OT: The Gettysburg Address

[RUTGERS95]

For that matter, the South miscalculated the North's response. While the North thought the South would not secede -- that it was all a bluff (the South had threatened secession before) -- the South thought that the North would not resist secession. There was some basis for the South's belief; President Buchanan (still in office when secession began) had said that secession was unconstitutional but that it was also unconstitutional to resist it; and Horace Greeley, founder and editor of the New York Tribune and a leading Republican, urged immediately after the election that the seceding states be allowed to depart in peace.

But Lincoln had the last laugh; he maneuvered the South into firing the first shot by attacking Fort Sumter, thereby unifying Northern opinion.

agree

and good points

the idea of secesssion is fascinating in that the North was wrong. there was nothing that said you couldn't leave and in the federalist papers there is reference to that. Lincolns own actions bear witness to some heavy handed and 'tryannical' approach which is why papers on boths sides referred to him as such. His actions with the SC are shameful

of not and interest to some in NJ, NJ had it's own issues on the support of the war

my favorite is still MD voting under the threat of a battery of canon. If the flag dropped, orders were to open fire on Baltimore

 

[retired711]

Good recap. I'm not sure if "laugh" is the operative word, but ya, certainly Lincoln maneuvered well given the impending events.

I'm sure if he could have prevented the whole thing from metastasizing into civil war, he would have. But that window of opportunity had passed by the time he was in the POTUS seat

Lincoln, as President-elect, told Republicans to oppose the Crittenden compromise that was floated between his election and inauguration. (The compromise would have restored the Missouri Compromise line and extended it through California, and would have added a non-amendable protection of slavery to the Consitutution). Lincoln and his allies noted that the compromise did not bar efforts to annex Cuba and other countries to the South and make then slave states.

 

[Randal7]

agree

and good points

the idea of secesssion is fascinating in that the North was wrong. there was nothing that said you couldn't leave and in the federalist papers there is reference to that. Lincolns own actions bear witness to some heavy handed and 'tryannical' approach which is why papers on boths sides referred to him as such. His actions with the SC are shameful

of not and interest to some in NJ, NJ had it's own issues on the support of the war

my favorite is still MD voting under the threat of a battery of canon. If the flag dropped, orders were to open fire on Baltimore

How about the fact that... 80 years prior to hiroshima -- we were doing "total war" in our own country on civilian populations. The obvious ones are Savannah and Atlanta and the march to the sea, but the less obvious is the shelling of Charleston, which basically happened from 1863 till the end of the war.

 

[retired711]

agree

and good points

the idea of secesssion is fascinating in that the North was wrong. there was nothing that said you couldn't leave and in the federalist papers there is reference to that. Lincolns own actions bear witness to some heavy handed and 'tryannical' approach which is why papers on boths sides referred to him as such. His actions with the SC are shameful

of not and interest to some in NJ, NJ had it's own issues on the support of the war

my favorite is still MD voting under the threat of a battery of canon. If the flag dropped, orders were to open fire on Baltimore

New Jersey is the only non-slave state that Lincoln did not carry either in 1860 or 1864.

Much ink has been spilled on the legality of secession and I won't try to add to it here.

 

[retired711]

How about the fact that... 80 years prior to hiroshima -- we were doing "total war" in our own country on civilian populations. The obvious ones are Savannah and Atlanta and the march to the sea, but the less obvious is the shelling of Charleston, which basically happened from 1863 till the end of the war.

Charleston had been the heart of secession -- South Carolina was the first state to secede and Fort Sumter was in its harbor.

 

[RUTGERS95]

How about the fact that... 80 years prior to hiroshima -- we were doing "total war" in our own country on civilian populations. The obvious ones are Savannah and Atlanta and the march to the sea, but the less obvious is the shelling of Charleston, which basically happened from 1863 till the end of the war.

and the response when the South decried such tactics (in Charleston dock area) was that the women and such aided in the war effort as they helped on the docks and guilds etc..

no issue with total war, it's a means to an end and most likely saves lives and heartache in the long run but yeah, it was brutal for the period.

there were also some incredible instances of morality and decency too.

 

[Randal7]

Lincoln, as President-elect, told Republicans to oppose the Crittenden compromise that was floated between his election and inauguration. (The compromise would have restored the Missouri Compromise line and extended it through California, and would have added a non-amendable protection of slavery to the Consitutution). Lincoln and his allies noted that the compromise did not bar efforts to annex Cuba and other countries to the South and make then slave states.

Interesting. Just to summarize in my own words so I understand your point...

Lincoln opposed the missouri compromise extension (which, if I recall, allowed the inhabitants of territories to vote on whether they were slave / free at the conception of statehood, all the way west to California?). And, in so doing, exacerbated the issues at hand? Is that what you are intimating?

 

[Randal7]

Charleston had been the heart of secession -- South Carolina was the first state to secede and Fort Sumter was in its harbor.

Yes. Agreed. Political though. Driven by a desire to stifle the spirit of the populace in keeping up with the war effort.

The armaments out of charleston were.... nill. Productive capacity...nill. Charleston was under total blockade. The main production was richmond and west in places like Mobile, Alabama.

 

[Randal7]

and the response when the South decried such tactics (in Charleston dock area) was that the women and such aided in the war effort as they helped on the docks and guilds etc..

no issue with total war, it's a means to an end and most likely saves lives and heartache in the long run but yeah, it was brutal for the period.

there were also some incredible instances of morality and decency too.

No doubt. I'm a proponent of total war. I think it worked in the Civil War and I think it worked in WW2. It's just interesting/funny how each independent event is recollected differently!

 

[RUTGERS95]

New Jersey is the only non-slave state that Lincoln did not carry either in 1860 or 1864.

Much ink has been spilled on the legality of secession and I won't try to add to it here.

'non slave state' is a misnomer :) 60- 12k are the estimates, lowest number of men support, key blockade running port for norther egress, last state to abolish slavery, south nj wanted to be it's own state, most indentured servants north of mason dixon line (to thwart the slave abolishment act, and more....) one could rightly argue that MD had to vote at gunpoint but NJ wasn't pushed for fear of response

Charleston had been the heart of secession -- South Carolina was the first state to secede and Fort Sumter was in its harbor.

was recently at Sumter, got to retire the flag for the day very very cool

 

[retired711]

Interesting. Just to summarize in my own words so I understand your point...

Lincoln opposed the missouri compromise extension (which, if I recall, allowed the inhabitants of territories to vote on whether they were slave / free at the conception of statehood, all the way west to California?). And, in so doing, exacerbated the issues at hand? Is that what you are intimating?

The Crittenden compromise did not envision "popular sovereignty" as Stephen Douglas had. Instead it allowed slavery south of the Missouri Compromise line. Slavery was prohibited north of the line. Thus Southern California could have had slavery.

Some historians have argued that the dispute about whether to allow the extension of slavery was of no importance because slavery was impossible in the West. This assumes that slavery was possible only where there were plantations. There were in fact slaves who did urban occupations. Lincoln and the other Republicans feared that slavery would even become permissible in the North, thus undercutting free labor. Again, Jaffa's Crisis of the House Divided is an excellent exposition of the history.

The issue of extension was important in another way. The South opposed *anything* that could be taken as a rebuke of slavery. The supreme fear of the South was a slave insurrection and so the South opposed any measure that implied slavery was wrong.

 

[retired711]

'non slave state' is a misnomer :) 60- 12k are the estimates, lowest number of men support, key blockade running port for norther egress, last state to abolish slavery, south nj wanted to be it's own state, most indentured servants north of mason dixon line (to thwart the slave abolishment act, and more....) one could rightly argue that MD had to vote at gunpoint but NJ wasn't pushed for fear of response

was recently at Sumter, got to retire the flag for the day very very cool

Maryland was a slave state (although it did not have a huge number of slaves); New Jersey was not. In 1860, Lincoln lost the popular vote in New Jersey to a "fusion" ticket, although Lincoln got four out of NJ's seven electoral votes. In 1864, McClellan carried New Jersey in addition to Delaware and Kentucky (both of which had permitted slavery, although there were almost no slaves in Delaware.)

The issue in Maryland was not whether it supported Lincoln in the election, but rather whether it would be allowed to secede. There was little or no sentiment in NJ for secession so the issue did not arise here.

 

[RUinPinehurst]

How about the fact that... 80 years prior to hiroshima -- we were doing "total war" in our own country on civilian populations. The obvious ones are Savannah and Atlanta and the march to the sea, but the less obvious is the shelling of Charleston, which basically happened from 1863 till the end of the war.

Scorched Earth. Yes. Took the fight to the general population in NC, SC, GA to break the will of the people, demonstrating that their Confederate military could not protect them, and that this was the high price to pay for insurrection. Also to some extent as payback for the discovery of Andersonville and Salisbury prison camp atrocities.

 

[retired711]

Scorched Earth. Yes. Took the fight to the general population in NC, SC, GA to break the will of the people, demonstrating that their Confederate military could not protect them, and that this was the high price to pay for insurrection. Also to some extent as payback for the discovery of Andersonville and Salisbury prison camp atrocities.

The March to the Sea and Sherman's subsequent move north through the Carolinas were nothing by today's standards. Not even southerners allege there were massacres of civilians and there aren't even accounts of rape. Instead the North focused on destroying the material basis for Southern resistance. (They did overdo it; it really wasn't necessary to smash all the dishes as happened in some Georgia homes along the way.)

BTW, the Confederate army evacuated Georgia before the March. Only the untrained Georgia militia was available to combat the marchers, and the militia was destroyed as a fighting force in its disastrous attack (against orders) at Griswoldville. (The great-grandfather of a high school classmate in Orlando died there as a member of the militia.)

 

[RUTGERS95]

for the record, I wish we had made Cuba a state

 

[Fat Koko]

During Civil War, Lincoln signed the Morrill Act. This act established land grant colleges funded by selling federal land and using proceeds to fund state colleges focused on agriculture, engineering, and military training.

Rutgers persuaded the state legislature to make Rutgers the land grant college of New Jersey.

However, New Jersey had little federal land. So the feds gave Rutgers 210,000 acres of land in Utah Territory. Rutgers sold the land and became the state university of New Jersey.

 

[RUTGERS95]

Maryland was a slave state (although it did not have a huge number of slaves); New Jersey was not. In 1860, Lincoln lost the popular vote in New Jersey to a "fusion" ticket, although Lincoln got four out of NJ's seven electoral votes. In 1864, McClellan carried New Jersey in addition to Delaware and Kentucky (both of which had permitted slavery, although there were almost no slaves in Delaware.)

The issue in Maryland was not whether it supported Lincoln in the election, but rather whether it would be allowed to secede. There was little or no sentiment in NJ for secession so the issue did not arise here.

you missed my point but good stuff

it's an incredibly fascinating time in our history. there are so many unknown truths, lies, incorrect assumptions, etc etc etc that it's mind bottling

 

[Randal7]

The Crittenden compromise did not envision "popular sovereignty" as Stephen Douglas had. Instead it allowed slavery south of the Missouri Compromise line. Slavery was prohibited north of the line. Thus Southern California could have had slavery.

Some historians have argued that the dispute about whether to allow the extension of slavery was of no importance because slavery was impossible in the West. This assumes that slavery was possible only where there were plantations. There were in fact slaves who did urban occupations. Lincoln and the other Republicans feared that slavery would even become permissible in the North, thus undercutting free labor. Again, Jaffa's Crisis of the House Divided is an excellent exposition of the history.

The issue of extension was important in another way. The South opposed *anything* that could be taken as a rebuke of slavery. The supreme fear of the South was a slave insurrection and so the South opposed any measure that implied slavery was wrong.

When you say "allowed" south of the line -- you mean, by default slavery was allowed in states south of that line (without a popular vote) ?

 

[retired711]

During Civil War, Lincoln signed the Morrill Act. This act established land grant colleges funded by selling federal land and using proceeds to fund state colleges focused on agriculture, engineering, and military training.

Rutgers persuaded the state legislature to make Rutgers the land grant college of New Jersey.

However, New Jersey had little federal land. So the feds gave Rutgers 210,000 acres of land in Utah Territory. Rutgers sold the land and became the state university of New Jersey.

The Morrill Act would never have passed if the South had been in the union. And President Buchannan had vetoed similar legislation when he was in office.

BTW, land grant colleges were not necessarily public. Rutgers, of course, was not public then. And Cornell is the land-grant college of New York.

 

[retired711]

When you say "allowed" south of the line -- you mean, by default slavery was allowed in states south of that line (without a popular vote) ?

A state south of the line could have chosen not to be a slave state. The choice would have been made by the legislature and not by a direct popular vote. Every state permitted by federal law to have slavery chose to have it. Thus Ohio could not have slavery because it was part of the old Northwest; but Kentucky could and did.

 

[hoquat63]

Yes, that was the day Joshua Chamberlain rallied his troops, who were almost out of ammunition, by having them charge downhill against the Alabamans,

Some folkclaim Chamberlain gets too much credit. Like anything else there are lots of opinions about should have could have would have moments.

 

[Fat Koko]

The Morrill Act would never have passed if the South had been in the union. And President Buchannan had vetoed similar legislation when he was in office.

BTW, land grant colleges were not necessarily public. Rutgers, of course, was not public then. And Cornell is the land-grant college of New York.

Yes. Morrill Act and selection of Cornell as New York's land grant college helps explain why New York does not have a true flagship state university.

In 2022, Governor Hochul designated Stony Brook University and University at Buffalo, both AAU schools, as New York's two flagship state universities. Whether these schools become genuine flagships like Rutgers and Penn State will take decades -- at least -- to determine.

Stony Brook has a head start, driven by a recent $500 million donation.

 

[hoquat63]

for the record, I wish we had made Cuba a state

Grant had a deal in place to buy the Dominican Republic but couldn’t get Congress to bless it.

 

[hoquat63]

New Jersey is the only non-slave state that Lincoln did not carry either in 1860 or 1864.

Much ink has been spilled on the legality of secession and I won't try to add to it here.

Despite being a nonslave state NJ still contained a handful of slaves in 1860 - census for that year lists about 40 slaves.
Many northern states when they outlawed slavery made it a gradual process

 

[Randal7]

A state south of the line could have chosen not to be a slave state. The choice would have been made by the legislature and not by a direct popular vote. Every state permitted by federal law to have slavery chose to have it. Thus Ohio could not have slavery because it was part of the old Northwest; but Kentucky could and did.

Got it. And was that proposed to be done by legislature because the popular vote approach was such a mess in the bleeding Kansas situation?

 

[ashokan]

for the record, I wish we had made Cuba a state

Especially now that Cubans are the only actual refugees returned to where they came from (being anti-Marxist).

US Coast Guard returns 273 migrants intercepted off Florida Coast to Cuba​

https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/08/us/florida-coast-guard-cuban-migrants/index.html

 

[ashokan]

Photo of Grant I saw yesterday - from 1845
Looks like the dude on old Dutch Boy cans

 

[retired711]

Got it. And was that proposed to be done by legislature because the popular vote approach was such a mess in the bleeding Kansas situation?

That was part of it. The bigger problem -- and this is the problem that split the Democratic party in 1860 -- was to determine the meaning of popular sovereignty: that is, what did the territories have to do pending their decision on slavery? Did they have an obligation to pass slave codes and other laws that would protect slavery until they were admitted to the union? Stephen Douglas said "no;" Southern Democrats said "yes," and so the South walked out of the Democratic convention and nominated John Breckenridge while the Northern Democrats nominated Douglas. This helped Lincoln, but he had majorities in virtually all of the states he carried (although he had only 40% of the popular vote overall) and so he would have won in the Electoral College even if the Democrats had stayed united.

 

[retired711]

Despite being a nonslave state NJ still contained a handful of slaves in 1860 - census for that year lists about 40 slaves.
Many northern states when they outlawed slavery made it a gradual process

That's true. New York emancipated its last slave in 1827 and African-Americans held a parade to celebrate. BTW, anti-slavery sentiment was stronger outside New York City. This was true in other urban areas. There were two reasons: Urban merchants often profited from Southern products; second, cities had immigrants who saw blacks as competitors and hated them. (Consider that the draft riots, which went on even as the Battle of Gettyaburg was being fought, were in New York City.)

 

[mdk01]

Scorched Earth. Yes. Took the fight to the general population in NC, SC, GA to break the will of the people, demonstrating that their Confederate military could not protect them, and that this was the high price to pay for insurrection. Also to some extent as payback for the discovery of Andersonville and Salisbury prison camp atrocities.

And Libby Prison, where a very distant relative was near starvation but survived.

 

[Randal7]

That was part of it. The bigger problem -- and this is the problem that split the Democratic party in 1860 -- was to determine the meaning of popular sovereignty: that is, what did the territories have to do pending their decision on slavery? Did they have an obligation to pass slave codes and other laws that would protect slavery until they were admitted to the union? Stephen Douglas said "no;" Southern Democrats said "yes," and so the South walked out of the Democratic convention and nominated John Breckenridge while the Northern Democrats nominated Douglas. This helped Lincoln, but he had majorities in virtually all of the states he carried (although he had only 40% of the popular vote overall) and so he would have won in the Electoral College even if the Democrats had stayed united.

Really interesting. Thanks for sharing your knowledge with me.

Did you take civil war and recon with Gillette?

Are you Bill Gillette? Haha

 

[retired711]

Really interesting. Thanks for sharing your knowledge with me.

Did you take civil war and recon with Gillette?

Are you Bill Gillette? Haha

Neither!

 

[hoquat63]

And Libby Prison, where a very distant relative was near starvation but survived.

Union prisons were almost as bad, Elmira (nicknamed Hellira) had a 24% death rate, compared rto Andersonville which I think was about 28%. And the north did not have the same supply issues as th south

 

[retired711]

Hubris. That’s a tough one. He rolled the dice a bunch of times in other spots doing very reckless stuff (attacking throughout the seven days campaign, dividing his force at Chancellorsville and attacking) and it kept working. Until it didn’t.

I am not a huge admirer of Lee. But he was so much better than Bragg, Hood, Beauregard and Joseph Johnston, his equivalents in other theaters. He had to gamble -- he had fewer men than the armies that opposed him. His strategy had to be political -- to demoralize the North -- at least as much as military.

One thing to remember is that the South very nearly won the war. In August, 1964, Lincoln wrote that he anticipated losing the election. What re-elected him was the captures of Atlanta and Mobile and Union success in the Shenandoah Valley. None of those were inevitable.

 

[RUTGERS95]

Union prisons were almost as bad, Elmira (nicknamed Hellira) had a 24% death rate, compared rto Andersonville which I think was about 28%. And the north did not have the same supply issues as th south

Northern prisons were worse imho due to it being purposeful starvation whereas in the South, it was out of lack of resources. Lots of money was made off of black market good to norther prisons which actually, and ironically, benefited the south as goods/food wound up there.

civil war prisons were awful, hard to find their equals

 

[RUTGERS95]

I am not a huge admirer of Lee. But he was so much better than Bragg, Hood, Beauregard and Joseph Johnston, his equivalents in other theaters. He had to gamble -- he had fewer men than the armies that opposed him. His strategy had to be political -- to demoralize the North -- at least as much as military.

One thing to remember is that the South very nearly won the war. In August, 1964, Lincoln wrote that he anticipated losing the election. What re-elected him was the captures of Atlanta and Mobile and Union success in the Shenandoah Valley. None of those were inevitable.

curious, why not a lee fan?

 

[hoquat63]

Northern prisons were worse imho due to it being purposeful starvation whereas in the South, it was out of lack of resources. Lots of money was made off of black market good to norther prisons which actually, and ironically, benefited the south as goods/food wound up there.

civil war prisons were awful, hard to find their equals

Exactly - the north had the resources for better conditions but chose not to use them.

 

[retired711]

curious, why not a lee fan?

For one thing, his orders were frequently confusing -- contrast Grant, who was a master at conveying his wishes. And I think most military analysts would agree that his performance at Gettysburg was subpar. Perhaps more importantly, I think he's unduly hyped.

 

[mdk01]

For one thing, his orders were frequently confusing -- contrast Grant, who was a master at conveying his wishes. And I think most military analysts would agree that his performance at Gettysburg was subpar. Perhaps more importantly, I think he's unduly hyped.

Picket's Charge was subpar. He actually , IMHO, was impressive the first two years of the war

 

[Randal7]

Picket's Charge was subpar. He actually , IMHO, was impressive the first two years of the war

Extended periods of brilliance, yes.

He also had spectacular corp commanders in Longstreet, AP Hill and Stonewall Jackson. Cavalry men too — Forrest and Hampton and Stuart. The south had some really exceptional commanders.

If Jackson lived past Chancellorsville and was given a true fighting force of 35-40k men and did in the north what he did in the Shenandoah valley in 1862 things might have been entirely different.

Heck, even with Jackson gone if Lee gives Jubal Early a chunk of guys and lets him go rebel marauder and gorilla warfare in the north while his main fighting force pressures chambersburg, maybe the entire thing shifts. Maybe the pressure and the fight coming north is too much. Early did it in 1864… he got as far north as Washington. And that was after the whole thing was already pretty much signed and sealed.

One of the great “what ifs”.