Pahonu wrote:IvanTheTerrible wrote:Grant was from Ohio, Lee was from Virginia. Lee supported/led the side that he was from. I doubt someone from the South would fight on the Union side, and certainly not lead them. I'm sure he felt he was fighting on the right side and for him his cause was a just cause. We're looking at this through modern-day glasses and using words like treason and secession. I'm sure these things weren't as clean-cut back then. We were still a very young nation at the time. Who was the North to dictate to the South what they should do?
Sectionalism was indeed paramount in the 19th century. However, many individuals crossed sides in both directions, even within individual families as is well documented. Also, several slave-holding states remained in the Union, including Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, and Delaware. West Virginia seceded from Virginia to remain in the Union. This was just not as simple as "siding" with your state. The issue of slavery was central to these decisions.
Lincoln's election as a Republican, the party founded based on the abolition movement, was the pivotal event leading to South Carolina's secession. Lincoln was fairly elected by all voters in 1860. It's a fascinating election to study, with four candidates gathering at a minimum 10% of the popular vote, and all four carrying at least one state in the electoral college. Lincoln won with just about 40% of the popular vote, but a clear majority in the electoral college. The slave-holding states essentially split there votes among the remaining three candidates, with Missouri even voting for the Northern Democrat Stephen Douglas. No matter how unique this election was, it was in no way a dictate by the northern states.
Nice, foundational insight into the period. However, there are things that may need context.
Another poster noted the about secessionism and the period vs. today, and also democracy in action. I suspected the inevitable "Representative Republic vs. Democracy" clarification, but it has to be emphasized how huge that is and was from the earliest days of the nation until now. People elect representatives to represent, but the lack of desired results by a given representative can cause real frustration in an electorate.
The "taxation without representation" mantra in the Revolutionary War was a perspective very much still instilled in most citizens in the mid-1800's. If the national policies, whether by legislation, administration, or the courts, were contrary to the health and/or prosperity of the citizens, they would not sit idly by. They sought (and fought for) active and productive representation. The southerners' term "war of northern aggression" is more than just a saying, it is a context for the dominant perspective of the time. The preceived lack of representation was tantamount to governmental coercion. And, in most areas of the south, and also now including many of the fly-over states, this is still a predominant perspective on modern government too!
The reality of the end of the Civil War is that the south capitulated, but never
fully surrendered. They were not truly defeated. A defeated adversary complies and evolves (like Germany and Japan after WWII), which did not fully happen to the south after the Civil War.
And, threats of secession are still prevalent today. California, Oklahoma, Texas, and many of the "fly-over" states have had referendums on it. Though none have had sufficient support to approach a serious possibility of passage, it's still been an ongoing thing.
A modern Civil War would be an unimaginable horror, and there would likely be no true winner (like most wars). However, the seeds of division have been germinated and are being watered and fertilized almost daily. The Kavanaugh hearings and protests this week alone highlight this to be true...
