Anniversary of Lee’s Surrender at Appomattox

[rightwinger]

The Civil War was only partially about slavery. The main causes were:

The Economic rape of the South by the NORTH.
State's Rights

The Hitler analogy is really bogus.

Entirely about the south wanting to ensure slavery forever

The south had 4 million of its 9 million people in bondage. Doesn’t get more Hitler like than that

 

[SandSquid]

Slavery was the obvious and egregious of those conflicts, and became the rallying point.

Certainly, not many soldiers on either side of the conflict believed they were fighting for or against slavery.

I'm kind of confused here as well. It seems you are making two mutually exclusive statements here.

You say it was the rallying point for the south, the thing they were shouting from the rooftops... but also certainly most people didn't know about it.

 

[Weatherman2020]

The South never had a chance at winning the war. The best they could do was to force the Yankees into a truce that would allow them to leave the relatively young United States. Lee's failure at Gettysburg and Grant's willingness to murder Southern civilians to achieve a victory doomed the South. Historians tend to drool over Lincoln's legacy and claim that he "preserved the Union" but the Union actually fell apart under his watch and he foolishly thought he could defeat the South in a couple of months.

If the British had entered the outcome would have been very different. But yes, that was the only game changer.

 

[martybegan]

The South never had a chance at winning the war. The best they could do was to force the Yankees into a truce that would allow them to leave the relatively young United States. Lee's failure at Gettysburg and Grant's willingness to murder Southern civilians to achieve a victory doomed the South. Historians tend to drool over Lincoln's legacy and claim that he "preserved the Union" but the Union actually fell apart under his watch and he foolishly thought he could defeat the South in a couple of months.

Do you have backup for the whole "murdering civilians" things coming from Grant as an Army command?

The true driver was 1) his willingness to take casualties larger than inflicted on the confederates, and his willingness to attack economic assets and bringing back the concept of scorched earth to modern warfare.

Actually, it was the general policy of the Lincoln administration, not merely General Grant's idea.

Agreed. In Grant (and Sherman) what Lincoln found were people who would fight the way he wanted them to fight.

The other General many people forget is Thomas, who was similar to the two men above. The reason you hear less of him is he was a Southerner who stayed with the Union (and a Virginia man to boot).

 

[martybegan]

Wait? Something called the Confederacy existed? I thought we weren't supposed to know that today. They were racist, sexist, homophobic, you know, Deplorables.

They were worse than Deplorable

History is written by the victors, although now it seems it can be re-written by people with the vapors 150 years later.

If the South would have prevailed they probably would have seen themselves as the real continuation of the original United States, and the North would be those who strayed from the path.

Luckily we have a LOT of writing though from the south, their articles of secession, the minutes of their secession conventions, the speeches of their founders.

So we can still let the other side tell it's story. We can still read Texas' article of secession giving their complaint about "an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States."

We can still learn from Alabama's secession convention their gripes

"Our delegates selected shall be instructed to submit to the general convention the following basis of a settlement of the existing difficulties between the Northern and Southern States, to wit:

1. A faithful execution of the fugitive slave law …
2. A more stringent and explicit provision for the surrender of criminals charged with offenses against laws of one State and escaping into another.
3. A guaranty that slavery shall not be abolished in the District of Columbia
4. A guaranty that the interstate slave-trade shall not be interfered with.
5. A protection to slavery in the Territories
6. The right of transit through free States with slave property.

And see that if someone wants to rewrite history to say the South didn't rebel in order to protect and expand the institution of slavery... well that is clearly a lie.

One doesn't have to ignore slavery as the primary cause of secession to accept that there were other reasons, both connected to slavery and seperate.

Slavery was the "poison pill" that made all the other problems unworkable, and led to the unilateral Secession of the Southern states.

I was explaining this to my husband the other night, that human history is rarely as simple and clear-cut as we want to believe, or as history classes tell us. The American Civil War, like all civil wars, was really the culmination of a number of conflicts and disagreements over a period time between two disparate cultural groups who felt nothing in common connecting them. Slavery was the obvious and egregious of those conflicts, and became the rallying point.

History is very similar to failures, like airplane accidents. There isn't one thing that can cause problems it's usually a cascade of things leading to something.

 

[martybegan]

Luckily we have a LOT of writing though from the south, their articles of secession, the minutes of their secession conventions, the speeches of their founders.

So we can still let the other side tell it's story. We can still read Texas' article of secession giving their complaint about "an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States."

We can still learn from Alabama's secession convention their gripes

"Our delegates selected shall be instructed to submit to the general convention the following basis of a settlement of the existing difficulties between the Northern and Southern States, to wit:

1. A faithful execution of the fugitive slave law …
2. A more stringent and explicit provision for the surrender of criminals charged with offenses against laws of one State and escaping into another.
3. A guaranty that slavery shall not be abolished in the District of Columbia
4. A guaranty that the interstate slave-trade shall not be interfered with.
5. A protection to slavery in the Territories
6. The right of transit through free States with slave property.

And see that if someone wants to rewrite history to say the South didn't rebel in order to protect and expand the institution of slavery... well that is clearly a lie.

One doesn't have to ignore slavery as the primary cause of secession to accept that there were other reasons, both connected to slavery and seperate.

Slavery was the "poison pill" that made all the other problems unworkable, and led to the unilateral Secession of the Southern states.

I was explaining this to my husband the other night, that human history is rarely as simple and clear-cut as we want to believe, or as history classes tell us. The American Civil War, like all civil wars, was really the culmination of a number of conflicts and disagreements over a period time between two disparate cultural groups who felt nothing in common connecting them. Slavery was the obvious and egregious of those conflicts, and became the rallying point.

Agree... Slavery was the reason people could get behind. Slavery was the thing which would get people to rally for a rebellion. Slavery was why they pushed away. Even in the secret state secession conventions, private letters between leaders slavery was the cause mentioned. Like when Georgia politician Henry Benning wrote former speaker of the house and Gov of Georgia Howell Cobb in a private letter "It is apparent, horribly apparent, that the slavery question rides insolently over every other everywhere -- in fact that is the only question which in the least affects the results of the elections."

Or Lawrence Keitt, who said in a secret secession meeting in South Carolina "Our people have come to this on the question of slavery.... it is the great central point from which we are now proceeding, and I am not willing to divert the public attention from it."

Which removes all doubt that it just wasn't something to build public sentiment, or a public rallying point but the true cause.




Of course after the Civil War ended in their defeat, white Southerners attempted to retroactively justify the Confederacy with the ‘Lost Cause’ ideology, an ahistorical narrative that further reimagined the Old South as filled with happy enslaved blacks.

All of a sudden they were trying to build "loyal slave markers", the monuments to prove that slaves were happy and well as slaves. Granted actual former slaves weren't building them. As those have been easily proven to be a false flag with stories of slave uprisings and over 100,000 slaves escaping via the underground railroad, the movement went on to try and rewrite the lost cause again with new things like tariffs, or turning a state wanting the right to enslave blacks to just "states rights".


Speeches got cut off and shortened, so in Lee's speech where he says "“In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country." But then tried to wash away the following line of "The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race"

Doesn't sound so good anymore. Like when someone says "I know murder is morally wrong.... But I feel it is necessary for me to keep murdering". Intentionally losing the 2nd half of that quote is quite a lie.

Luckily, now instead of having to head to a major library and hope they have some of those source documents, we have online archives. So when a lost cause lie pops up, it can be countered with actual source fact from the secessionists own mouths and writing instead.

Slavery was a very big and very sensitive issue which could be used to demonize opponents and beat them over the head (usually figuratively, but sometimes literally) . . . for both sides. It was an ugly and legitimate point of contention between the two sides, and had caused violence and bloodshed. It was not, however, the only nasty and divisive point of conflict. There is also a case to be made that, had it been the only conflict between the two cultures, it might not have been as inflamed and violent as it was; a case can also be made that, had slavery been the only conflict between the North and the South, there very possibly might not have been a civil war over it alone. Certainly, not many soldiers on either side of the conflict believed they were fighting for or against slavery.

An interesting theory. While the southern leaders for years both publicly and privately had said over and over the issue was slavery... Even going back to Thomas Jefferson saying that is what would divide the US. The belief is that it was something else which they forgot to mention, even amongst themselves and were not willing to try and resolve?


Not sure it's a very factual idea but it is a fun one.

As for the soldiers, this wasn't like the Nazis who were hiding some of their worst atrocities. Looking at the camp newspapers, the sermons, the speeches, it was clear what they were fighting for.

One could argue it wasn't a popular fight, much like many soldiers in Vietnam did not care about the sociopolitical situation in Southeast Asia. But the cause for the years of issues, and the secession which led to war was clear. Protect and expand race based slavery.

But like one general told his troops. Any man who doesn't believe this is a fight over the emancipation of blacks is either a fool or a liar. Tough to defend they "didn't know" when the actual source evidence says that

It's less about not knowing, and more about not caring. For the regular confederate solider, it was probably more about the Union being THERE, and trying to enforce control over them.

Most poor to middle class southerners didn't own slaves. What they saw was their livelihood dependent on the institution of Slavery.

 

[rightwinger]

Wait? Something called the Confederacy existed? I thought we weren't supposed to know that today. They were racist, sexist, homophobic, you know, Deplorables.

They were worse than Deplorable

History is written by the victors, although now it seems it can be re-written by people with the vapors 150 years later.

If the South would have prevailed they probably would have seen themselves as the real continuation of the original United States, and the North would be those who strayed from the path.

Luckily we have a LOT of writing though from the south, their articles of secession, the minutes of their secession conventions, the speeches of their founders.

So we can still let the other side tell it's story. We can still read Texas' article of secession giving their complaint about "an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States."

We can still learn from Alabama's secession convention their gripes

"Our delegates selected shall be instructed to submit to the general convention the following basis of a settlement of the existing difficulties between the Northern and Southern States, to wit:

1. A faithful execution of the fugitive slave law …
2. A more stringent and explicit provision for the surrender of criminals charged with offenses against laws of one State and escaping into another.
3. A guaranty that slavery shall not be abolished in the District of Columbia
4. A guaranty that the interstate slave-trade shall not be interfered with.
5. A protection to slavery in the Territories
6. The right of transit through free States with slave property.

And see that if someone wants to rewrite history to say the South didn't rebel in order to protect and expand the institution of slavery... well that is clearly a lie.

One doesn't have to ignore slavery as the primary cause of secession to accept that there were other reasons, both connected to slavery and seperate.

Slavery was the "poison pill" that made all the other problems unworkable, and led to the unilateral Secession of the Southern states.

I was explaining this to my husband the other night, that human history is rarely as simple and clear-cut as we want to believe, or as history classes tell us. The American Civil War, like all civil wars, was really the culmination of a number of conflicts and disagreements over a period time between two disparate cultural groups who felt nothing in common connecting them. Slavery was the obvious and egregious of those conflicts, and became the rallying point.

You sound like Trump

No it was not multiple causes.....all causes led to slavery
None of the other cited reasons would have led to secession .....slavery did

 

[rightwinger]

One doesn't have to ignore slavery as the primary cause of secession to accept that there were other reasons, both connected to slavery and seperate.

Slavery was the "poison pill" that made all the other problems unworkable, and led to the unilateral Secession of the Southern states.

I was explaining this to my husband the other night, that human history is rarely as simple and clear-cut as we want to believe, or as history classes tell us. The American Civil War, like all civil wars, was really the culmination of a number of conflicts and disagreements over a period time between two disparate cultural groups who felt nothing in common connecting them. Slavery was the obvious and egregious of those conflicts, and became the rallying point.

Agree... Slavery was the reason people could get behind. Slavery was the thing which would get people to rally for a rebellion. Slavery was why they pushed away. Even in the secret state secession conventions, private letters between leaders slavery was the cause mentioned. Like when Georgia politician Henry Benning wrote former speaker of the house and Gov of Georgia Howell Cobb in a private letter "It is apparent, horribly apparent, that the slavery question rides insolently over every other everywhere -- in fact that is the only question which in the least affects the results of the elections."

Or Lawrence Keitt, who said in a secret secession meeting in South Carolina "Our people have come to this on the question of slavery.... it is the great central point from which we are now proceeding, and I am not willing to divert the public attention from it."

Which removes all doubt that it just wasn't something to build public sentiment, or a public rallying point but the true cause.




Of course after the Civil War ended in their defeat, white Southerners attempted to retroactively justify the Confederacy with the ‘Lost Cause’ ideology, an ahistorical narrative that further reimagined the Old South as filled with happy enslaved blacks.

All of a sudden they were trying to build "loyal slave markers", the monuments to prove that slaves were happy and well as slaves. Granted actual former slaves weren't building them. As those have been easily proven to be a false flag with stories of slave uprisings and over 100,000 slaves escaping via the underground railroad, the movement went on to try and rewrite the lost cause again with new things like tariffs, or turning a state wanting the right to enslave blacks to just "states rights".


Speeches got cut off and shortened, so in Lee's speech where he says "“In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country." But then tried to wash away the following line of "The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race"

Doesn't sound so good anymore. Like when someone says "I know murder is morally wrong.... But I feel it is necessary for me to keep murdering". Intentionally losing the 2nd half of that quote is quite a lie.

Luckily, now instead of having to head to a major library and hope they have some of those source documents, we have online archives. So when a lost cause lie pops up, it can be countered with actual source fact from the secessionists own mouths and writing instead.

Slavery was a very big and very sensitive issue which could be used to demonize opponents and beat them over the head (usually figuratively, but sometimes literally) . . . for both sides. It was an ugly and legitimate point of contention between the two sides, and had caused violence and bloodshed. It was not, however, the only nasty and divisive point of conflict. There is also a case to be made that, had it been the only conflict between the two cultures, it might not have been as inflamed and violent as it was; a case can also be made that, had slavery been the only conflict between the North and the South, there very possibly might not have been a civil war over it alone. Certainly, not many soldiers on either side of the conflict believed they were fighting for or against slavery.

An interesting theory. While the southern leaders for years both publicly and privately had said over and over the issue was slavery... Even going back to Thomas Jefferson saying that is what would divide the US. The belief is that it was something else which they forgot to mention, even amongst themselves and were not willing to try and resolve?


Not sure it's a very factual idea but it is a fun one.

As for the soldiers, this wasn't like the Nazis who were hiding some of their worst atrocities. Looking at the camp newspapers, the sermons, the speeches, it was clear what they were fighting for.

One could argue it wasn't a popular fight, much like many soldiers in Vietnam did not care about the sociopolitical situation in Southeast Asia. But the cause for the years of issues, and the secession which led to war was clear. Protect and expand race based slavery.

But like one general told his troops. Any man who doesn't believe this is a fight over the emancipation of blacks is either a fool or a liar. Tough to defend they "didn't know" when the actual source evidence says that

It's less about not knowing, and more about not caring. For the regular confederate solider, it was probably more about the Union being THERE, and trying to enforce control over them.

Most poor to middle class southerners didn't own slaves. What they saw was their livelihood dependent on the institution of Slavery.

True, even if you didn't own slaves, your livelihood depended on a slave economy

Yes, they fought because the Yankees were there. But there also was racist fear mongering that the Yankees would give slaves equal rights, that slaves would vote, intermarry and black slaves would mate with white women.

A poor white in the south did not have much to be proud of, but he was better than a negro

 

[SandSquid]

One doesn't have to ignore slavery as the primary cause of secession to accept that there were other reasons, both connected to slavery and seperate.

Slavery was the "poison pill" that made all the other problems unworkable, and led to the unilateral Secession of the Southern states.

I was explaining this to my husband the other night, that human history is rarely as simple and clear-cut as we want to believe, or as history classes tell us. The American Civil War, like all civil wars, was really the culmination of a number of conflicts and disagreements over a period time between two disparate cultural groups who felt nothing in common connecting them. Slavery was the obvious and egregious of those conflicts, and became the rallying point.

Agree... Slavery was the reason people could get behind. Slavery was the thing which would get people to rally for a rebellion. Slavery was why they pushed away. Even in the secret state secession conventions, private letters between leaders slavery was the cause mentioned. Like when Georgia politician Henry Benning wrote former speaker of the house and Gov of Georgia Howell Cobb in a private letter "It is apparent, horribly apparent, that the slavery question rides insolently over every other everywhere -- in fact that is the only question which in the least affects the results of the elections."

Or Lawrence Keitt, who said in a secret secession meeting in South Carolina "Our people have come to this on the question of slavery.... it is the great central point from which we are now proceeding, and I am not willing to divert the public attention from it."

Which removes all doubt that it just wasn't something to build public sentiment, or a public rallying point but the true cause.




Of course after the Civil War ended in their defeat, white Southerners attempted to retroactively justify the Confederacy with the ‘Lost Cause’ ideology, an ahistorical narrative that further reimagined the Old South as filled with happy enslaved blacks.

All of a sudden they were trying to build "loyal slave markers", the monuments to prove that slaves were happy and well as slaves. Granted actual former slaves weren't building them. As those have been easily proven to be a false flag with stories of slave uprisings and over 100,000 slaves escaping via the underground railroad, the movement went on to try and rewrite the lost cause again with new things like tariffs, or turning a state wanting the right to enslave blacks to just "states rights".


Speeches got cut off and shortened, so in Lee's speech where he says "“In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country." But then tried to wash away the following line of "The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race"

Doesn't sound so good anymore. Like when someone says "I know murder is morally wrong.... But I feel it is necessary for me to keep murdering". Intentionally losing the 2nd half of that quote is quite a lie.

Luckily, now instead of having to head to a major library and hope they have some of those source documents, we have online archives. So when a lost cause lie pops up, it can be countered with actual source fact from the secessionists own mouths and writing instead.

Slavery was a very big and very sensitive issue which could be used to demonize opponents and beat them over the head (usually figuratively, but sometimes literally) . . . for both sides. It was an ugly and legitimate point of contention between the two sides, and had caused violence and bloodshed. It was not, however, the only nasty and divisive point of conflict. There is also a case to be made that, had it been the only conflict between the two cultures, it might not have been as inflamed and violent as it was; a case can also be made that, had slavery been the only conflict between the North and the South, there very possibly might not have been a civil war over it alone. Certainly, not many soldiers on either side of the conflict believed they were fighting for or against slavery.

An interesting theory. While the southern leaders for years both publicly and privately had said over and over the issue was slavery... Even going back to Thomas Jefferson saying that is what would divide the US. The belief is that it was something else which they forgot to mention, even amongst themselves and were not willing to try and resolve?


Not sure it's a very factual idea but it is a fun one.

As for the soldiers, this wasn't like the Nazis who were hiding some of their worst atrocities. Looking at the camp newspapers, the sermons, the speeches, it was clear what they were fighting for.

One could argue it wasn't a popular fight, much like many soldiers in Vietnam did not care about the sociopolitical situation in Southeast Asia. But the cause for the years of issues, and the secession which led to war was clear. Protect and expand race based slavery.

But like one general told his troops. Any man who doesn't believe this is a fight over the emancipation of blacks is either a fool or a liar. Tough to defend they "didn't know" when the actual source evidence says that

It's less about not knowing, and more about not caring. For the regular confederate solider, it was probably more about the Union being THERE, and trying to enforce control over them.

Most poor to middle class southerners didn't own slaves. What they saw was their livelihood dependent on the institution of Slavery.

Agree... According to the census of 1860, only about 1/3 of southern households owned slaves. About the same ownership rates as guns in households today. But remember slave renting was very popular for those who couldn't afford slaves year round, but would need them for harvest or planting seasons. And you had so many jobs dependent on slavery without actually owning them.

Plus the American dream. Just like sports cars aren't owned by many people, how many young people grow up thinking "man, that's gonna be me someday" when they see a muscle car or sports car they like.


But I do agree, while WWII had a very high rate of caring for the cause in the US, I don't think the Civil war did. Sure there were those who did, you can read it in their diaries. But to try and say it was their rally cry, but most people had no clue about it, is not an idea that works.

 

[there4eyeM]

The anniversary of the end of paying reparations for allowing slavery in the first place..

 

[Cecilie1200]

The South never had a chance at winning the war. The best they could do was to force the Yankees into a truce that would allow them to leave the relatively young United States. Lee's failure at Gettysburg and Grant's willingness to murder Southern civilians to achieve a victory doomed the South. Historians tend to drool over Lincoln's legacy and claim that he "preserved the Union" but the Union actually fell apart under his watch and he foolishly thought he could defeat the South in a couple of months.

Do you have backup for the whole "murdering civilians" things coming from Grant as an Army command?

The true driver was 1) his willingness to take casualties larger than inflicted on the confederates, and his willingness to attack economic assets and bringing back the concept of scorched earth to modern warfare.

Actually, it was the general policy of the Lincoln administration, not merely General Grant's idea.

Agreed. In Grant (and Sherman) what Lincoln found were people who would fight the way he wanted them to fight.

The other General many people forget is Thomas, who was similar to the two men above. The reason you hear less of him is he was a Southerner who stayed with the Union (and a Virginia man to boot).

Was he the one who wrote the letter to Lincoln, begging him not to target civilians, and got fired for it? Or was that another general?

 

[Cecilie1200]

One doesn't have to ignore slavery as the primary cause of secession to accept that there were other reasons, both connected to slavery and seperate.

Slavery was the "poison pill" that made all the other problems unworkable, and led to the unilateral Secession of the Southern states.

I was explaining this to my husband the other night, that human history is rarely as simple and clear-cut as we want to believe, or as history classes tell us. The American Civil War, like all civil wars, was really the culmination of a number of conflicts and disagreements over a period time between two disparate cultural groups who felt nothing in common connecting them. Slavery was the obvious and egregious of those conflicts, and became the rallying point.

Agree... Slavery was the reason people could get behind. Slavery was the thing which would get people to rally for a rebellion. Slavery was why they pushed away. Even in the secret state secession conventions, private letters between leaders slavery was the cause mentioned. Like when Georgia politician Henry Benning wrote former speaker of the house and Gov of Georgia Howell Cobb in a private letter "It is apparent, horribly apparent, that the slavery question rides insolently over every other everywhere -- in fact that is the only question which in the least affects the results of the elections."

Or Lawrence Keitt, who said in a secret secession meeting in South Carolina "Our people have come to this on the question of slavery.... it is the great central point from which we are now proceeding, and I am not willing to divert the public attention from it."

Which removes all doubt that it just wasn't something to build public sentiment, or a public rallying point but the true cause.




Of course after the Civil War ended in their defeat, white Southerners attempted to retroactively justify the Confederacy with the ‘Lost Cause’ ideology, an ahistorical narrative that further reimagined the Old South as filled with happy enslaved blacks.

All of a sudden they were trying to build "loyal slave markers", the monuments to prove that slaves were happy and well as slaves. Granted actual former slaves weren't building them. As those have been easily proven to be a false flag with stories of slave uprisings and over 100,000 slaves escaping via the underground railroad, the movement went on to try and rewrite the lost cause again with new things like tariffs, or turning a state wanting the right to enslave blacks to just "states rights".


Speeches got cut off and shortened, so in Lee's speech where he says "“In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country." But then tried to wash away the following line of "The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race"

Doesn't sound so good anymore. Like when someone says "I know murder is morally wrong.... But I feel it is necessary for me to keep murdering". Intentionally losing the 2nd half of that quote is quite a lie.

Luckily, now instead of having to head to a major library and hope they have some of those source documents, we have online archives. So when a lost cause lie pops up, it can be countered with actual source fact from the secessionists own mouths and writing instead.

Slavery was a very big and very sensitive issue which could be used to demonize opponents and beat them over the head (usually figuratively, but sometimes literally) . . . for both sides. It was an ugly and legitimate point of contention between the two sides, and had caused violence and bloodshed. It was not, however, the only nasty and divisive point of conflict. There is also a case to be made that, had it been the only conflict between the two cultures, it might not have been as inflamed and violent as it was; a case can also be made that, had slavery been the only conflict between the North and the South, there very possibly might not have been a civil war over it alone. Certainly, not many soldiers on either side of the conflict believed they were fighting for or against slavery.

An interesting theory. While the southern leaders for years both publicly and privately had said over and over the issue was slavery... Even going back to Thomas Jefferson saying that is what would divide the US. The belief is that it was something else which they forgot to mention, even amongst themselves and were not willing to try and resolve?


Not sure it's a very factual idea but it is a fun one.

As for the soldiers, this wasn't like the Nazis who were hiding some of their worst atrocities. Looking at the camp newspapers, the sermons, the speeches, it was clear what they were fighting for.

One could argue it wasn't a popular fight, much like many soldiers in Vietnam did not care about the sociopolitical situation in Southeast Asia. But the cause for the years of issues, and the secession which led to war was clear. Protect and expand race based slavery.

But like one general told his troops. Any man who doesn't believe this is a fight over the emancipation of blacks is either a fool or a liar. Tough to defend they "didn't know" when the actual source evidence says that

It's less about not knowing, and more about not caring. For the regular confederate solider, it was probably more about the Union being THERE, and trying to enforce control over them.

Most poor to middle class southerners didn't own slaves. What they saw was their livelihood dependent on the institution of Slavery.

And they had a lot of hostility and resentment toward the North, and didn't take kindly to the idea of being lectured to by them. Kinda the way people feel about their political opponents today.

 

[martybegan]

The South never had a chance at winning the war. The best they could do was to force the Yankees into a truce that would allow them to leave the relatively young United States. Lee's failure at Gettysburg and Grant's willingness to murder Southern civilians to achieve a victory doomed the South. Historians tend to drool over Lincoln's legacy and claim that he "preserved the Union" but the Union actually fell apart under his watch and he foolishly thought he could defeat the South in a couple of months.

Do you have backup for the whole "murdering civilians" things coming from Grant as an Army command?

The true driver was 1) his willingness to take casualties larger than inflicted on the confederates, and his willingness to attack economic assets and bringing back the concept of scorched earth to modern warfare.

Actually, it was the general policy of the Lincoln administration, not merely General Grant's idea.

Agreed. In Grant (and Sherman) what Lincoln found were people who would fight the way he wanted them to fight.

The other General many people forget is Thomas, who was similar to the two men above. The reason you hear less of him is he was a Southerner who stayed with the Union (and a Virginia man to boot).

Was he the one who wrote the letter to Lincoln, begging him not to target civilians, and got fired for it? Or was that another general?

I don't think that was him. Here is his wikipedia link

George Henry Thomas - Wikipedia

 

[martybegan]

I was explaining this to my husband the other night, that human history is rarely as simple and clear-cut as we want to believe, or as history classes tell us. The American Civil War, like all civil wars, was really the culmination of a number of conflicts and disagreements over a period time between two disparate cultural groups who felt nothing in common connecting them. Slavery was the obvious and egregious of those conflicts, and became the rallying point.

Agree... Slavery was the reason people could get behind. Slavery was the thing which would get people to rally for a rebellion. Slavery was why they pushed away. Even in the secret state secession conventions, private letters between leaders slavery was the cause mentioned. Like when Georgia politician Henry Benning wrote former speaker of the house and Gov of Georgia Howell Cobb in a private letter "It is apparent, horribly apparent, that the slavery question rides insolently over every other everywhere -- in fact that is the only question which in the least affects the results of the elections."

Or Lawrence Keitt, who said in a secret secession meeting in South Carolina "Our people have come to this on the question of slavery.... it is the great central point from which we are now proceeding, and I am not willing to divert the public attention from it."

Which removes all doubt that it just wasn't something to build public sentiment, or a public rallying point but the true cause.




Of course after the Civil War ended in their defeat, white Southerners attempted to retroactively justify the Confederacy with the ‘Lost Cause’ ideology, an ahistorical narrative that further reimagined the Old South as filled with happy enslaved blacks.

All of a sudden they were trying to build "loyal slave markers", the monuments to prove that slaves were happy and well as slaves. Granted actual former slaves weren't building them. As those have been easily proven to be a false flag with stories of slave uprisings and over 100,000 slaves escaping via the underground railroad, the movement went on to try and rewrite the lost cause again with new things like tariffs, or turning a state wanting the right to enslave blacks to just "states rights".


Speeches got cut off and shortened, so in Lee's speech where he says "“In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country." But then tried to wash away the following line of "The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race"

Doesn't sound so good anymore. Like when someone says "I know murder is morally wrong.... But I feel it is necessary for me to keep murdering". Intentionally losing the 2nd half of that quote is quite a lie.

Luckily, now instead of having to head to a major library and hope they have some of those source documents, we have online archives. So when a lost cause lie pops up, it can be countered with actual source fact from the secessionists own mouths and writing instead.

Slavery was a very big and very sensitive issue which could be used to demonize opponents and beat them over the head (usually figuratively, but sometimes literally) . . . for both sides. It was an ugly and legitimate point of contention between the two sides, and had caused violence and bloodshed. It was not, however, the only nasty and divisive point of conflict. There is also a case to be made that, had it been the only conflict between the two cultures, it might not have been as inflamed and violent as it was; a case can also be made that, had slavery been the only conflict between the North and the South, there very possibly might not have been a civil war over it alone. Certainly, not many soldiers on either side of the conflict believed they were fighting for or against slavery.

An interesting theory. While the southern leaders for years both publicly and privately had said over and over the issue was slavery... Even going back to Thomas Jefferson saying that is what would divide the US. The belief is that it was something else which they forgot to mention, even amongst themselves and were not willing to try and resolve?


Not sure it's a very factual idea but it is a fun one.

As for the soldiers, this wasn't like the Nazis who were hiding some of their worst atrocities. Looking at the camp newspapers, the sermons, the speeches, it was clear what they were fighting for.

One could argue it wasn't a popular fight, much like many soldiers in Vietnam did not care about the sociopolitical situation in Southeast Asia. But the cause for the years of issues, and the secession which led to war was clear. Protect and expand race based slavery.

But like one general told his troops. Any man who doesn't believe this is a fight over the emancipation of blacks is either a fool or a liar. Tough to defend they "didn't know" when the actual source evidence says that

It's less about not knowing, and more about not caring. For the regular confederate solider, it was probably more about the Union being THERE, and trying to enforce control over them.

Most poor to middle class southerners didn't own slaves. What they saw was their livelihood dependent on the institution of Slavery.

And they had a lot of hostility and resentment toward the North, and didn't take kindly to the idea of being lectured to by them. Kinda the way people feel about their political opponents today.

I think today's issue that can't be compromised on is firearms.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Agree... Slavery was the reason people could get behind. Slavery was the thing which would get people to rally for a rebellion. Slavery was why they pushed away. Even in the secret state secession conventions, private letters between leaders slavery was the cause mentioned. Like when Georgia politician Henry Benning wrote former speaker of the house and Gov of Georgia Howell Cobb in a private letter "It is apparent, horribly apparent, that the slavery question rides insolently over every other everywhere -- in fact that is the only question which in the least affects the results of the elections."

Or Lawrence Keitt, who said in a secret secession meeting in South Carolina "Our people have come to this on the question of slavery.... it is the great central point from which we are now proceeding, and I am not willing to divert the public attention from it."

Which removes all doubt that it just wasn't something to build public sentiment, or a public rallying point but the true cause.




Of course after the Civil War ended in their defeat, white Southerners attempted to retroactively justify the Confederacy with the ‘Lost Cause’ ideology, an ahistorical narrative that further reimagined the Old South as filled with happy enslaved blacks.

All of a sudden they were trying to build "loyal slave markers", the monuments to prove that slaves were happy and well as slaves. Granted actual former slaves weren't building them. As those have been easily proven to be a false flag with stories of slave uprisings and over 100,000 slaves escaping via the underground railroad, the movement went on to try and rewrite the lost cause again with new things like tariffs, or turning a state wanting the right to enslave blacks to just "states rights".


Speeches got cut off and shortened, so in Lee's speech where he says "“In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country." But then tried to wash away the following line of "The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race"

Doesn't sound so good anymore. Like when someone says "I know murder is morally wrong.... But I feel it is necessary for me to keep murdering". Intentionally losing the 2nd half of that quote is quite a lie.

Luckily, now instead of having to head to a major library and hope they have some of those source documents, we have online archives. So when a lost cause lie pops up, it can be countered with actual source fact from the secessionists own mouths and writing instead.

Slavery was a very big and very sensitive issue which could be used to demonize opponents and beat them over the head (usually figuratively, but sometimes literally) . . . for both sides. It was an ugly and legitimate point of contention between the two sides, and had caused violence and bloodshed. It was not, however, the only nasty and divisive point of conflict. There is also a case to be made that, had it been the only conflict between the two cultures, it might not have been as inflamed and violent as it was; a case can also be made that, had slavery been the only conflict between the North and the South, there very possibly might not have been a civil war over it alone. Certainly, not many soldiers on either side of the conflict believed they were fighting for or against slavery.

An interesting theory. While the southern leaders for years both publicly and privately had said over and over the issue was slavery... Even going back to Thomas Jefferson saying that is what would divide the US. The belief is that it was something else which they forgot to mention, even amongst themselves and were not willing to try and resolve?


Not sure it's a very factual idea but it is a fun one.

As for the soldiers, this wasn't like the Nazis who were hiding some of their worst atrocities. Looking at the camp newspapers, the sermons, the speeches, it was clear what they were fighting for.

One could argue it wasn't a popular fight, much like many soldiers in Vietnam did not care about the sociopolitical situation in Southeast Asia. But the cause for the years of issues, and the secession which led to war was clear. Protect and expand race based slavery.

But like one general told his troops. Any man who doesn't believe this is a fight over the emancipation of blacks is either a fool or a liar. Tough to defend they "didn't know" when the actual source evidence says that

It's less about not knowing, and more about not caring. For the regular confederate solider, it was probably more about the Union being THERE, and trying to enforce control over them.

Most poor to middle class southerners didn't own slaves. What they saw was their livelihood dependent on the institution of Slavery.

And they had a lot of hostility and resentment toward the North, and didn't take kindly to the idea of being lectured to by them. Kinda the way people feel about their political opponents today.

I think today's issue that can't be compromised on is firearms.

I'd say we have several issues that can't be compromised on. That's what worries me.

 

[martybegan]

Slavery was a very big and very sensitive issue which could be used to demonize opponents and beat them over the head (usually figuratively, but sometimes literally) . . . for both sides. It was an ugly and legitimate point of contention between the two sides, and had caused violence and bloodshed. It was not, however, the only nasty and divisive point of conflict. There is also a case to be made that, had it been the only conflict between the two cultures, it might not have been as inflamed and violent as it was; a case can also be made that, had slavery been the only conflict between the North and the South, there very possibly might not have been a civil war over it alone. Certainly, not many soldiers on either side of the conflict believed they were fighting for or against slavery.

An interesting theory. While the southern leaders for years both publicly and privately had said over and over the issue was slavery... Even going back to Thomas Jefferson saying that is what would divide the US. The belief is that it was something else which they forgot to mention, even amongst themselves and were not willing to try and resolve?


Not sure it's a very factual idea but it is a fun one.

As for the soldiers, this wasn't like the Nazis who were hiding some of their worst atrocities. Looking at the camp newspapers, the sermons, the speeches, it was clear what they were fighting for.

One could argue it wasn't a popular fight, much like many soldiers in Vietnam did not care about the sociopolitical situation in Southeast Asia. But the cause for the years of issues, and the secession which led to war was clear. Protect and expand race based slavery.

But like one general told his troops. Any man who doesn't believe this is a fight over the emancipation of blacks is either a fool or a liar. Tough to defend they "didn't know" when the actual source evidence says that

It's less about not knowing, and more about not caring. For the regular confederate solider, it was probably more about the Union being THERE, and trying to enforce control over them.

Most poor to middle class southerners didn't own slaves. What they saw was their livelihood dependent on the institution of Slavery.

And they had a lot of hostility and resentment toward the North, and didn't take kindly to the idea of being lectured to by them. Kinda the way people feel about their political opponents today.

I think today's issue that can't be compromised on is firearms.

I'd say we have several issues that can't be compromised on. That's what worries me.

But Firearms are the "slavery" problem to me in this current situation.

Either you believe a person has a right to effectively defend themself, or you believe only the government has authority on the use of force.

 

[Cecilie1200]

An interesting theory. While the southern leaders for years both publicly and privately had said over and over the issue was slavery... Even going back to Thomas Jefferson saying that is what would divide the US. The belief is that it was something else which they forgot to mention, even amongst themselves and were not willing to try and resolve?


Not sure it's a very factual idea but it is a fun one.

As for the soldiers, this wasn't like the Nazis who were hiding some of their worst atrocities. Looking at the camp newspapers, the sermons, the speeches, it was clear what they were fighting for.

One could argue it wasn't a popular fight, much like many soldiers in Vietnam did not care about the sociopolitical situation in Southeast Asia. But the cause for the years of issues, and the secession which led to war was clear. Protect and expand race based slavery.

But like one general told his troops. Any man who doesn't believe this is a fight over the emancipation of blacks is either a fool or a liar. Tough to defend they "didn't know" when the actual source evidence says that

It's less about not knowing, and more about not caring. For the regular confederate solider, it was probably more about the Union being THERE, and trying to enforce control over them.

Most poor to middle class southerners didn't own slaves. What they saw was their livelihood dependent on the institution of Slavery.

And they had a lot of hostility and resentment toward the North, and didn't take kindly to the idea of being lectured to by them. Kinda the way people feel about their political opponents today.

I think today's issue that can't be compromised on is firearms.

I'd say we have several issues that can't be compromised on. That's what worries me.

But Firearms are the "slavery" problem to me in this current situation.

Either you believe a person has a right to effectively defend themself, or you believe only the government has authority on the use of force.

Oh, I agree it's as fundamental a divide as slavery. But I also think things like "do we just let people flood into the country unchecked" have that sort of potential, too.

 

[martybegan]

It's less about not knowing, and more about not caring. For the regular confederate solider, it was probably more about the Union being THERE, and trying to enforce control over them.

Most poor to middle class southerners didn't own slaves. What they saw was their livelihood dependent on the institution of Slavery.

And they had a lot of hostility and resentment toward the North, and didn't take kindly to the idea of being lectured to by them. Kinda the way people feel about their political opponents today.

I think today's issue that can't be compromised on is firearms.

I'd say we have several issues that can't be compromised on. That's what worries me.

But Firearms are the "slavery" problem to me in this current situation.

Either you believe a person has a right to effectively defend themself, or you believe only the government has authority on the use of force.

Oh, I agree it's as fundamental a divide as slavery. But I also think things like "do we just let people flood into the country unchecked" have that sort of potential, too.

That's the progressives method of diluting the number of people who desire RKBA.

 

[SandSquid]

I was explaining this to my husband the other night, that human history is rarely as simple and clear-cut as we want to believe, or as history classes tell us. The American Civil War, like all civil wars, was really the culmination of a number of conflicts and disagreements over a period time between two disparate cultural groups who felt nothing in common connecting them. Slavery was the obvious and egregious of those conflicts, and became the rallying point.

Agree... Slavery was the reason people could get behind. Slavery was the thing which would get people to rally for a rebellion. Slavery was why they pushed away. Even in the secret state secession conventions, private letters between leaders slavery was the cause mentioned. Like when Georgia politician Henry Benning wrote former speaker of the house and Gov of Georgia Howell Cobb in a private letter "It is apparent, horribly apparent, that the slavery question rides insolently over every other everywhere -- in fact that is the only question which in the least affects the results of the elections."

Or Lawrence Keitt, who said in a secret secession meeting in South Carolina "Our people have come to this on the question of slavery.... it is the great central point from which we are now proceeding, and I am not willing to divert the public attention from it."

Which removes all doubt that it just wasn't something to build public sentiment, or a public rallying point but the true cause.




Of course after the Civil War ended in their defeat, white Southerners attempted to retroactively justify the Confederacy with the ‘Lost Cause’ ideology, an ahistorical narrative that further reimagined the Old South as filled with happy enslaved blacks.

All of a sudden they were trying to build "loyal slave markers", the monuments to prove that slaves were happy and well as slaves. Granted actual former slaves weren't building them. As those have been easily proven to be a false flag with stories of slave uprisings and over 100,000 slaves escaping via the underground railroad, the movement went on to try and rewrite the lost cause again with new things like tariffs, or turning a state wanting the right to enslave blacks to just "states rights".


Speeches got cut off and shortened, so in Lee's speech where he says "“In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country." But then tried to wash away the following line of "The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race"

Doesn't sound so good anymore. Like when someone says "I know murder is morally wrong.... But I feel it is necessary for me to keep murdering". Intentionally losing the 2nd half of that quote is quite a lie.

Luckily, now instead of having to head to a major library and hope they have some of those source documents, we have online archives. So when a lost cause lie pops up, it can be countered with actual source fact from the secessionists own mouths and writing instead.

Slavery was a very big and very sensitive issue which could be used to demonize opponents and beat them over the head (usually figuratively, but sometimes literally) . . . for both sides. It was an ugly and legitimate point of contention between the two sides, and had caused violence and bloodshed. It was not, however, the only nasty and divisive point of conflict. There is also a case to be made that, had it been the only conflict between the two cultures, it might not have been as inflamed and violent as it was; a case can also be made that, had slavery been the only conflict between the North and the South, there very possibly might not have been a civil war over it alone. Certainly, not many soldiers on either side of the conflict believed they were fighting for or against slavery.

An interesting theory. While the southern leaders for years both publicly and privately had said over and over the issue was slavery... Even going back to Thomas Jefferson saying that is what would divide the US. The belief is that it was something else which they forgot to mention, even amongst themselves and were not willing to try and resolve?


Not sure it's a very factual idea but it is a fun one.

As for the soldiers, this wasn't like the Nazis who were hiding some of their worst atrocities. Looking at the camp newspapers, the sermons, the speeches, it was clear what they were fighting for.

One could argue it wasn't a popular fight, much like many soldiers in Vietnam did not care about the sociopolitical situation in Southeast Asia. But the cause for the years of issues, and the secession which led to war was clear. Protect and expand race based slavery.

But like one general told his troops. Any man who doesn't believe this is a fight over the emancipation of blacks is either a fool or a liar. Tough to defend they "didn't know" when the actual source evidence says that

It's less about not knowing, and more about not caring. For the regular confederate solider, it was probably more about the Union being THERE, and trying to enforce control over them.

Most poor to middle class southerners didn't own slaves. What they saw was their livelihood dependent on the institution of Slavery.

And they had a lot of hostility and resentment toward the North, and didn't take kindly to the idea of being lectured to by them. Kinda the way people feel about their political opponents today.

It's less about not knowing, and more about not caring. For the regular confederate solider, it was probably more about the Union being THERE, and trying to enforce control over them.

Most poor to middle class southerners didn't own slaves. What they saw was their livelihood dependent on the institution of Slavery.

And they had a lot of hostility and resentment toward the North, and didn't take kindly to the idea of being lectured to by them. Kinda the way people feel about their political opponents today.

I think today's issue that can't be compromised on is firearms.

I'd say we have several issues that can't be compromised on. That's what worries me.

But Firearms are the "slavery" problem to me in this current situation.

Either you believe a person has a right to effectively defend themself, or you believe only the government has authority on the use of force.

Oh, I agree it's as fundamental a divide as slavery. But I also think things like "do we just let people flood into the country unchecked" have that sort of potential, too.

Agree... Slavery was the reason people could get behind. Slavery was the thing which would get people to rally for a rebellion. Slavery was why they pushed away. Even in the secret state secession conventions, private letters between leaders slavery was the cause mentioned. Like when Georgia politician Henry Benning wrote former speaker of the house and Gov of Georgia Howell Cobb in a private letter "It is apparent, horribly apparent, that the slavery question rides insolently over every other everywhere -- in fact that is the only question which in the least affects the results of the elections."

Or Lawrence Keitt, who said in a secret secession meeting in South Carolina "Our people have come to this on the question of slavery.... it is the great central point from which we are now proceeding, and I am not willing to divert the public attention from it."

Which removes all doubt that it just wasn't something to build public sentiment, or a public rallying point but the true cause.




Of course after the Civil War ended in their defeat, white Southerners attempted to retroactively justify the Confederacy with the ‘Lost Cause’ ideology, an ahistorical narrative that further reimagined the Old South as filled with happy enslaved blacks.

All of a sudden they were trying to build "loyal slave markers", the monuments to prove that slaves were happy and well as slaves. Granted actual former slaves weren't building them. As those have been easily proven to be a false flag with stories of slave uprisings and over 100,000 slaves escaping via the underground railroad, the movement went on to try and rewrite the lost cause again with new things like tariffs, or turning a state wanting the right to enslave blacks to just "states rights".


Speeches got cut off and shortened, so in Lee's speech where he says "“In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country." But then tried to wash away the following line of "The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race"

Doesn't sound so good anymore. Like when someone says "I know murder is morally wrong.... But I feel it is necessary for me to keep murdering". Intentionally losing the 2nd half of that quote is quite a lie.

Luckily, now instead of having to head to a major library and hope they have some of those source documents, we have online archives. So when a lost cause lie pops up, it can be countered with actual source fact from the secessionists own mouths and writing instead.

Slavery was a very big and very sensitive issue which could be used to demonize opponents and beat them over the head (usually figuratively, but sometimes literally) . . . for both sides. It was an ugly and legitimate point of contention between the two sides, and had caused violence and bloodshed. It was not, however, the only nasty and divisive point of conflict. There is also a case to be made that, had it been the only conflict between the two cultures, it might not have been as inflamed and violent as it was; a case can also be made that, had slavery been the only conflict between the North and the South, there very possibly might not have been a civil war over it alone. Certainly, not many soldiers on either side of the conflict believed they were fighting for or against slavery.

An interesting theory. While the southern leaders for years both publicly and privately had said over and over the issue was slavery... Even going back to Thomas Jefferson saying that is what would divide the US. The belief is that it was something else which they forgot to mention, even amongst themselves and were not willing to try and resolve?


Not sure it's a very factual idea but it is a fun one.

As for the soldiers, this wasn't like the Nazis who were hiding some of their worst atrocities. Looking at the camp newspapers, the sermons, the speeches, it was clear what they were fighting for.

One could argue it wasn't a popular fight, much like many soldiers in Vietnam did not care about the sociopolitical situation in Southeast Asia. But the cause for the years of issues, and the secession which led to war was clear. Protect and expand race based slavery.

But like one general told his troops. Any man who doesn't believe this is a fight over the emancipation of blacks is either a fool or a liar. Tough to defend they "didn't know" when the actual source evidence says that

It's less about not knowing, and more about not caring. For the regular confederate solider, it was probably more about the Union being THERE, and trying to enforce control over them.

Most poor to middle class southerners didn't own slaves. What they saw was their livelihood dependent on the institution of Slavery.

And they had a lot of hostility and resentment toward the North, and didn't take kindly to the idea of being lectured to by them. Kinda the way people feel about their political opponents today.

I think today's issue that can't be compromised on is firearms.

Yes. I was just pointing out when somebody gives that line that slavery wasn't really a big deal or the dividing reason for secession that led to the war with the ahistorical line that it wasn't many slave owners or slave fans. Well that's just not remotely true.

 

[Preacher]

The South never had a chance at winning the war. The best they could do was to force the Yankees into a truce that would allow them to leave the relatively young United States. Lee's failure at Gettysburg and Grant's willingness to murder Southern civilians to achieve a victory doomed the South. Historians tend to drool over Lincoln's legacy and claim that he "preserved the Union" but the Union actually fell apart under his watch and he foolishly thought he could defeat the South in a couple of months.

It was an unwinnable battle with how a couple things went in my opinion.

Confederacy was unable to get a single foreign power to recognize them. So while they had some under the table support and individuals offering support, they were basically on their own.

2nd, was like you said, the best way was to force a truce. To take on George Washingtons strategy of fighting a war of attrition. But Washington could let Philadelphia or NY fall, and pick and choose which battles favored his armies, then come back later. He could retreat out of bad situations and regroup. In the Confederacy, states were asking for a full defense of their lands and that every city was fought for even if it meant a major engagement they may not win and would be very costly to an army which struggled to replenish itself (people and supplies/weapons).

As for murdering civilians, that happened on both sides. It was War. Remember the first civilian casualties of the war was when Confederate supporting civilians took the war into their own hands attacking a Massachusetts brigade. It was a total war. Civilians in the Confederacy like the story of John Burns who grabbed his shotgun from the kitchen and joined the war effort. Likewise the story of Jennie Wade, killed baking bread in her kitchen by a Confederate sharpshooter.

Word spread about Sherman. Not willing to let the rich land owning aristocrats to send young people off to their war to perpetuate and expand race based slavery while living apart from it. He burned and razed.. And treated those who surrendered with the best care according to Confederates. Those stories were blown up and rather than full engagements, allowed his army to avoid that and instead gain surrenders, saving thousands of lives.

As for the lie that the union fell apart under Lincoln, the truth was secession was occurring even before he took office. It was his predecessor, James Buchanan who said the rebellion was illegal.

I do believe you are right about Lincolns beliefs it would be over quickly. He underestimated the desire of those southern leaders to hold together to support their "peculiar institution". He thought they would believe him on his claims he wouldn't try and end slavery if he had the chance. They didn't, and makes sense from their perspective not to believe those promises, since when given the chance, he fought to end slavery.

It's speculative fiction, but Harry Turtledove has a whole series of books on a Southern Victory and the repercussions of this through the 1940's.

Southern Victory - Wikipedia

Before the Battle of Antietam, Federal troops accidentally recovered a copy of Special Order 191, which detailed Lee's plan for the invasion of Maryland. Using this intelligence, Federal forces under George B. McClellan moved north and forced the Battle of Antietam, ending the invasion.

In Turtledove's alternate history, C.S. troops recover Lee's orders before the papers fall into Union hands. The resulting C.S. advance catches McClellan and the Union Army by surprise. General Lee forces McClellan into a battle on the banks of the Susquehanna River in Pennsylvania and destroys the Army of the Potomac in the Battle of Camp Hill on October 1, 1862.

After this decisive C.S. victory, Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia move eastward to occupy Philadelphia. The Confederate States earns diplomatic recognition from the United Kingdom and France. The two European nations force mediation on the United States; the C.S. achieves independence. This "War of Secession" ends in less than two years.

Better than that series is a book by Turtledove called Guns Of The South! That one book got me hooked on alternate history books.