[important information] Comprehensive outline & more
I know this is long, but I'd like it if everyone at least skims it; this will hopefully give you context and a firmer grasp on the Civil War's history. The last bit is especially important, since it deals with the conditions of dragons in the Americas.
A Comprehensive Outline of the American Civil War
The events leading up to the Civil War
- Slavery was not the direct reason that the South succeeded, but it underlay many of the causes. The Southern states were proud of ‘their institutions’, as the euphemism went, and rightfully so--slavery was the force that farmed cotton, and Cotton Was King, as the quote went. Slavery made them rich, and if slavery was taken away, they would be effectively destitute.
- There were anti-slavery movements rumbling in the Northern states - moral anti-slavery, economic anti-slavery, and political anti-slavery - and eventually these arguments swayed the Northern population into resisting the expansion of slavery, especially to the new western territories - they weren’t going to touch slavery where it already existed in the South, but they didn’t want it to expand.
- However, much of what led up to the Civil War was a lot of compromising and narrowly missed crises; no one wanted war, until it was suddenly upon them and opinions had shifted dramatically anyways, a shift prompted by the various crises, and fueled by newspapers and speeches - America in that time period was very well-read, and the Civil War was a very literate war, with most soldiers writing letters and keeping journals, letters and journals that were not subject to later censorship. A large number of people knew what the war was about, having followed the events in newspapers, and the soldiers knew what they were fighting for.
- One of the first events that led to the Civil War demonstrates both sides’ point of view: in 1833-36 there was the “Gag Rule” controversy in the government. Northern abolitionists sought to abolish the slave trade in Washington DC, the capital. The motion was put before the proper committees, but then leaders in Congress told the committees to not discuss it, since the South might get upset at the idea that any part of slavery could be abolished (a good point, considering that they did)
o John Quincy Adams, former president and current Massachusetts senator, says, essentially, “to hell with it!” and puts forward the legislation in spite of what the leaders of Congress said. “Let’s debate and vote on this, like our fathers set up this government to do!” ((J.Q.A’s father was Sam Adams, somewhat famous in the Revolutionary War.))
o He got called out of order and his legislation got shut down…
o He kept bringing it back up. And got called out of order. And kept bringing it up…
o Lots of maneuvering behind the scenes - lots of people saying to the South that they had to let Congress debate on this, because that’s how a democracy works, and the Southern delegates kept saying that they weren’t going to talk about slavery, period!
o Eventually passed the Gag Rule, which automatically outlawed all discussion on slavery outright.
This now “proves” that slavery harms whites as well as blacks and hurts the entire nation: it’s undemocratic to not debate and vote on something. Slaveholders controlling Congress and government - aristocratic? Revolutionary War against such tyrannical control of government?
- So, nothing happened in Congress for another 15 years or so, thanks to the gag rule. Outside of it, antislavery movements are growing, and people are beginning to think that slavery is wrong, or at least that slave-owners made bad democrats, from the Gag Rule, above.
- Then, in 1846-48, the Mexican War reopens the issue.
- Mexican War: very complicated, separate issue altogether
- US eventually ends up taking over much of Mexico, which at the time, extended up into what is now the South-West US, including such states as parts of California, Arizona, New Mexico, etc. Texas, which before this had been a separate republic, was also brought into the Union.
o Could have taken over all of Mexico, but people back East oppose war on slavery issue - Missouri Compromise of 1820, wherein South border of Missouri used to split nation: South of line, slavery permitted, North of line, slavery not permitted. Mexico way South of line; conquer, carve into states - would be all slave states and thus upset the balance.
Since Missouri Compromise, states brought into Union in pairs: if one South territory wants to come in, Congress (mostly Senate) scrabbles to find an appropriate North territory to bring in as a state as well, thus keeping the balance of slave/free Senators in Congress.
o By this time, sentiments against the expansion of slavery were strong in the North - not only would bringing in all of Mexico as slave-states upset the balance, but there were many who believed that the expansion of slavery would be morally wrong and thus opposed the war on those grounds.
o So, what to do with all this land we’ve conquered?
o ~1846, bill to fund the war before Congress. Senator named David Wilmont attached a proviso to the bill - now called the Wilmont Proviso
Fund the war, but slavery would not be permitted in any territory that ended up being annexed into the Union - with the exception of Texas, because slavered already existed in Texas.
o Bill came up ~12 times for a vote, each time was defeated on the basis of that Proviso: the moderates (those in both parties [Democrats and Whigs] that struggled for compromise on the slavery issue) banded together with the S against the Proviso. ((Footnote: Lincoln was in Congress at the time, and voted for the Proviso each time it came up. Shows that a lot of people don’t want expansion - his views seen as typical Northern sentiments.))
- War ends in 1848, with a compromise, as usual:
o Current South-West brought into the Union - Texas, California, New Mexico, Arizona, etc.
o In Texas, slavery is allowed.
o No discussion on slavery in other territories - thought there would be plenty of time to discuss it before another territory wanted statehood.
- Well, there wasn’t time to discuss it, because in 1849, gold was found in California.
o By the next year, 1850, there were enough people in California to qualify it for statehood - a lot of really wealthy people ((more from hardware sales than from gold strikes)) in the state as well.
o But the slavery issue still hadn’t been settled or even discussed! What to do, what to do…
- Back up to the Constitution a moment, wherein the Founding Fathers mostly sidestepped the slavery debate and decided to leave it for later generations to deal with in the interest of not sundering the nation before it had even begun. However, they did include an obligation in the Constitution to return runaway slaves: the Fugitive Slave Law - however, it wasn’t really enforced, and states often passed “personal liberty laws”, which said that any state could give any person liberty - they were completely unconstitutional, but were passed anyways.
o The South was very upset that the Fugitive Slave Law wasn’t enforced - for the obvious reason of wanting slaves back, but also for the symbolic reasons: the federal government should enforce the law to thus acknowledge that slavery isn’t immoral.
- So, back to California. 1850 Compromise: California enters as a free state, but the “personal liberty laws” are outlawed and the Fugitive Slave Law is given teeth and will actually be enforced
o South sees this compromise as barely enough.
o North hates the Fugitive slave law - federal courts telling states what to do? ((States rights! Usually tied to the South, but the Northern states were concerned with them as well.))
Throughout the 1850s, there was increasing pressure on both sides to avoid splitting the nation.
o Didn’t really work in the end, but they tried.
- 1854: Major, major crisis: Kansas and Nebraska.
o Nebraska territory - all of the Louisiana Purchas north of Arkansas. Huge territory - Dakotas, up into Montana, etc. “The West”.
o Slave or free? - part of the Louisiana Purchas, so the Missouri Compromise says that, as it’s north of the line, it should be free.
o But there’s a new idea that crops up that was intende to solve the problem for all time.
o Stephan Douglass - Illinois senator, Democrat. He wanted to keep the North and South Democrats united - and the US. His idea would diffuse the issue of slavery, and be a permanent solution. And he thought it was just the right thing to do.
Popular Sovereignty: the people decide the issue. Proposed in the Nebraska Act, Jan. 1854 - there’s no prior opinion on territories, no ‘slave or free’ territory, so when a territory becomes a state, a referendum is held and the citizens of that territory vote whether they want the state to be slave or free.
This looks very good on paper: no more arguing in Congress, it’s a solution that can be reapplied as more territories come in, it embodies the American ideal of democracy, and the Jacksonian ideal of democracy wherein the people can’t be wrong - self determination - this is also just, since there’s no give/take of the compromise.
Problems he didn’t foresee, but probably should have: what percent of the population will vote on the issue - bias? Furthermore, it’s very easily corrupted, as people move to the state just to vote, and thus prompts infighting ((which actually happened in “Bleeding Kansas”…)). It doesn’t forbid re-voting on the issue again and again until ‘they get it right’, whoever decides that. What happens when the population of the state suddenly shifts and the people no longer want to be a slave/free state? It will tip the balance of power in Congress. And it overturns the Missouri Compromise, which the people actually liked because it was sure - you knew which territories would be slave and which would be free before moving there.
o Northern reactions to popular sovereignty: they hated it. Hated that it overturned the Missouri compromise, hated that it allowe for the expansion of slavery.
o Southern reactions: much the same. They needed certainty; if they moved to a territory, taking their slaves with them, and the territory suddenly became free, they would be up a crick. However, the South believed that all territories should be open for slavery, because if they’re not, then that discriminates against the South and further disrespects their way of life.
Suffice it to say, by this point, the mid 1850’s, there were deep schisms between the North and the South, and not just over slavery - also over the fundamental issue of when the US actually began (began with the Declaration of Independence, or with the Constitution) and the essence of labor: South believed in the ‘mud-sill’ idea, where there is a permanent lower class; North liked free-labor, wherein one person rose and fell in class as time when on.
- So, the idea of popular sovereignty didn’t work, and now there was virtual civil war in Kansas and Nebraska over the issue. Things continue, and tensions between the North and South mount: the Republican party is formed all over the North - it was a real grassroots effort, so much so that it’s really hard to say where the “Birthplace of the Republican Party” is - as a party to stand for one thing: No expansion of slavery.
-
- South generally reacts by bristling and protesting the very idea that slavery can’ expand; begin to hear the ‘slavery is wrong’ from the North and equate all Northerns with abolitionists (who want to get rid of slavery right now) and thus beggar them and make them bend under Northern whim. Eventually gets to the point where they don’t feel they can trust any Republican - but especially Lincoln, the “head” of the Republican party - in office, since that Republican would get rid of slavery and etc.
- North was getting frustrated with the Southern opinions and tired of pandering to them - sees South as being aristocratic, and thus similar to colonial England (and the South thought the North was behaving like tyrannical colonial England as well, so both sides end up saying they’re carrying on the Revolutionary tradition and that they’re fighting for liberty and all those. They just have different definitions of said tradition and values.)
- 1857 - Dred Scott case. Dred Scott a slave that was brought to Minnesota: Minnesota was a free state. He was told that because he resided in a free territory, he was free. Anti-slavery factions push court cases to push suit. Eventually reaches Supreme Court, and is ruled upon in 1857.
o Supreme court ruling on ‘take a slave to a free territory makes him free?’:
o Scott was not free - the Fugitive Slave Law was constitutional.
o Furthermore (rulings in obiter dicta, deliberately setting precedent):
Dred Scott can’t sue because he’s a negro, and no negro, slave or free, could be a citizen.
The federal government had no right to outlaw slavery in a territory - Minnesota had no right to outlaw it. The Northwest Ordinances of 1787, outlawing slavery above the Ohio River, was unconstitutional. The Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. (Unconstitutional on the grounds that those laws discriminate against a certain type of property: takes awhile for anyone to oppose the ‘rights to property’ in the Constitution on the grounds that some types of property are wrong.)
Popular sovereignty is also unconstitutional, because you can’t get rid of slavery, and popular sovereignty allows for the abolition of slavery in a territory.
o And furthermore, the Court will overrule any bills put forward that are contrary to the ruling.
o In essence, the Supreme Court says “South, you win. North, shut up.”
- Not surprisingly, people were shocked and outraged. The North sees the ruling as crazy and devastating, and thus won’t follow it. They resolve to bring the issue back again and again.
- The Democrats are also screwed. The Southern ones, of course, like it, but the Northern Democrats effectively say “What the hell?!” They, after all, liked popular sovereignty and letting the people decide!
o So now the Democratic Party is split, and the Republican Party will not accept this, even though this was supposed to divert a greater crisis.
- 1859 - John Brown, a fiery abolitionist, decides to use violence to end slavery - his plan is to assault the Federal Arsenal in Harper’s Ferry, Virginia, and with the weapons, stir up a massive slave rebellion all over the South.
o Needless to say, his plan doesn’t work, and in the end, he’s tried and hanged for treason.
o Still becomes something of a hero in the North - not many people agreed with his methods, but believed that his heart was good: stood up to the South, tried to change things.
The North begins to think of violence as an answer to all these problems.
o South hears of the hero-worship and panics - they see little difference between Brown and Lincoln: both are abolitionists who want to get rid of slavery! (Only…Lincoln doesn’t, but the South believes he does.) John Brown’s supporters=Republican Party=terrorists!
They believe they can’t be in a country of sympathizers of him. They’ll try to take away slavery and thus beggar them and subject them to tyrrany!
- 1860 Election - In Which Everything Breaks Apart.
o Four candidates: Lincoln - Republican. Stephan Douglass - N. Democrats. Breckinridge - S. Democrats. Bell - Constitutional Union (the last remnants of the old Whigs.)
o No one gets a majority - Lincoln gets closest with 40%, and ends up with enough electoral votes to be president.
Lincoln’s campaign: never touch slavery where it is, but he won’t let it expand.
Shows that this was the popular thought in the North.
- South sees results of election, and promptly succeeds from the Union, forming the Southern Confederacy.
o South Carolina starts it, and starts a domino effect.
o Lincoln issues a plea to those states sitting on the fence in his Inaugural address (when he takes office in March). Basically, he won’t touch slavery where it is, he won’t threaten slavery - that’s what he’s been saying this whole while in his speeches, and that’s what the North believes. He’ll enforce the law of the land, which includes the Fugitive Slave Law. However, the Union can’t be broken apart in succession - and he has plenty of reasons to support it ((Several pages of notes on it, actually, so reasons are available on request, but it’s pretty much what you’d expect: succession is impractical, it’s undemocratic, it makes for a lousy government all around, etc.))
o Needless to say, the South doesn’t listen: they only remember that Lincoln hates slavery: he’s president now, and so he’ll be against us.
- Lincoln vows that he won’t start the war - needs to keep Border States (Kentucky, Delaware, Maryland, and Missouri; all allow slavery, but don’t succeed.) But he also says that what federal property there is in the South, he’ll keep - specifically, forts.
- Fort Sumter, 1861, first shots of the Civil War.
o Fort in harbor of Charleston, S.C.
o Lincoln tells them not to fire their guns; South wants them out, and they’ll lay siege to get them out.
o Lincoln sends ships to forcibly supply.
South fires on those ships.
Fort personnel pulled out, but now the opening shots have been fired, and it will be war.
Cold Facts:
Army deaths alone - not counting wounded:
N:
Combat - 140,000
Overall (die of wounds, etc) - 364,000
S:
Combat - 72,500
Overall - 260,000
Massive totals for the time, especially considering the smaller population at the time. This was the most destructive war of American history.
Strategies and Sides of the Civil War:
- Northern Strengths:
o Population: major strength: North has all of N, where most of the big cities are located, and all the border states. By 1863, they also have African Americans in the army.
o Economic: They had factories! Also railroads to move troops and supplies. They had the capital and tax-base to fund the war.
o Navy: Has one!
o Strategy: “Anaconda Strategy” - squeeze the South to death.
o Basically, blockade the East and South supports with above Navy - no supplies into the South, no cotton out.
o Capture the Mississippi. River - cuts the South in two, with Texas and the west on one side and the eastern states on the other.
From Miss. R, move up the rivers that flow into it and thus into the South - lots of plantations on rivers for easy cotton shipping.
o Takes a long time to work.
Capture of Vixburg and River - July 1863.
o Most of the war was on the river!
The scurry around the peninsula trying to capture capitals - not as important, essentially.
- Southern Strengths:
o Main one: They can fight a defensive war. They try to hold off until there’s too many casualties and the North gives up: The North has to defeat them everywhere.
Very hard to do! Has to occupy most of the South!
- Largest Southern problem: political - border states, in particular Virginia.
o Have Virginia, Washington DC, North (Union) capital vulnerable. Also, Virginia has factories, populations, and it’s sentimental.
Virginia not sure it wants to succeed - not as many slaveholders in Virginia as in other places.
o So, Confederacy makes a deal: Virginia succeeds, they’ll have the capital be in Richmond, Virginia. 100 miles from the North Capital.
And that’s why there was so much fighting around that area.
What They Fought For
- The war really wasn’t about slavery, even though slavery caused it - it was about, for the North, Saving the Union. However, the soldiers also believed that they were going to preserve republican/democratic government for all time - if the South was allowed to succeed, then everyone would see that this type of government couldn’t work, and the world would remain tyrannical.
o For their country, and for the world. Fighting for bigger things than just them.
- Further, many Northern soldiers wanted to punish the traitorous South, punish treason.
- There was a little bit of motivation for revenge, especially as the war went on.
- Northern soldiers saw the South as traitors, and wanted to bring them to heel; bit of bristling against the stereotypical aristocratic, high-blooded plantation master.
- Some soldiers do fight for the freedom of the slaves - abolitionists - but most don’t care, and still others are very anti-abolitionist and are only fighting to preserve the Union.
o Eventually, most come to the pragmatic idea that slavery has to go because it hurts the South - not for any moral reason, but a tactical one.
- Fighting for the ideals of Republicanism, for the country their fathers had founded.
- South: obviously, for independence “from Northern Tyranny” - Freedom and “the spirit of 1776”. For liberty, etc.
o Curious, how the North is fighting for the same thing. Only, different meanings.
- Fight to defend their homes against the Northern invaders: hate the North.
o Negative stereotypes of the North abound in Southern newspapers, which gets the population thinking that the North is inferior and bad, so they were completely justified in separating from them.
o Provides an emotional response to the crisis, which only makes things worse.
- Fight for slavery in South? Not so much - those that have it, fight to keep it, those that don’t, fight for the right and opportunity to own slaves and thus better themselves: “our institutions”, their way of life, etc. More fire towards independence and liberty.
Everyone fought for a mix of reasons, but everyone was willing to die for their beliefs…and, as the death totals relate, many of them did. They knew what they were fighting for, and even in the midst of trials, held on to the idea that they were doing the right thing.
Links:
http://www.civil-war-battles.com/
How Dragons Fit In
Dragons are, at this time, treated much differently in the Americas than they ever were in Britain.
The small number of dragons shipped across the Atlantic as “supplies” for colonists proved vital to survival. They aided in agriculture (as dragonets could be used to pull plows), construction, defense, and conquest. As a result of their role in society, dragons are revered by Americans, and given much higher status than European dragons. American streets are made wide to suit dragons’ passage, and some dragons are even kept as family members of sorts (the word “pet” being derogatory, of course), living in farmhouses or near their human families’ homes. Because of the dragons’ close vicinity and role in agriculture, most livestock has grown accustomed to them.
As the Civil War approaches, however, all available beasts are being drafted in preparation for combat. Around half of American dragons (maybe up to sixty percent) already live in casual coverts (even less formal than British ones), but the remaining ones are being called into service. In most cases, their young masters choose to go into the aerial corps to avoid being separated from them. This leads to a large number of young, inexperienced captains.
Unfortunately, America has notably fewer dragons than most established European countries. Due to this, as well as the introduction of local (and previously undiscovered) breeds into coverts, most bloodlines have been “contaminated”. There are very few pedigree dragons in the colonies, and many more mixed breeds than there are in Europe.
Layout profile code thanks to ReversesCollide
Outline by our very own vervainwolf! ♥
A Comprehensive Outline of the American Civil War
The events leading up to the Civil War
- Slavery was not the direct reason that the South succeeded, but it underlay many of the causes. The Southern states were proud of ‘their institutions’, as the euphemism went, and rightfully so--slavery was the force that farmed cotton, and Cotton Was King, as the quote went. Slavery made them rich, and if slavery was taken away, they would be effectively destitute.
- There were anti-slavery movements rumbling in the Northern states - moral anti-slavery, economic anti-slavery, and political anti-slavery - and eventually these arguments swayed the Northern population into resisting the expansion of slavery, especially to the new western territories - they weren’t going to touch slavery where it already existed in the South, but they didn’t want it to expand.
- However, much of what led up to the Civil War was a lot of compromising and narrowly missed crises; no one wanted war, until it was suddenly upon them and opinions had shifted dramatically anyways, a shift prompted by the various crises, and fueled by newspapers and speeches - America in that time period was very well-read, and the Civil War was a very literate war, with most soldiers writing letters and keeping journals, letters and journals that were not subject to later censorship. A large number of people knew what the war was about, having followed the events in newspapers, and the soldiers knew what they were fighting for.
- One of the first events that led to the Civil War demonstrates both sides’ point of view: in 1833-36 there was the “Gag Rule” controversy in the government. Northern abolitionists sought to abolish the slave trade in Washington DC, the capital. The motion was put before the proper committees, but then leaders in Congress told the committees to not discuss it, since the South might get upset at the idea that any part of slavery could be abolished (a good point, considering that they did)
o John Quincy Adams, former president and current Massachusetts senator, says, essentially, “to hell with it!” and puts forward the legislation in spite of what the leaders of Congress said. “Let’s debate and vote on this, like our fathers set up this government to do!” ((J.Q.A’s father was Sam Adams, somewhat famous in the Revolutionary War.))
o He got called out of order and his legislation got shut down…
o He kept bringing it back up. And got called out of order. And kept bringing it up…
o Lots of maneuvering behind the scenes - lots of people saying to the South that they had to let Congress debate on this, because that’s how a democracy works, and the Southern delegates kept saying that they weren’t going to talk about slavery, period!
o Eventually passed the Gag Rule, which automatically outlawed all discussion on slavery outright.
This now “proves” that slavery harms whites as well as blacks and hurts the entire nation: it’s undemocratic to not debate and vote on something. Slaveholders controlling Congress and government - aristocratic? Revolutionary War against such tyrannical control of government?
- So, nothing happened in Congress for another 15 years or so, thanks to the gag rule. Outside of it, antislavery movements are growing, and people are beginning to think that slavery is wrong, or at least that slave-owners made bad democrats, from the Gag Rule, above.
- Then, in 1846-48, the Mexican War reopens the issue.
- Mexican War: very complicated, separate issue altogether
- US eventually ends up taking over much of Mexico, which at the time, extended up into what is now the South-West US, including such states as parts of California, Arizona, New Mexico, etc. Texas, which before this had been a separate republic, was also brought into the Union.
o Could have taken over all of Mexico, but people back East oppose war on slavery issue - Missouri Compromise of 1820, wherein South border of Missouri used to split nation: South of line, slavery permitted, North of line, slavery not permitted. Mexico way South of line; conquer, carve into states - would be all slave states and thus upset the balance.
Since Missouri Compromise, states brought into Union in pairs: if one South territory wants to come in, Congress (mostly Senate) scrabbles to find an appropriate North territory to bring in as a state as well, thus keeping the balance of slave/free Senators in Congress.
o By this time, sentiments against the expansion of slavery were strong in the North - not only would bringing in all of Mexico as slave-states upset the balance, but there were many who believed that the expansion of slavery would be morally wrong and thus opposed the war on those grounds.
o So, what to do with all this land we’ve conquered?
o ~1846, bill to fund the war before Congress. Senator named David Wilmont attached a proviso to the bill - now called the Wilmont Proviso
Fund the war, but slavery would not be permitted in any territory that ended up being annexed into the Union - with the exception of Texas, because slavered already existed in Texas.
o Bill came up ~12 times for a vote, each time was defeated on the basis of that Proviso: the moderates (those in both parties [Democrats and Whigs] that struggled for compromise on the slavery issue) banded together with the S against the Proviso. ((Footnote: Lincoln was in Congress at the time, and voted for the Proviso each time it came up. Shows that a lot of people don’t want expansion - his views seen as typical Northern sentiments.))
- War ends in 1848, with a compromise, as usual:
o Current South-West brought into the Union - Texas, California, New Mexico, Arizona, etc.
o In Texas, slavery is allowed.
o No discussion on slavery in other territories - thought there would be plenty of time to discuss it before another territory wanted statehood.
- Well, there wasn’t time to discuss it, because in 1849, gold was found in California.
o By the next year, 1850, there were enough people in California to qualify it for statehood - a lot of really wealthy people ((more from hardware sales than from gold strikes)) in the state as well.
o But the slavery issue still hadn’t been settled or even discussed! What to do, what to do…
- Back up to the Constitution a moment, wherein the Founding Fathers mostly sidestepped the slavery debate and decided to leave it for later generations to deal with in the interest of not sundering the nation before it had even begun. However, they did include an obligation in the Constitution to return runaway slaves: the Fugitive Slave Law - however, it wasn’t really enforced, and states often passed “personal liberty laws”, which said that any state could give any person liberty - they were completely unconstitutional, but were passed anyways.
o The South was very upset that the Fugitive Slave Law wasn’t enforced - for the obvious reason of wanting slaves back, but also for the symbolic reasons: the federal government should enforce the law to thus acknowledge that slavery isn’t immoral.
- So, back to California. 1850 Compromise: California enters as a free state, but the “personal liberty laws” are outlawed and the Fugitive Slave Law is given teeth and will actually be enforced
o South sees this compromise as barely enough.
o North hates the Fugitive slave law - federal courts telling states what to do? ((States rights! Usually tied to the South, but the Northern states were concerned with them as well.))
Throughout the 1850s, there was increasing pressure on both sides to avoid splitting the nation.
o Didn’t really work in the end, but they tried.
- 1854: Major, major crisis: Kansas and Nebraska.
o Nebraska territory - all of the Louisiana Purchas north of Arkansas. Huge territory - Dakotas, up into Montana, etc. “The West”.
o Slave or free? - part of the Louisiana Purchas, so the Missouri Compromise says that, as it’s north of the line, it should be free.
o But there’s a new idea that crops up that was intende to solve the problem for all time.
o Stephan Douglass - Illinois senator, Democrat. He wanted to keep the North and South Democrats united - and the US. His idea would diffuse the issue of slavery, and be a permanent solution. And he thought it was just the right thing to do.
Popular Sovereignty: the people decide the issue. Proposed in the Nebraska Act, Jan. 1854 - there’s no prior opinion on territories, no ‘slave or free’ territory, so when a territory becomes a state, a referendum is held and the citizens of that territory vote whether they want the state to be slave or free.
This looks very good on paper: no more arguing in Congress, it’s a solution that can be reapplied as more territories come in, it embodies the American ideal of democracy, and the Jacksonian ideal of democracy wherein the people can’t be wrong - self determination - this is also just, since there’s no give/take of the compromise.
Problems he didn’t foresee, but probably should have: what percent of the population will vote on the issue - bias? Furthermore, it’s very easily corrupted, as people move to the state just to vote, and thus prompts infighting ((which actually happened in “Bleeding Kansas”…)). It doesn’t forbid re-voting on the issue again and again until ‘they get it right’, whoever decides that. What happens when the population of the state suddenly shifts and the people no longer want to be a slave/free state? It will tip the balance of power in Congress. And it overturns the Missouri Compromise, which the people actually liked because it was sure - you knew which territories would be slave and which would be free before moving there.
o Northern reactions to popular sovereignty: they hated it. Hated that it overturned the Missouri compromise, hated that it allowe for the expansion of slavery.
o Southern reactions: much the same. They needed certainty; if they moved to a territory, taking their slaves with them, and the territory suddenly became free, they would be up a crick. However, the South believed that all territories should be open for slavery, because if they’re not, then that discriminates against the South and further disrespects their way of life.
Suffice it to say, by this point, the mid 1850’s, there were deep schisms between the North and the South, and not just over slavery - also over the fundamental issue of when the US actually began (began with the Declaration of Independence, or with the Constitution) and the essence of labor: South believed in the ‘mud-sill’ idea, where there is a permanent lower class; North liked free-labor, wherein one person rose and fell in class as time when on.
- So, the idea of popular sovereignty didn’t work, and now there was virtual civil war in Kansas and Nebraska over the issue. Things continue, and tensions between the North and South mount: the Republican party is formed all over the North - it was a real grassroots effort, so much so that it’s really hard to say where the “Birthplace of the Republican Party” is - as a party to stand for one thing: No expansion of slavery.
-
- South generally reacts by bristling and protesting the very idea that slavery can’ expand; begin to hear the ‘slavery is wrong’ from the North and equate all Northerns with abolitionists (who want to get rid of slavery right now) and thus beggar them and make them bend under Northern whim. Eventually gets to the point where they don’t feel they can trust any Republican - but especially Lincoln, the “head” of the Republican party - in office, since that Republican would get rid of slavery and etc.
- North was getting frustrated with the Southern opinions and tired of pandering to them - sees South as being aristocratic, and thus similar to colonial England (and the South thought the North was behaving like tyrannical colonial England as well, so both sides end up saying they’re carrying on the Revolutionary tradition and that they’re fighting for liberty and all those. They just have different definitions of said tradition and values.)
- 1857 - Dred Scott case. Dred Scott a slave that was brought to Minnesota: Minnesota was a free state. He was told that because he resided in a free territory, he was free. Anti-slavery factions push court cases to push suit. Eventually reaches Supreme Court, and is ruled upon in 1857.
o Supreme court ruling on ‘take a slave to a free territory makes him free?’:
o Scott was not free - the Fugitive Slave Law was constitutional.
o Furthermore (rulings in obiter dicta, deliberately setting precedent):
Dred Scott can’t sue because he’s a negro, and no negro, slave or free, could be a citizen.
The federal government had no right to outlaw slavery in a territory - Minnesota had no right to outlaw it. The Northwest Ordinances of 1787, outlawing slavery above the Ohio River, was unconstitutional. The Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. (Unconstitutional on the grounds that those laws discriminate against a certain type of property: takes awhile for anyone to oppose the ‘rights to property’ in the Constitution on the grounds that some types of property are wrong.)
Popular sovereignty is also unconstitutional, because you can’t get rid of slavery, and popular sovereignty allows for the abolition of slavery in a territory.
o And furthermore, the Court will overrule any bills put forward that are contrary to the ruling.
o In essence, the Supreme Court says “South, you win. North, shut up.”
- Not surprisingly, people were shocked and outraged. The North sees the ruling as crazy and devastating, and thus won’t follow it. They resolve to bring the issue back again and again.
- The Democrats are also screwed. The Southern ones, of course, like it, but the Northern Democrats effectively say “What the hell?!” They, after all, liked popular sovereignty and letting the people decide!
o So now the Democratic Party is split, and the Republican Party will not accept this, even though this was supposed to divert a greater crisis.
- 1859 - John Brown, a fiery abolitionist, decides to use violence to end slavery - his plan is to assault the Federal Arsenal in Harper’s Ferry, Virginia, and with the weapons, stir up a massive slave rebellion all over the South.
o Needless to say, his plan doesn’t work, and in the end, he’s tried and hanged for treason.
o Still becomes something of a hero in the North - not many people agreed with his methods, but believed that his heart was good: stood up to the South, tried to change things.
The North begins to think of violence as an answer to all these problems.
o South hears of the hero-worship and panics - they see little difference between Brown and Lincoln: both are abolitionists who want to get rid of slavery! (Only…Lincoln doesn’t, but the South believes he does.) John Brown’s supporters=Republican Party=terrorists!
They believe they can’t be in a country of sympathizers of him. They’ll try to take away slavery and thus beggar them and subject them to tyrrany!
- 1860 Election - In Which Everything Breaks Apart.
o Four candidates: Lincoln - Republican. Stephan Douglass - N. Democrats. Breckinridge - S. Democrats. Bell - Constitutional Union (the last remnants of the old Whigs.)
o No one gets a majority - Lincoln gets closest with 40%, and ends up with enough electoral votes to be president.
Lincoln’s campaign: never touch slavery where it is, but he won’t let it expand.
Shows that this was the popular thought in the North.
- South sees results of election, and promptly succeeds from the Union, forming the Southern Confederacy.
o South Carolina starts it, and starts a domino effect.
o Lincoln issues a plea to those states sitting on the fence in his Inaugural address (when he takes office in March). Basically, he won’t touch slavery where it is, he won’t threaten slavery - that’s what he’s been saying this whole while in his speeches, and that’s what the North believes. He’ll enforce the law of the land, which includes the Fugitive Slave Law. However, the Union can’t be broken apart in succession - and he has plenty of reasons to support it ((Several pages of notes on it, actually, so reasons are available on request, but it’s pretty much what you’d expect: succession is impractical, it’s undemocratic, it makes for a lousy government all around, etc.))
o Needless to say, the South doesn’t listen: they only remember that Lincoln hates slavery: he’s president now, and so he’ll be against us.
- Lincoln vows that he won’t start the war - needs to keep Border States (Kentucky, Delaware, Maryland, and Missouri; all allow slavery, but don’t succeed.) But he also says that what federal property there is in the South, he’ll keep - specifically, forts.
- Fort Sumter, 1861, first shots of the Civil War.
o Fort in harbor of Charleston, S.C.
o Lincoln tells them not to fire their guns; South wants them out, and they’ll lay siege to get them out.
o Lincoln sends ships to forcibly supply.
South fires on those ships.
Fort personnel pulled out, but now the opening shots have been fired, and it will be war.
Cold Facts:
Army deaths alone - not counting wounded:
N:
Combat - 140,000
Overall (die of wounds, etc) - 364,000
S:
Combat - 72,500
Overall - 260,000
Massive totals for the time, especially considering the smaller population at the time. This was the most destructive war of American history.
Strategies and Sides of the Civil War:
- Northern Strengths:
o Population: major strength: North has all of N, where most of the big cities are located, and all the border states. By 1863, they also have African Americans in the army.
o Economic: They had factories! Also railroads to move troops and supplies. They had the capital and tax-base to fund the war.
o Navy: Has one!
o Strategy: “Anaconda Strategy” - squeeze the South to death.
o Basically, blockade the East and South supports with above Navy - no supplies into the South, no cotton out.
o Capture the Mississippi. River - cuts the South in two, with Texas and the west on one side and the eastern states on the other.
From Miss. R, move up the rivers that flow into it and thus into the South - lots of plantations on rivers for easy cotton shipping.
o Takes a long time to work.
Capture of Vixburg and River - July 1863.
o Most of the war was on the river!
The scurry around the peninsula trying to capture capitals - not as important, essentially.
- Southern Strengths:
o Main one: They can fight a defensive war. They try to hold off until there’s too many casualties and the North gives up: The North has to defeat them everywhere.
Very hard to do! Has to occupy most of the South!
- Largest Southern problem: political - border states, in particular Virginia.
o Have Virginia, Washington DC, North (Union) capital vulnerable. Also, Virginia has factories, populations, and it’s sentimental.
Virginia not sure it wants to succeed - not as many slaveholders in Virginia as in other places.
o So, Confederacy makes a deal: Virginia succeeds, they’ll have the capital be in Richmond, Virginia. 100 miles from the North Capital.
And that’s why there was so much fighting around that area.
What They Fought For
- The war really wasn’t about slavery, even though slavery caused it - it was about, for the North, Saving the Union. However, the soldiers also believed that they were going to preserve republican/democratic government for all time - if the South was allowed to succeed, then everyone would see that this type of government couldn’t work, and the world would remain tyrannical.
o For their country, and for the world. Fighting for bigger things than just them.
- Further, many Northern soldiers wanted to punish the traitorous South, punish treason.
- There was a little bit of motivation for revenge, especially as the war went on.
- Northern soldiers saw the South as traitors, and wanted to bring them to heel; bit of bristling against the stereotypical aristocratic, high-blooded plantation master.
- Some soldiers do fight for the freedom of the slaves - abolitionists - but most don’t care, and still others are very anti-abolitionist and are only fighting to preserve the Union.
o Eventually, most come to the pragmatic idea that slavery has to go because it hurts the South - not for any moral reason, but a tactical one.
- Fighting for the ideals of Republicanism, for the country their fathers had founded.
- South: obviously, for independence “from Northern Tyranny” - Freedom and “the spirit of 1776”. For liberty, etc.
o Curious, how the North is fighting for the same thing. Only, different meanings.
- Fight to defend their homes against the Northern invaders: hate the North.
o Negative stereotypes of the North abound in Southern newspapers, which gets the population thinking that the North is inferior and bad, so they were completely justified in separating from them.
o Provides an emotional response to the crisis, which only makes things worse.
- Fight for slavery in South? Not so much - those that have it, fight to keep it, those that don’t, fight for the right and opportunity to own slaves and thus better themselves: “our institutions”, their way of life, etc. More fire towards independence and liberty.
Everyone fought for a mix of reasons, but everyone was willing to die for their beliefs…and, as the death totals relate, many of them did. They knew what they were fighting for, and even in the midst of trials, held on to the idea that they were doing the right thing.
Links:
http://www.civil-war-battles.com/
How Dragons Fit In
Dragons are, at this time, treated much differently in the Americas than they ever were in Britain.
The small number of dragons shipped across the Atlantic as “supplies” for colonists proved vital to survival. They aided in agriculture (as dragonets could be used to pull plows), construction, defense, and conquest. As a result of their role in society, dragons are revered by Americans, and given much higher status than European dragons. American streets are made wide to suit dragons’ passage, and some dragons are even kept as family members of sorts (the word “pet” being derogatory, of course), living in farmhouses or near their human families’ homes. Because of the dragons’ close vicinity and role in agriculture, most livestock has grown accustomed to them.
As the Civil War approaches, however, all available beasts are being drafted in preparation for combat. Around half of American dragons (maybe up to sixty percent) already live in casual coverts (even less formal than British ones), but the remaining ones are being called into service. In most cases, their young masters choose to go into the aerial corps to avoid being separated from them. This leads to a large number of young, inexperienced captains.
Unfortunately, America has notably fewer dragons than most established European countries. Due to this, as well as the introduction of local (and previously undiscovered) breeds into coverts, most bloodlines have been “contaminated”. There are very few pedigree dragons in the colonies, and many more mixed breeds than there are in Europe.
Layout profile code thanks to ReversesCollide
Outline by our very own vervainwolf! ♥