cannot stop you. The North violated the state's right to secede.

The "club" argument has been tried over and over - but it didn't work then, and it doesn't work now. Nothing in the Constitution states or imples that the various States could elect to leave the Union at will. They were admitted to the Union on act of Congress (or on ratification of the Constitution for the original States) - they don't get to simply decide to quit when they want.

Will - you are wrong.

Weaver wrote:The "club" argument has been tried over and over - but it didn't work then, and it doesn't work now. Nothing in the Constitution states or imples that the various States could elect to leave the Union at will. They were admitted to the Union on act of Congress (or on ratification of the Constitution for the original States) - they don't get to simply decide to quit when they want.

Will - you are wrong.

And why not? How is the signing of the Constitution all of a sudden a binding, life-long contract. Where was that established? Until someone can prove that the South did in fact violate Constitutional law, my argument stands. The south had every right and jurisdiction to secede from the Union. I'm glad they failed, this country would not be what it is today if it did, but regardless.

http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/exhibits/ann ... ion11.html
http://www.philwrites.com/H_seccession.htm
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/his ... ulsion.htm

Bottom line - while the various rebel States asserted that they had a "right" to withdraw from the Union, and while there was some dissent within the US whether such a withdraw should be allowed, in the end the US decided to fight to prevent the withdrawal - thus establishing by force of arms the Federal supremacy in such decisions.

To argue now, 150 years later, that they really DID have a right to secede, in spite of the fact that they fought and LOST in their attempt to establish that right, is simply absurd.

Now, would things have been different if SC hadn't fired on Sumter? Maybe - but the fact is that they did, that it was a US fort, not SC property, and that was an act of war. Thus they started the armed portion of the "debate" on their right to withdraw - and, 4 years later, it was finished with them having to admit defeat.

Weaver wrote:http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/exhibits/annexation/part5/question11.html
http://www.philwrites.com/H_seccession.htm
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/his ... ulsion.htm

Bottom line - while the various rebel States asserted that they had a "right" to withdraw from the Union, and while there was some dissent within the US whether such a withdraw should be allowed, in the end the US decided to fight to prevent the withdrawal - thus establishing by force of arms the Federal supremacy in such decisions.

To argue now, 150 years later, that they really DID have a right to secede, in spite of the fact that they fought and LOST in their attempt to establish that right, is simply absurd.

Now, would things have been different if SC hadn't fired on Sumter? Maybe - but the fact is that they did, that it was a US fort, not SC property, and that was an act of war. Thus they started the armed portion of the "debate" on their right to withdraw - and, 4 years later, it was finished with them having to admit defeat.

Perhaps you misunderstand, thanks for the links btw they were informative. I am not arguing that a state has the right to secede today, nor am I supporting a state's right to secession. That policy was settled once and for all at the conclusion of the war. However, this was an argument that tore the nation. Does a state have the right to leave the union? Pointing towards the 9th and 10th Amendment and looking through the Constitution, as a strict constitutionalist I argue yes, they did have the right.

How is the signing of the Constitution all of a sudden a binding, life-long contract. Where was that established? Until someone can prove that the South did in fact violate Constitutional law, my argument stands. The south had every right and jurisdiction to secede from the Union.

You are wrong again, because the states all sent their representatives to the Constitutional convention, and empowered them to create a new National government. That was done, with the writing of the Constitution. After it was ratified by the states, it became the supreme law, of the nation of the United States, which it created.
At that moment, the states all lost the ability to independently choose NOT to be a part of the nation. The act of CREATING the United States WAS the establishment of the enforceable right of the new federal government to force compliance when necessary.
That is what you are refusing to understand. It is not NECESSARY to specify that a sub-unit of a country may not secede, because the creation and acceptance of the national government IS the end of the sub units' independent identity.

laklak wrote:What do you mean, "end"?

Conflicts rarely end neatly, but is some cases they are relatively clearly defined. At the end of WW2, Germany had its "year zero", and Japan decided to "endure the unendurable".

At the end of the Civil War, there were very many who did not accept the outcome at all. Of course, the military solution occured in 1865. But the idea of blacks assuming any sort of place in civil society was very soon snuffed out, and in fact they went back to a position that was little elevated from what it was in 1861. Southern politicians in Washington seemed to be able to twist a lot of arms. And if that was not successful, there was always the KKK.

It took a hundred years for some real movement in this regard, when the civil rights movement of the '60s occured. Did Southern attitudes and culture simply carry on for decades, albiet chafing under unwanted federal interference from time to time? If there was a more defining moment for change, when was it?

igorfrankensteen wrote:

How is the signing of the Constitution all of a sudden a binding, life-long contract. Where was that established? Until someone can prove that the South did in fact violate Constitutional law, my argument stands. The south had every right and jurisdiction to secede from the Union.

You are wrong again, because the states all sent their representatives to the Constitutional convention, and empowered them to create a new National government. That was done, with the writing of the Constitution. After it was ratified by the states, it became the supreme law, of the nation of the United States, which it created.

Yes, it became the supreme law. Cool, nowhere does it say that a state cannot leave. Even though you somehow make the conclusion that it is lifebinding because the states ratified it. Very interestingly, the more nationalist states were apprehensive about it because they feared it was a contract that limited state rights and focused on a heavy central government. Madison, in his ingenious compromise drafted the Bill of Rights including 9 and 10 so that a state's right would not be infringed upon by a federal law. That is why, technically slavery was not unconstitutional until the amendment was added that outlawed the practice. The supreme law of the land was, at the time, the Constitution, not federal law.

At that moment, the states all lost the ability to independently choose NOT to be a part of the nation.

Except, no they did not. Find me some specific law or binding provision which states that a state could not leave the Union if it was dissatisfied with the Union? Please, tell me. I am unaware of any.

The act of CREATING the United States WAS the establishment of the enforceable right of the new federal government to force compliance when necessary.

Except for the 9th and 10th amendment which gave the state and people power where the federal government did not have clearly written authority which hey! includes secession.

That is what you are refusing to understand. It is not NECESSARY to specify that a sub-unit of a country may not secede, because the creation and acceptance of the national government IS the end of the sub units' independent identity.

No, no, no, no, no. James Madison explicitly wrote against this mentality in several of the Federalist Papers. He purposefully added the 9th and 10th Amendment to the Constitution to provide for the state's independent rights. The only thing the federal government was for was security and efficient governing of the Union. Other than that the Constitution clearly laid out the role of the federal government and any power not given to the federal government was given to the state and people. Plain and simple. That is the Constitution.

For being "unbiased," and for all your protestations that you are NOT arguing on the side of the South, You are being very stubborn about refusing to read what I said, so that you can continue to repeat your non-pertinent claims. You are adding in arguments that actually go AGAINST your premise, without even understanding that you are doing so.

No point on saying it again, you obviously are not interested in listening or reading it. I leave you to your obvious desire to believe your version, over any and all facts to the contrary.

igorfrankensteen wrote:For being "unbiased," and for all your protestations that you are NOT arguing on the side of the South, You are being very stubborn about refusing to read what I said, so that you can continue to repeat your non-pertinent claims. You are adding in arguments that actually go AGAINST your premise, without even understanding that you are doing so.

I have read what you said, and I disagree with what you said. You're claims and argument fail to answer my arguments claims. You used the Constitution as a "binding contract" but I retorted where in any legal document did the Constitution become a life binding, none removable document that a state could not secede from. When we already know that state's had power and obligation given to them that was not specifically mentioned in the Constitution towards the Federal Government.

No point on saying it again, you obviously are not interested in listening or reading it. I leave you to your obvious desire to believe your version, over any and all facts to the contrary.

Perhaps I stepped on your toes? I was under the impression this was a debate forum. Your claims have not rebutted mine. Therefore the debate can cntinue. I am open minded to the possibility that I am wrong, but I'm not going to grasp the concept out of the blue, I simply ask to be shown how my claims are wrong and argued against in a rational manner.