For each question, answer the question completely using proper English and make sure to proofread! You must also respond to at least one other student post to receive full credit.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Chapter Two-Killing: "The Hardest Courage"
How did both the North and South justify killing during the Civil War? Of the two sides, whose justification do you agree with more? WHY?
While trying to justify killing, both the North and South appealed to the fact that they can kill, "when lawful war calls for the slaying of our country's foes."(pg.33). The South tried to find justness in the war through self-defense. They used the North's invasion in their favor. Southerners also thought of having God on their side. The Northerners also claimed to have God on their side during this conflict. In the North, soldiers were fighting to, "save a nation that 'represented the last best hope of Earth.'"(pg.33). Of course, in the North, the people thought slavery was a sin. Northerners used this sin as a, "religious justification for the use of violence."(pg.34). Both the North and South felt it was their duty to kill during the war. Their duty would justify the actions that they take. I agree with the North's justification. Northerners were just trying to hold together a great nation. They used their beliefs and their morals to justify why they were saving these United States.
Hi Jamie, I am going to play the devil's advocate here. From a Southern point of view, if slavery was to abruptly end, the southern economy would have crashed. With the North's moral attack upon slavery(in part because their economy did not depend upon it), was the South merely trying to defend its way of life?
Jamie, you make a good point in that the North was trying to hold together a great nation, and I do not necessarily agree with the South's justification; however, I do think the South had every right to attempt to secede from the Union, and were able to justify killing in order to do so. Our nation was founded on the ideal that if the people of a country feel that their government can no longer serve their needs, they should revolt or become independent. Southerners had beliefs that the Union did not agree with, and needs that the Union would not meet, so they decided to secede in order to preserve their way of life. This is what the United States did when we gained our independence from Great Britain in the Revolutionary War. Lincoln's administration set a sort of double-standard in that our nation was allowed to secede from Great Britain, but the South was not allowed to secede from the Union. Was Lincoln wrong in keeping the South from seceding, even though we are such a strong and powerful nation today because he did?
The South justified killing by “appealing to self-defense against invasion,” (p. 33) “… invoked … notion of divine sanction for a holy war,” (p.33) and as Mr. Santaniello said, “to defend its way of life.” The North’s justification included a holy war, slavery, to keep a nation together/”save the last best hope on earth,” (p.33) and “our lives are in danger by a gang of men aposed to the best government of earth.” (p.33) These justifications allowed the soldiers to fulfill their duty of killing during the war. I don’t agree with one side more than the other. Slavery was believed to be a sin, and something most people today and Northerners then believed. I think it was an honorable notion trying to keep a great nation together, although that decision counteracts “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” (Declaration of Independence) However, I do also agree with the South’s reason of trying to defend their way of life. Without slaves, Southerner’s would have no one to work their farms and plantations. Ultimately, though, I agree with the North more because I think slavery is a more righteous cause than defending a way of life; the North did help the South reconstruct in the end, and they seem to have adapted to a new/varied way of life.
Killing directly disobeyed the ten commandments. So to mentally justify the act of killing, both sides of the Civil War came up with their reasons. "The Confederate babtists insisted that men were exempt from the commandment when lawful war calls for the slaying of our country's foes." The true cause for Southern justification was to protect slavery. If slavery was outlawed, the South would be much poorer and many people would lose a lot of money. Southerers lived luxurious lifestyles because of slavery and they wanted to keep it that way. The North explained that they fought to protect the "best" government in the world. Also, the Northern cause of emancipation emerged in 1862. The Northern Church inquired "when war and killing are acceptable and concluding that the goal of overturning the wrong of slavery made the conflict a righteous one and its carnage justifiable." Slavery was definitly an important justification but I think the real reason was to hold the Union together. They wanted the USA to become the most powerful and prosperous nation in the world so they fought for it. I agree with the Northern justification of killing because they were fighting to save a nation. The nation they were saving were the slaves. I also agree with the Northern cause because they fought to hold the Union. If the Union was not held together many future wars would ignite between the Confederates and the Union.
Both of the North and Souths’ reasons for killing during the Civil War seemed more like morphed excuses than actual justification for killing each other. Both sides excused, or justified their actions by claiming God was on their side the South, “invoked as well as the notion of divine sanction for a holy war in which they served as Confederate crusaders,”(pg.33) and the North, “increasingly cited the sin of slavery as religious justification for the use of violence.”(pg.33-34) In addition the South, “most often appealed to self-defense against invasion.”(pg.33) To me it sounds like both sides were creating excuses to lighten the wrong they felt in killing. Although both sides’ justification seemed weak, I find the most justification for fighting from the North. I agree with their reasons because they were fighting to preserve the nation, and fought against slavery. I believe the South never should have succeeded as the issue seemed more political than of the government not meeting southerner’s needs, and fighting against slavery seems to justify itself.
Response to Abbey You make a good point. The North and the South had different morals - in the south there was slavery. The south may have been trying to preserve their way of life, and as Mr. Santaniello said, their economy depends on slavery. However, by seceding, they would ruin our nation. The North and South depend on each other to survive. During the war, the South suffered greatly because of the fact that they had a poor railroad system. Had Lincoln let the South sedede, life then, and life now would be completely different. I think they were trying to preserve their way of life, but that does not necessarily mean their way of life should be preserved.
Response to Abbey: No, Lincoln was not wrong in keeping the South from seceding because as you said, “we are such a strong and powerful nation today.” His decision obviously isn’t wrong if today we are so successful. Not only was Lincoln correct looking at his decision now, but was also correct when he first made it. The first confederate states seceded shortly after Lincoln’s election, and the power shift of slave states to free states in Congress. True, southerner’s needs would no longer be met as easy by the new representatives, but I think they should have solved the issue politically versus your idea of secession. If every time two different groups of people divided when they lacked a common idea there would be too many different groups. In my opinion losing a election and disagreeing are no reasons to secede from a nation.
Response to Ben: I agree that there were alternative ways to solve the problem, and I am grateful that Lincoln did not allow the South to secede, but looking at the issue through a different perspective can allow us to better understand why the South seceded. I don't necessarily think Lincoln was wrong, but through the eyes of a Southerner back then, it is easy to see how he might have been. You said, "I think they should have solved the issue politically versus your idea of secession." Bringing this back to the Revolutionary War, do you think our issues with England could have been solved politically, or were we right to secede? Is this different from what the South tried to do?
Response to Abbey: No, I do not think our issues with England could have been solved politically because no representatives were allowed in Parliament to express American’s ideas, so in this case secession was correct. I think that this situation differs from the South’s secession because their views and opinions were not being neglected in a democracy like America. That is why in my opinion the two situations differ, allowing secession in only the one case.
Killing by both the North and the South was completely against all that God ever spoke of. The killings were never justified by either side as both sides believed their killings were called by God therefore making them okay. As stated on pg. 33 killing was not merely tolerated but required in God's service this was the belief of both.I believe that both sides continued to make excuses as to why they killed and to why they wanted to preserve a nation and to fight slavery. The South would be a much poorer nation without the slaves. I agree with North ways to preserve the nation cause I don't believe in slavery. I too agree with Lincoln not letting the South secede.
Both the North and the South had justifications as to why they accepted so much killing during the time of war. I believe the South was fighting to finally be their own country. They had every right to fight when the North invaded because to them, they were fighting for the land they believed was theirs. The South was fighting to keep slavery. Although slavery is horrible, slavery was an essential to the South’s economy. Without slavery, southern states would have suffered immensely. The North fought to keep together the nation that was falling apart. They also justified that they were fighting to totally abolish slavery. The North’s justification, I believe, is more reasonable. I agree with the North in that keeping the nation together and getting rid of slavery was the best way to keep our nation growing. Both sides have good reasons as to why they were fighting and killing thousands of people per battle. However, I agree with the North and its reason to keep the Union together, while finally abolishing slavery.
In response to Abbey: I agree with your justification as to why the South was fighting and as to why they wanted to secede. However, I do not agree with your statement in that Lincoln set a double standard. When we fought against Great Britain our country was together as one and fighting for freedom against the tyrants of Britain. During the Civil War, the South was fighting for different reasons. I believe Lincoln was right in not letting them secede. Yes, they wanted to be free but our government is different the Britain’s. How can they have a legitimate excuse to secede when Lincoln’s government is based on democracy?
Both the North and South had a very good reason for killing. In the Civil War, men died and killed for what they believed was right. The South as Rachel said was trying to be their own country and to break away from the government. The North was fighting for religion or their God and also for the rights of other races. In picking a side for what we think is right, I think that depends what side you hear more about. For example, I hear more about the North so that is the side I agree was doing the right thing. But, I have just watched a movie that is not historically true but it gives you a good feeling for what the South was going through during the Civil War. It made me rethink why I believe the North was doing right. What I gathered from the movie was that the men in the South, thought of the war as a kind of game, not knowing what would come of it. In the North I am lead to believe it was the same way. In the movie, Cold Mountain, after a couple of years in the war, men were finished, they no longer wanted to fight and kill. Some didn't even believe in the cause of what they were fighting for. They were just doing it to show manly-hood. In the film, the main character runs away from the war to go home, but hates himself for killing men much like himself. He doesn't forgive himself and regrets joining the war. He was one of the men that was "never quite the same agian after seeing fields of slaughtered bodies destroyed by men just like themselves."[pg.60] But I still agree with the North's reason for fighting. I think we may have found a more non-violent way to solve the problem, but we abolished slavery and now everyone is equal.
Obviously, both the South and the North labeled killing not as ending the life of another human being, but rather defending your own lifestyle from being taken away. The South specifically defined their lifestyle to be based upon the use of slaves to succeed in both a local and global economy whereas the North specifically defined their lifestyle to be based on following the requests of their God as being of higher significance than any bit of the economy and whatnot. I think both sides of the argument present a arguable subject. If it is killing that defends an entire nation’s lifestyle and beliefs, then that’s a good enough reason to kill for me. I think that both sides have the same argument (which is to defend their lifestyle), so, to me, neither one stands out to be more justifiable on a global scale. It really comes down to opinion and which lifestyle I agree with more. I would have go with the North. However, I don’t think killing is quite the way that the Christian’s God would have wanted to be defended, so I’m not sure I agree with that lifestyle. The one thing I do strongly oppose is the defense of slavery. I am against slavery 100%, so there’s no way I would go with the South.
I agree with cameron that the north and the south killed to defend their life style but also for biblical reasons. The men had reasons to kill because most men were afraid of the 6th commandment which states it's a sin to kill another human."the most....blasphemous thing perhaps on earth"(pg.33)So the men had to some how get over the fear. One man wrote"When we are attacked and our lives our in danger by a gang of men aposed to the best government on earth i shall fight."(pg.33) One other thing that provoked violence for the north is that they believed slavery was a sin. I would side with the north because i believe they had a better life style to defend than the south.
In response to Rachel I agree with Rachel in that the South was trying to defend the land that they believed was theirs and that they wanted to break away from the government and be their own country. The North was fighting to abolish slavery and to be a great nation. I too agree that the North had a better defense than the South.
In the North, the people simply wanted to be rid of slavery and keep the nation together. In the South, thier justification made sense as well. They were defending themselves and their lifstyle. Both were killing for what they beleived in. Of course I believe that the North had a better justification than the South to kill. They knew that slavery was wrong and needed to be ended without the division of the country. Both sides used their moral beliefs and religon to justify what they were fighting for. And both sides felt that was a good enough reason to fight for what they thought was right.
I agree completly with your response that both sides were fighting in order to protect and substain their lifestyles. The North and South believed that they had the justification through their religon because the people on the other side were doing wrong, and needed to be stopped. And, Christians in that time obviously didn't understand that God says their is no justification for killing. Of corse slavery is wrong but does that mean we should take a person's life during war to fight against it? It gets complicateed and that's when the soldiers look to their morals to know what is right.
The North and the South both had beliefs on how things should be ran in America. The South justified their fighting with their right to own slaves. The South believed that slaves weren't even considered men there for the statement "every man is free" didn't apply to the blacks, so in their opinion it was just fine to have slaves. The South was pretty much ran by slave owners and the slaves did all the work with out being payed to do all the work. If the slave owners had to start paying their workers the South would become poor. By the South having slaves they were able to keep their money but still have all the labor they needed. However when a law can be enforced that states every slave is free, war is created and fighting is just fine in their opinion. The North believed that slavery was a sin and should not be allowed in the land of the free anymore. This act of sin was North's way of justifying their fighting with the South. Yes the North was right slavery was/ is a horrible thing. When a person is enslaved they lose all their rights and dignity. Slaves were treated like dirt they were spat on by their owners. How could any god want this? If the South was really made up of a Christians then they should have seen how wrong this was. It is not OK to enslave a person to treat any person on the earth like they are lower than them. If you were treated like you were nothing I'm positive you would not put up with it why should they have to?
The North and South both had their own separate justifications for killing; their reasons were to stand up for what they believe in. And that is what started the Civil War in the first place. At first, killing was to preserve their beliefs about slavery. Without killing, the nation wouldn't have truly expressed what they thought was right. Then, after the killing of both sides occurred more than expected, there was no choice but to keep fighting. As a result, both sides killed for defense. The North wanted to defend the slaves and keep the nation united. On the other hand, the South wanted to oppose [the slaves] and defend the idea of slavery. With these strong opinions, killing was the only thing to do. In addition, the North and South wanted to defend themselves as well. One could not let the other execute them without a fight.
Both the North and the South must have had strong feelings toward the other side in order to justify killing them. When it sank in that the soldiers were not playing a game or simply harming the other side but actually taking the only life the soldiers would ever have, they would have asked themselves whether or not their actions were moral. The North justified the war by saying that it was for the purpose of saving the Union, ending slavery, and preventing future wars with the new nation that was the Confederate States of America. The South, on the other hand, was fighting to protect their economy that relied on slavery, to keep the nation that they had worked hard to form, and in self-defense from their northern enemies. I don't really think that their motives were all that different, as both were fighting to protect their nation, and I think that the only reason soldiers chose one side over another was based off of where they lived and where their allegiance was owed. I do, however, think that I agree more with the South because they did not have any choice but to fight. The North could have let the South become their own seperate country and perhaps come back in time, but once the North had made their decision, it was fight or flight for the South. The Union was not being directly threatened by the Confederacy, but once they decided to fight, they were on Southern land and Confederates would have had no other choice other than to surrender immediately.
I agree that the North was well-justified to fight to keep the Union together. However, I do not think that this would have accomplished their purpose. After all, if you had just seceded and your homeland was being invaded and destroyed by the nation you were running away from, you probably would not want to go running back and join back up with them. The South was more justified because they were trying to keep themselves seperate, so fighting was the best option. Fighting for peace is an oxymoron, and that is what the North was trying to do.
Killing violated the Ten Commandments; both the North and the South agreed on this point. A recruit from Texas stated that "fighting in battle seemed 'the most... blasphemous thing perhaps on earth'" In this statement, he clearly expresses his opinion on the matters of killing people in battles - it was wrong. Many men shot their guns into the oncoming enemy because they saw their comrades fall, and a natural instinct of revenge took over; before they knew it, they had begun killing people in an attempted effort to stay alive, and to avenge the fallen. But by killing other men, most of them just like themselves, many soldiers felt that the "devastation they had created and survived" left part of them feeling empty or unwhole, even if they could justify their reasons for killing. Both North and South had ways of justifying the killing that they did. The North justified their actions saying that the South had seceded from the country. By seceding, the North was left without a huge part of their economy. They also "fought to save a nation that represented 'the last best hope on earth.'" The South justified their actions by saying that they were defending their country. Be that as it may, their country had once been the North's country as well - the North was trying to get it back. Besides that reason, they also acted as "Confederate crusaders": "they invoked... the notion of divine sanction for a holy war." Some men didn't have to justify their killing, as they did no killing. Twenty-four thousand loaded rifles were discovered on the feild of Gettysburg, some time after the battle. About half of the rifles had more than one load. "'Most of these discarded weapons on the battlefield at Gettysburg represent soldiers who had been unable or unwilling to fire their weapons in the midst of combat and then had been killed, wounded, or routed.'" Some men just didn't want to kill. I agree most with the North's justification for killing. They wanted their country to be whole again, but if that meant that it was short a few traitors, and enemies of the US, then that was OK with them. I don't like the South's justification that they were fighting a "holy war" and that they should have God's support when it was because of them that the whole war started anyway. Their justifications just don't work. The North's justifications work because they had a cause worth fighting for.
I don't fully agree with your answer that the North was fighting just for the ending of slavery. While I do agree with you that the North had better justifications, i don't agree that the South didn't have good justifications either. They were different because they had a different culture, and that culture said that slavery was okay. But the whole war wasn't over slavery. It was also about bringing the South back into the US, restoring their governments, mending the relationship between North and South, and making the country whole again.
Both the South and the North felt that they did have the right to kill the opposing army. Throughout the chapter it constantly repeated on how the soldiers felt they had disobeyed God in killing someone because of the "sixth commandmant" of the ten commandments.(pg 334.) On both sides they justified the killing because of the ,"confederate baptist insisted taht men were exempt from the comandment not to kill "when lawful war calls for the slaying of our country's foes." Also later in the chapter many soldiers were angered by their fallen commrades in return acted like mad men not afraid to kill. Their justification to be in the war and to kill were very simple. The South were upset by the North's attempt to end slavery which would depleat their economy. This was the main reason the South left the Union. The North, much like Great Britian in the revolutionary war, needed to South to become one of the strongest nations in the world. These two disagreements and someother escalated into a bloody civil war. What if the South had one the war? Would you agree with their justification more? Of course I will side with the North because I believe that slavery was wrong and the South was wrong to do it. But, what if the south had one. I believe many of us would side with the South thinking the North was crazy to try to bring us back. Which side did you side with during the revolutionary war when something simular happened, but for different reasons?
Northern and Southern soldiers believed killing was blasphemy, yet they killed anyway. The North felt it was their duty to save their country and stop the South from becoming their own country. They also wanted to stop slavery, for they believed it was a sin. The North had "religious justification for violence" (pg. 34), or so they thought. Those two justifications go hand in hand because if the South became independent, they would still have slavery. The South justified the killing with a self-defense excuse: "self-defense against invasion" (pg. 33). But for both sides killing was justifiable by religion. According to many religious publications and sermons about "just war", killing was "required in God's service" (pg. 33). Apparently, just war doctrines made soldiers exempt from the Sixth Commandment "when lawful war calls for the slaying of our country's foes." I do not agree with that statement, as no one should be exempt from any commandment. But I do agree with the North's justification more because it was very important to save our country. Where would we be now if the nation had divided and we were no longer the 50 states? Or The United States of America? It would be a whole lot different, and not a lot of good.
Response to Alfredo: I agree with everything you said except: "I would side with the north because i believe they had a better life style to defend than the south." I do agree with the North, but not for that reason. The Southeners had a lifestyle they were defending primarily as their justification for war: slavery. We may not agree with that, but it was their lifestyle. Also, I don't believe that the North was really defending a lifestyle, but they were defending a country.
I do not believe that the soldiers justified them selves by pretending that they were Native Americans. It must also be taken into account that though we in today’s day and age have been taught that everyone is a human being and that it doesn’t matter what your skin color is, they were not taught this. The soldiers in the civil war had grown up believing that the Native Americans were worse than slaves. The soldiers used justifications such as that God was on their side, or that the slaves needed to be freed and the only way to do so was to fight the other side.[33 and 34]
The men in the Civil War were fighting to defend their lifestyles and rights. The problem had escalated so far that the only way to do this was to go to war. Dying was one matter as the author shows that the soldiers felt that they were Christ like. “Dying exemplified Christian devotion, as Jesus had demonstrated on the cross”. [33] In this way, the soldiers had only to over come the physical fear of dying. Killing on the other hand, forced men to overcome a spiritual bump. The believed that killing was unforgivable and that they would endure an eternity of hell for it. They therefore found justifications for killing such as that God was on their side as both the north and the south believed. The men also claimed that duty and self defense drove them to destroying men’s lives. “Duty and self-defense released him from and initial sense of guilt and helped him to do the work of a soldier”. [35]
Though both sides had their justifications, I can sympathize with them both. In today’s society, we are taught that the north was right, and though I know that they were because of the brutality shown to the slaves, could that be because that was the way that I was brought up. The southern men were brought up to believe that slaves were animals and nothing more, these men were fighting for what they thought was right just as much as the northerners were doing. The justifications in essence were all the same.
In the Civil War, the South justified killing by saying that it was to protect them from an attack. The North, however, justified killing by claiming they were saving the world. A Union soldier states, "When we are attacked and our lives ar in danger by a gang of men opposed to the best government on Earth I shall fight." (pg. 33). This statement shows the passion behind the beliefs of the North. The Union soldiers believed that it was an unforgivable sin to kill, and still, every soldier took on his responsibility to protect their beliefs. The South also believed killing was forbidden by God as one soldier states that the idea of killing was, "'the most... blasphemous thing perhaps on Earth.'" (pg. 33). Although I agree with the religious beliefs of both sides, I will side with the North because of their view for the common good. The South was only looking at the effects that would hurt their way of life while the North looked at how the events would effect the future and the entire country. Therefore, I agree with the North's justification for killing.
I agree with you that the North had a better defense than the South. From pages 44-60 it basically informs us of how the South moved their attention from Yankee's as a whole, too African-American Yankee's. "White Southenors feared and detested African-American troops" (44). Southern soldiers victimized Black Yankee's. Basically it seemed as if the focus of the war shifted to the focus of African-American soldiers, which basically gave the Yankee's a leading edge on the South too "use invasion on their side," as Jamie B. said.
During the Civil War both the North and South justified their actions for killing and taking thousands of lives. The South fought with the justification that they were protecting their home land and their way of life. They were defending their territory from the Northern invasion. To them the Civil War seemed self defense. The North used the justification that they were holding the Nation together and stopping the sin of slavery. Both sides claimed God to their side and their cause to fight, the South believing they were Confederate Crusaders in a holy war and the North believing they were defending the last best hope on Earth. “I am apposed to one man killing another,” a Union soldier wrote to “Friends at Home,” but he continued, “When we are attacked and our lives are in danger by a gang of men apposed to the best government on earth I shall fight (33).” This justification was of great importance to each side because it went against their religious beliefs and they needed a reason to believe God wouldn’t punish them for the violent and killing they committed. I believe the North had a better justification to abolish slavery and keep our Nation together. If the North didn’t succeed the outcome of the United States wouldn’t have occurred and the World would be dramatically different. It is only when our country is united and strong when we made our great accomplishments.
I agree with Evan L. that each side believed they had a right to kill the opposing side. The main reasons of justification such as ending slavery and keeping the nation together for the North and defending their land as the South’s justification were not the only reasons that they fought. The fighting was building and growing off itself. The more they fought the more they wanted to fight and their reasons grew. The men wanted to avenge their fallen friends and comrades and as more died their justification grew. The War and conflict was fueling itself. Each side even preached and interpreted the bible to their own cause to inspire their side of the War and their soldiers.
The Northerner's justification for killing was by invasion and by trying to keep a great nation together and to end slavery. The South's justification was killing by “appealing to self-defense against invasion.” (p. 33) The South used self-defense as a way to protect their way of life and their freedom. The North found killing an unforgivable sin, however to protect the well being of a successful country they fought on. The South took a more religious approach to killing, believing that God was completely against killing and that it was the worst action on Earth. I tend to lean more towards the North's side because they were once again trying to keep a strong country together and only eliminate it's flaws, such as slavery. WIthout the North's determination, our world would be very different today and that's not exactly a very good thing. So, because the North had seemingly better morals and goals to help the United States, they had better justification for killing.
In response to Evan: I totally agree with you I had the wrong impression about this question. Pretending to be an Indian didn't justify killing, though it might have made an impact or the author wouldn't have out it in the book. I agree with your statement, "throughout the book they felt awful after they killed someone", as I'm sure they did. I was merely pointing out that acting like savages could have been "the spoonful of sugar that helped the medicine go down". Thank you for your feedback.
Both sides used the justification of killing by claiming God to their side during the Civil War. They used this justification so they would not think that they were going against the 6th Commandment. Both sides thought that they were right. The North thought that they were better while the South thought the opposite. Although both sides used this justification, they also used other justifications. The North thought that killing was okay since they were fighting the sin of slavery. “…the goal of overturning the wrong of slavery made the conflict a righteous one and its carnage justifiable.” (pg.34). The South justified killing by saying, “appealed to self-defense against invasion,” (pg. 33). I agree more with the South’s justification. The North’s justification is like fighting fire with fire. They sinned by killing to stop the sin of slavery. Although the North thought that they were protecting the nation, the South was not ready to put an abrupt end to slavery.
I agree with the justifications you stated with the North wanting to keep a great nation together and the South using self-defense. However, the South was using this justification to protect their selves. The South didn’t know life without slavery, so they didn’t know what would happen if slavery were to end. Nobody knows what would’ve happened if the North and South did not fight, but most likely it would be very different and bad. Although the war was very sad for everyone, it gave a chance for the South to first start getting used to life without slaves and it allowed the country to be whole again.
During the Civil War the Union and Confederate sides both claimed it was ok to kill because god was on their side. Many churches and “religious publications North and South invoked and explored the traditional “just war” doctrine, emphasizing that killing was not merely tolerated but required in God’s service.” [pg. 33] Besides the “just war doctrine,” the Confederates focused largely that the killing was ok because it was in self-defense. They viewed that since the Northerners were invading them, it was ok to kill. On the Union side, they believed that it was ok because they were fighting for the end of slavery in the South. In their view, slavery was a sin. Of the two sides, I believe in the justification of killing in the North and South equally. In the North’s perspective, they had to invade the Confederates. Innocent slaves were killed and beaten on a daily basis. In the South’s perspective, the north was invading their homeland. They had to kill in self defense.
In response to Cameron W.: I agree with Cameron in his statement saying that both sides had the same right to kill. As he said, both sides were defending their morals and culture. The morals, being the Confederates’ slavery and the Unions’ anti – slavery. I also agree with Cameron and his statement, “I think that both sides have the same argument (which is to defend their lifestyle), so, to me, neither one stands out to be more justifiable on a global scale. It really comes down to opinion and which lifestyle I agree with more.” Both sides had their opinion on killing; it just depends on the person’s interpretation and values on what side they agree with.
During the civil war, the north and south each had close to the same reasons for justifying the killing they did, both of their reasons were that they had god on their side and if god was on their side they can kill for what they believe in. the north and south differed in their beliefs in that the north believed that because the south was threatening the union and thus became enemies of the nation so it justified the killing of the southerners. the south justified the killing of the northerners by saying that the north was invading their way of life and their land so the south decided to take the land for themselves and to do that they thought killing them and pushing them out was the only way and thats how they justified their killing of the northerners. Of the norths and the souths reasons for fighting i agree mostly with the norths reasons because, the south was fighting the north and they had to fight back or risk losing half of the country, and that half of the country was very important because thats were most of the cotton and other clothing materials plantations were.
That is a very interesting point you bring up and I do somewhat agree with it. You said: "Although the war was very sad for everyone, it gave a chance for the South to first start getting used to life without slaves and it allowed the country to be whole again." I do agree that it allowed the country to be whole again. However, if the idea of slavery had not been brought with South when they emigrated from England, then the war might have not occurred. Yes, this is a large point to make and somewhat vague, but it does show the mistake that the United States made by even bringing slavery into the states. I thought you made a great point that I hadn't even thought of.
"Sermons and religious publications North and South invoked and explored the traditional, 'just war' doctrine, emphasizing that killing was not merely tolerated but required in God's service." This quote on page 33 pretty much is how people in the north and the south justified killing during the Civil War. In the Confederacy, the Confederate Baptist said that the men were "exempt from the commandment not to kill" when the war called for killing the country's foes (33). Southerners often claimed self defense and "invoked as well the notion of divine sanction for a holy war (33)." For both North and South alike, vengeance played a huge role in legitimating violence (35). Both sides came to hate their opponent, as Hugh McLees states on page 36, "I saw some nasty blue Yankees in the cars at Atlanta, and as I looked at our poor Boys there with their grisly wounds and some of them cold in death I could much more easily have taken a dagger and said to them see there what a carnival of blood you have made and as you love it take still more that of your own hearts take that with what you have already drunk I could more easily have done that than I could act toward them in the part that I know a truly brave magnanimous man must ever act toward a foe in his power and unarmed. May God give me grace to live a Christian." This shows one man's hate for the opposing side, and I'm sure everyone else felt the same way. Also, as said by Confederate artillery officer Osmun Latrobe, “ I rode over the battlefield , and enjoyed the sight of hundreds of dead Yankees.” By killing Yankees, he found a sense of accomplishment and “a successful execution of his duties as s soldier (37).” Another Southerner named Frank Coker said, “there is an excitement, a charm, an inspiration in it that makes one wish to be where is it going on (38).” Much like any other war, both sides gave the other side a nickname, the South were the Rebels and the North were the Yankees. By giving the opponent a nickname, it makes it a little less difficult to admit that they are killing Yankees or Rebels, rather than a living breathing human being with a family and people who love him. Another example of giving, to the Union is this case, a nickname is, the confederates called snipers or sharp shooters, “snakes in the grass (42).” On a smaller scale, soldiers tried to legitimize killing their opponent by making excuses. In the case of Andre Cailloux, a black soldier, the Confederates believed that he should not only be killed, but dishonored for taking up arms against a “superior race” (50). In another incident, The Confederacy declared, “Our officers of negro regiments declare they will take no more prisoners--& there is death to the rebel in every black man’s eyes. They are still but terrible. They will fight… The negroes know what they are doing (53).” This is one of the ways the Confederates legitimized killing black soldiers. One Southern newspaper observed, “The feelings of a soldier walking over his first battle-field and over his second, are widely different.” Men reported that they felt calloused, hardened or numbed (58). Elijah Petty of the South explained to his wife that they do as they are commanded and don’t get their emotions involved (59). As stated on the last page of this chapter, the Confederacy issued a notice to all soldiers warning them that with all of the death and battles that they see daily, they can get accustomed to it. It was a warning against recklessness and indifference. Those were the excuses that the South had for killing. continued...
...The Northerners, on the other hand, said that God was on their side (33). They justified their actions by saying that they deserved to be punished for the sin of slavery (34). Also, like in Edwin Spofford’s case, a man was shot and killed standing right next to him, so Edwin instinctively pulled the trigger and killed the shooter. He reported, “I felt bad at first when I saw what I had done, but it soon passed off, and as I had done my duty and was not the aggressor, I was soon able to fire again.” His response was powered by the “motive of revenge,” and, “to kill came almost as a reflex (35).” Oliver Norton on page 36 confessed that, “ uppermost in my mind was a desire to kill as many rebels as I could,” after his fellow soldiers were shot and killed by confederate fire. Sergeant William Henry Redman said that he would kill every Rebel that entered northern soil because they are the ones who invaded and they should pay the penalty (37). On the same page, John W. De Forest said that it is exciting and is the joy of battle to fire at someone who is firing at you. It seems that to take the pressure away from killing, Northerners made it a game to kill the opponent. Perhaps since killing is just pulling the trigger, and the soldiers were already withdrawn from feeling sad for the dead, they found it easy to kill millions of opposing men, as stated by H. C. Matrau, “we learn the art of killing far easier than we do a hard problem in arithmetic (38).” The news of Fort Pillow made soldiers of the North want revenge. They would not stop fighting , “until they shall have made a rebel bite the dust for every hair of those… of our brethren massacred at Fort Pillow… give no quarter; take no prisoners… then, they will respect your manhood (53).” Killing for black soldiers in the north was for freedom, liberty, personal empowerment, human rights and no more discrimination based on race (55). Private Wilbur Fisk sarcastically though truthfully said, “The more we get used to being killed, the better we like it (59).” All signs of emotion or feeling or even so much as personality disappeared in soldiers, so they could kill and be killed without the blink of an eye. Those were the justifications for the North. Over all, the South used self defense as justification and the North used God for justification. I found three statements that pretty much sum up the justification for killing of both sides. 1) “By replacing their own identities with those of men they regarded as savages, they redefined their relationship both to violence and to their prewar selves (37).” 2) “Do all you can and be a machine—that’s the way to act; the only way (59). 3) “Killing was the essence of war (60).” Of the two sides, I have to agree more with the Union. Their cause was the better one, they were fighting for freedom for everyone. Slavery is a sin, and it is possible the confederacy lost because that was their punishment for the slavery. I don’t believe anyone is at a higher level or a more “superior race” and neither did the north; therefore, I agree with their justification more.
The North and South both justified as to why there was so much killing in the war. The North wanted to keep the Union together while abolishing slavery. They also wanted to keep the crippling country together. Therefor the North went into the south fighting on land they believed was theirs. I also believe that the South wanted to become their own country. That way slavery would still be allowed, even though it it awful, but without it their economy would cripple. So when the north came onto "their" land it made sense for them to fight. Therefor I agree with the Norths justification more than the South. I believe that slavery was and is wrong, also the North wanted to help keep the Union together. If the South had won the war, then we would be living in a much different world. The Northerners had good morals, beliefs, and just wanted what was best for everyone.
I agree with all of your points. When you stated that the Union "wanted the USA to become the most powerful and prosperous nation in the world so they fought for it." I believe that is a true justification of what they wanted to do. If slavery was part of the lives of all Americans, then it would be going against what America was built upon, freedom. The Nation would then not prosper and grow. Therefor the North was killing to save, what they believed could be a great nation.
There were obvious reasons during the Civil War of how the North and South justified Killing. For the North their main goal was to keep the Union together. So they saw their killing as a way to save their country. Clearly each soldier coped with the killing differently but for the most part they probably looked at it as if they don’t kill the country they know and love would fall apart. The South’s main goal was to gain their freedom from the North. The soldiers were fighting for something they truly believed in. Since the South was desperate to have slavery which was a big part of why they were fighting I think the south’s point of view was they had more to lose than the south. But both the North and the South believed they were dying honorably for something worth fighting for.
Both sides justified the war in some of the same ways. The South and the North said that God was on their side. The South believed that God would exempt Confederate soldiers of the sixth commandment when "slaying a of a country's foes."(pg. 33) The North believed that the sin of slavery could be defeated by violence. Both also justified the war by saying that they were acting on duty, revenge, and self-defense. The South also fought for their way of life. The North fought for "the last best hope of earth."(pg. 33)Both sides had reasons to fight, and believe that their reason was better.
Both the North and the South use the justification that the war is a holy war and thusly they can kill without breaking the commandment to not kill because God is on their side and murder does not apply to them. The book mentions that the South use the justification of self defense against invasion, but seeing as the South is originally part of the United States I fail to see how they can claim it as invasion. Faust gives an example of a Northerner who justifies his role in the war by the danger the South puts his life in and this can be seen as claming self defense on the North side as well. After the emancipation the North can more easily use slavery as the reason for killing the Southern soldiers. Although all of these reasons justify the war to the people on both sides of the conflict to many of the actual solders it still did not justify killing as Faust proves in this chapter by showing how vast numbers of soldiers did not shoot their guns before dieing or abandoning the guns. I tend to side with the North’s justifications not because in any way were they exempt from the commandment to not kill but because they were trying to keep a nation together verse ripping it apart and also for the main reason thought of today the freeing of the slaves.
Jonah- in response to David White: You do a fine job of showing the two sides justifications for the killing, but what do you think about the killing. Were the Southerners right because their way of life was being threatened or was the North right because the owning of slaves was unacceptable? You could also go on the moral defensive and say neither was right in the least because killing is always wrong and it is never justified. So basically just voice your opinion better.
On page 33, it stats how both the North and the South justified killing through thier christian beliefs. The North was saving thier nation, a nation that they believed in strongly, and they believed it was ok to kill in battles against the South because they believed the slavery is a sin. The South was justifying killing with self-defense against the North nation to try and start thier own nation where they believed it was ok to have slavery and that it wasn't a sin. I agree more with the North on this. They had an established nation, although it wasn't perfect yet, still isn't today, but it still was something. They didn't want to lose the South over a fight like something of slavery. They wanted to keep the South apart of the United States of America and what it was becoming.
The North and the South both justified killing in almost the same sense. The South justified killing by excusing themselves from the sixth commandment in the Bible "when lawful war calls for the slaying of our country's foes," stated on page 33 by a Confederate Baptist. The North had a little bit of a different justification. The North justified killing by noting why they were killing. They justified it becuase they wanted what was best for the country. I agree with North's justification of killing. They were standing up for what they believed was best for the United States, whereas the South was more for just killing their enemies because they disagreed with them.
You asked me to voice my opinion better on which side I agreed with more. I believe that both sides had reasonable justifications for killing, and I don't have a strong opinion on which side had better reasons for fighting. Both sides had reasons that soldiers believed in enough to die for. So I have no real opinion.
When you say “They justified it becuase they wanted what was best for the country,” what exactly are you referring too? I believe that the South had more reasons to fight than simply excusing themselves from the sixth commandment: “Southerners … appealed to self-defense against invasion.” (p. 33) I believe that the South killed for more than just disagreement, too. The South was trying to preserve its way of life through secession and war: the South was heavily reliant on slaves, and without them, their economy would have shriveled. However, I do understand that slavery was not (at least officially) a major reason for war at its onset, but it still played a major role. I do agree with your statement that “The North and the South both justified killing in almost the same sense:” God and religion were both claimed reasons for war.
I see your point that both sides were fighting for what they believed they needed, however, I want to add on to what you said about the South. You said, "the South's point of view was they had more to lose than the South" (i think you meant North). I also think the south thought that if they won the war that they could create a more powerful nation based off of slavery than the North's view of a country based off of freedom. I believe the South felt that being "masters" of slaves and being able to order people around gave them a certain sense of power which filled their heads with the idea of already being powerful. This thought I believe was what powered their minds into believing that they could make a stronger country than the North which was also a main reason for why they were fighting.
Response to Jordan Voegele: You say that “the South’s main goal was to gain their freedom from the north.” I disagree. I think that the South’s goal was more to maintain he freedom that they already had. The Confederate States of America was established several months before any shots were fired just as the the colonies had already established a firm self-government before any military hostilities with the British. Therefore, I think both sides saw “killing as a way to save their country,” or, in the South’s case, defense of their establishment. I also disagree when you say that “the south had more to lose than the north.” The north had an entire half of their country to lose which was a big part of the economy. If the South had won and seceded permanently, the north would have no border with Mexico and less access to major southern ports among other things. Both sides had plenty to lose even though they never directly cited those as reasons to fight.
The southerners justified killing as self-defense. The northerners justified killing by saying they needed to protect what they considered "the best government on earth". I think they are both pretty good justifications, but I think that I agree with the Northerners more. They were both trying to fight for what they believed was right, however, I believe that defending your form of government is more important than self defense. Obviously, if someone is attacking you, you should defend yourself, however, the Northerners weren't really the only ones doing the attacking. Therefore, I believe they have a stronger justification in saying that they had to defend their government. As one Union soldier put it, "I am aposed to one man killing another [but]...when we are attacked and our lives are in danger by a gang of men opposed to the best government in the world I shall fight" This shows that they were against killing, but they were willing to kill for what they believed in, which I think is a very good justification to kill.
I agree with what you said about the south believing they could form a stronger nation based on what they believed in. However, the same could be said about the North. I think both sides fought for what they believed in. The north believed that they could form a stronger nation by getting rid of all slavery. So although the south believed they could make a stronger nation, so did the north. Therefore, I think they both have a pretty good point, but you can't really say that one or the other had more motive to fight.
Both sides in the Civil War often turned to biblical and patriotic reasons for killing. The North believed that its fight to emancipate the slaves was holy and righteous; they both believed they fought for God and country. Northerners thought that the South was rebelling against the “best government on earth” (pg.33). The North fought to keep their nation together. After the battle at Gettysburg Lincoln said, “we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.” Whereas the South believed the North was invading the proposed Confederacy and justified the killing as defending their home and their ideals.
The north and south both had their excuse for killing each other. The north used the evil of slaver to promote their cause, when the south argued self defense from invasion. Also they use the "just war" doctrine, emphasizing that killing was not merely tolerated but required in gods service." as justification for slaying the enemy. both sides did have valid reasons but in my opinion the south's was better. Slavery was bad but they were fighting to protect their life style and their home. The north was just trying to make the southerners take their views.
In response to David Wolf When you say, “…both of their reasons were that they had God on their side and if God was on their side they can kill for what they believe in.” I disagree with you. Just because they had God on their side they were fine with killing people. I think more soldiers would have been prepared to kill then to die if they thought it was acceptable in the eyes of God. However I do agree with your opinion on the different sides justified with killings of the other. The North thought the South was threatening everything in their government. When the South thought the North was trying to control them.
I disagree, the south weren't killing them just because they didn't agree. The were fighting to protect their way of life. The north was invading the south and their purpose was to destroy slavery, a southern tradition. Im not saying that slavery wasn't bad but it was a way of life. The north were fighting to force their way of life on the south.
Taking sides on this paticular subject is difficult because we may not even know all of the information, after all none of us were there to experience the true conflict. But I would say that the North was fighting for the slaves freedom and the South was fighting for their life style. The war wasn't about who disareed with who or what it was deffending the beliefs of how the people should live and what life style was the proper one, but also for the freedom.
The North and South had very different ways of justifying killing during the Civil War. As written on page 33, the North claimed that "when we are attacked and our lives are in danger by a gang of men apposed to the best government on earth [we] shall fight." The North fought to discipline and defend against a country they thought ignorant and wrong. They believed that a country that believed slavery was just must be overthrown to bring about equality.
The South claimed that one could disregard the sin of killing "when lawful war calls for the slaying of our country's foes." The South found that when threatened, one can throw away any moral laws. They felt that the North the aggressor, and thus, a war of defense was warranted, so as to protect the new country of the Confederacy.
As I am a believer in equality and fair treatment of every man or woman, regardless of race, I tend to support the actions of the North. Though the North perhaps was more of an aggressor, to allow the horror of slavery to go on, even beyond the borders of the Union, was unacceptable. Though killing is never a just act, in my opinion, the North had more right to fight. I do not believe either had more or less right to kill, however, for to take another's life should always leave a bit of guilt, no matter how justified it is.
Though the North attacked the newly formed Confederacy, it was not completely for peace. The South was like an illegitimate son running away from home. It stood against everything the North believed in. And, though war is not always the answer, the North had to stop atrocities like slavery. The fastest way to such a goal was conflict. The North acted to stop the South from becoming a monster. The Union had to strike.
In response to Zach L. I think I disagree with you that killing is never justifiable. It’s a hard issue because on the one hand, killing is wrong and evil but on the other hand so is one man owning another man. But to say that killing is never a just act is a little misleading.
They justified killing because each side had a reason to kill. The reason for the South was that it truly came down to kill or be killed. They were about to loose their way of life. They had a system that seemed to be working. The South basically lived off the sweat of the slaves. They couldn't pay people to do the work on these large plantations. For the North their reason was not as strong as the south. Their mind-set was that the south shouldn't be getting away with whatever they want because it could ultimately damage our democracy. The North should have had that war finished in a year with all of their resources but since they were not as strong willed as the south, it dragged out. To long and to bloody. The reason that i agree with more is the south's. Their reason was justified. If somebody was coming into my world telling me that what i did was wrong and not okay, i would fight them. I am not very good with change so thats why i agree with the south.
It all boils down to whether or not the Southern states had a right to secede. The Southerners thought that they did so they justified killing because the United States invaded their new nation and they were just defending themselves. On the other hand the North did not think that the South had a right to secede so they went in to quell the rebellion. I refuse to believe that the Civil War had anything to do about slavery until Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, making the war a “Crusade” by making the Southerners out to be villains and making it seem ok to kill the “sinners” who were slaver owners. I have to side with the South on this one because I don’t believe the Constitution was clear enough on whether or nor states could secede, and I believe that states did have the right to secede. It was all a matter of interpretation.
In response to Sophia: I agree with you about the North's determination. Without their determination to win they could've easily given up because of all of great troubles that came with war. And we would've been a Confederate country to this day if the North had surrendered.
While trying to justify killing, both the North and South appealed to the fact that they can kill, "when lawful war calls for the slaying of our country's foes."(pg.33). The South tried to find justness in the war through self-defense. They used the North's invasion in their favor. Southerners also thought of having God on their side. The Northerners also claimed to have God on their side during this conflict. In the North, soldiers were fighting to, "save a nation that 'represented the last best hope of Earth.'"(pg.33). Of course, in the North, the people thought slavery was a sin. Northerners used this sin as a, "religious justification for the use of violence."(pg.34). Both the North and South felt it was their duty to kill during the war. Their duty would justify the actions that they take. I agree with the North's justification. Northerners were just trying to hold together a great nation. They used their beliefs and their morals to justify why they were saving these United States.
ReplyDeleteHi Jamie, I am going to play the devil's advocate here. From a Southern point of view, if slavery was to abruptly end, the southern economy would have crashed. With the North's moral attack upon slavery(in part because their economy did not depend upon it), was the South merely trying to defend its way of life?
ReplyDeleteJamie, you make a good point in that the North was trying to hold together a great nation, and I do not necessarily agree with the South's justification; however, I do think the South had every right to attempt to secede from the Union, and were able to justify killing in order to do so.
ReplyDeleteOur nation was founded on the ideal that if the people of a country feel that their government can no longer serve their needs, they should revolt or become independent. Southerners had beliefs that the Union did not agree with, and needs that the Union would not meet, so they decided to secede in order to preserve their way of life. This is what the United States did when we gained our independence from Great Britain in the Revolutionary War. Lincoln's administration set a sort of double-standard in that our nation was allowed to secede from Great Britain, but the South was not allowed to secede from the Union. Was Lincoln wrong in keeping the South from seceding, even though we are such a strong and powerful nation today because he did?
The South justified killing by “appealing to self-defense against invasion,” (p. 33) “… invoked … notion of divine sanction for a holy war,” (p.33) and as Mr. Santaniello said, “to defend its way of life.” The North’s justification included a holy war, slavery, to keep a nation together/”save the last best hope on earth,” (p.33) and “our lives are in danger by a gang of men aposed to the best government of earth.” (p.33) These justifications allowed the soldiers to fulfill their duty of killing during the war. I don’t agree with one side more than the other. Slavery was believed to be a sin, and something most people today and Northerners then believed. I think it was an honorable notion trying to keep a great nation together, although that decision counteracts “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” (Declaration of Independence) However, I do also agree with the South’s reason of trying to defend their way of life. Without slaves, Southerner’s would have no one to work their farms and plantations. Ultimately, though, I agree with the North more because I think slavery is a more righteous cause than defending a way of life; the North did help the South reconstruct in the end, and they seem to have adapted to a new/varied way of life.
ReplyDeleteKilling directly disobeyed the ten commandments. So to mentally justify the act of killing, both sides of the Civil War came up with their reasons. "The Confederate babtists insisted that men were exempt from the commandment when lawful war calls for the slaying of our country's foes." The true cause for Southern justification was to protect slavery. If slavery was outlawed, the South would be much poorer and many people would lose a lot of money. Southerers lived luxurious lifestyles because of slavery and they wanted to keep it that way. The North explained that they fought to protect the "best" government in the world. Also, the Northern cause of emancipation emerged in 1862. The Northern Church inquired "when war and killing are acceptable and concluding that the goal of overturning the wrong of slavery made the conflict a righteous one and its carnage justifiable." Slavery was definitly an important justification but I think the real reason was to hold the Union together. They wanted the USA to become the most powerful and prosperous nation in the world so they fought for it. I agree with the Northern justification of killing because they were fighting to save a nation. The nation they were saving were the slaves. I also agree with the Northern cause because they fought to hold the Union. If the Union was not held together many future wars would ignite between the Confederates and the Union.
ReplyDeleteBoth of the North and Souths’ reasons for killing during the Civil War seemed more like morphed excuses than actual justification for killing each other. Both sides excused, or justified their actions by claiming God was on their side the South, “invoked as well as the notion of divine sanction for a holy war in which they served as Confederate crusaders,”(pg.33) and the North, “increasingly cited the sin of slavery as religious justification for the use of violence.”(pg.33-34) In addition the South, “most often appealed to self-defense against invasion.”(pg.33) To me it sounds like both sides were creating excuses to lighten the wrong they felt in killing. Although both sides’ justification seemed weak, I find the most justification for fighting from the North. I agree with their reasons because they were fighting to preserve the nation, and fought against slavery. I believe the South never should have succeeded as the issue seemed more political than of the government not meeting southerner’s needs, and fighting against slavery seems to justify itself.
ReplyDeleteResponse to Abbey
ReplyDeleteYou make a good point. The North and the South had different morals - in the south there was slavery. The south may have been trying to preserve their way of life, and as Mr. Santaniello said, their economy depends on slavery. However, by seceding, they would ruin our nation. The North and South depend on each other to survive. During the war, the South suffered greatly because of the fact that they had a poor railroad system. Had Lincoln let the South sedede, life then, and life now would be completely different. I think they were trying to preserve their way of life, but that does not necessarily mean their way of life should be preserved.
Response to Abbey:
ReplyDeleteNo, Lincoln was not wrong in keeping the South from seceding because as you said, “we are such a strong and powerful nation today.” His decision obviously isn’t wrong if today we are so successful. Not only was Lincoln correct looking at his decision now, but was also correct when he first made it. The first confederate states seceded shortly after Lincoln’s election, and the power shift of slave states to free states in Congress. True, southerner’s needs would no longer be met as easy by the new representatives, but I think they should have solved the issue politically versus your idea of secession. If every time two different groups of people divided when they lacked a common idea there would be too many different groups. In my opinion losing a election and disagreeing are no reasons to secede from a nation.
Response to Ben:
ReplyDeleteI agree that there were alternative ways to solve the problem, and I am grateful that Lincoln did not allow the South to secede, but looking at the issue through a different perspective can allow us to better understand why the South seceded. I don't necessarily think Lincoln was wrong, but through the eyes of a Southerner back then, it is easy to see how he might have been.
You said, "I think they should have solved the issue politically versus your idea of secession." Bringing this back to the Revolutionary War, do you think our issues with England could have been solved politically, or were we right to secede? Is this different from what the South tried to do?
Response to Abbey:
ReplyDeleteNo, I do not think our issues with England could have been solved politically because no representatives were allowed in Parliament to express American’s ideas, so in this case secession was correct. I think that this situation differs from the South’s secession because their views and opinions were not being neglected in a democracy like America. That is why in my opinion the two situations differ, allowing secession in only the one case.
Killing by both the North and the South was completely against all that God ever spoke of. The killings were never justified by either side as both sides believed their killings were called by God therefore making them okay. As stated on pg. 33 killing was not merely tolerated but required in God's service this was the belief of both.I believe that both sides continued to make excuses as to why they killed and to why they wanted to preserve a nation and to fight slavery. The South would be a much poorer nation without the slaves. I agree with North ways to preserve the nation cause I don't believe in slavery. I too agree with Lincoln not letting the South secede.
ReplyDeleteBoth the North and the South had justifications as to why they accepted so much killing during the time of war. I believe the South was fighting to finally be their own country. They had every right to fight when the North invaded because to them, they were fighting for the land they believed was theirs. The South was fighting to keep slavery. Although slavery is horrible, slavery was an essential to the South’s economy. Without slavery, southern states would have suffered immensely. The North fought to keep together the nation that was falling apart. They also justified that they were fighting to totally abolish slavery. The North’s justification, I believe, is more reasonable. I agree with the North in that keeping the nation together and getting rid of slavery was the best way to keep our nation growing. Both sides have good reasons as to why they were fighting and killing thousands of people per battle. However, I agree with the North and its reason to keep the Union together, while finally abolishing slavery.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Abbey:
ReplyDeleteI agree with your justification as to why the South was fighting and as to why they wanted to secede. However, I do not agree with your statement in that Lincoln set a double standard. When we fought against Great Britain our country was together as one and fighting for freedom against the tyrants of Britain. During the Civil War, the South was fighting for different reasons. I believe Lincoln was right in not letting them secede. Yes, they wanted to be free but our government is different the Britain’s. How can they have a legitimate excuse to secede when Lincoln’s government is based on democracy?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBoth the North and South had a very good reason for killing. In the Civil War, men died and killed for what they believed was right. The South as Rachel said was trying to be their own country and to break away from the government. The North was fighting for religion or their God and also for the rights of other races. In picking a side for what we think is right, I think that depends what side you hear more about. For example, I hear more about the North so that is the side I agree was doing the right thing. But, I have just watched a movie that is not historically true but it gives you a good feeling for what the South was going through during the Civil War. It made me rethink why I believe the North was doing right. What I gathered from the movie was that the men in the South, thought of the war as a kind of game, not knowing what would come of it. In the North I am lead to believe it was the same way. In the movie, Cold Mountain, after a couple of years in the war, men were finished, they no longer wanted to fight and kill. Some didn't even believe in the cause of what they were fighting for. They were just doing it to show manly-hood. In the film, the main character runs away from the war to go home, but hates himself for killing men much like himself. He doesn't forgive himself and regrets joining the war. He was one of the men that was "never quite the same agian after seeing fields of slaughtered bodies destroyed by men just like themselves."[pg.60] But I still agree with the North's reason for fighting. I think we may have found a more non-violent way to solve the problem, but we abolished slavery and now everyone is equal.
ReplyDeleteObviously, both the South and the North labeled killing not as ending the life of another human being, but rather defending your own lifestyle from being taken away. The South specifically defined their lifestyle to be based upon the use of slaves to succeed in both a local and global economy whereas the North specifically defined their lifestyle to be based on following the requests of their God as being of higher significance than any bit of the economy and whatnot. I think both sides of the argument present a arguable subject. If it is killing that defends an entire nation’s lifestyle and beliefs, then that’s a good enough reason to kill for me. I think that both sides have the same argument (which is to defend their lifestyle), so, to me, neither one stands out to be more justifiable on a global scale. It really comes down to opinion and which lifestyle I agree with more. I would have go with the North. However, I don’t think killing is quite the way that the Christian’s God would have wanted to be defended, so I’m not sure I agree with that lifestyle. The one thing I do strongly oppose is the defense of slavery. I am against slavery 100%, so there’s no way I would go with the South.
ReplyDeleteI agree with cameron that the north and the south killed to defend their life style but also for biblical reasons. The men had reasons to kill because most men were afraid of the 6th commandment which states it's a sin to kill another human."the most....blasphemous thing perhaps on earth"(pg.33)So the men had to some how get over the fear. One man wrote"When we are attacked and our lives our in danger by a gang of men aposed to the best government on earth i shall fight."(pg.33) One other thing that provoked violence for the north is that they believed slavery was a sin. I would side with the north because i believe they had a better life style to defend than the south.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Rachel
ReplyDeleteI agree with Rachel in that the South was trying to defend the land that they believed was theirs and that they wanted to break away from the government and be their own country. The North was fighting to abolish slavery and to be a great nation. I too agree that the North had a better defense than the South.
In the North, the people simply wanted to be rid of slavery and keep the nation together. In the South, thier justification made sense as well. They were defending themselves and their lifstyle. Both were killing for what they beleived in. Of course I believe that the North had a better justification than the South to kill. They knew that slavery was wrong and needed to be ended without the division of the country. Both sides used their moral beliefs and religon to justify what they were fighting for. And both sides felt that was a good enough reason to fight for what they thought was right.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Cameron,
ReplyDeleteI agree completly with your response that both sides were fighting in order to protect and substain their lifestyles. The North and South believed that they had the justification through their religon because the people on the other side were doing wrong, and needed to be stopped. And, Christians in that time obviously didn't understand that God says their is no justification for killing. Of corse slavery is wrong but does that mean we should take a person's life during war to fight against it? It gets complicateed and that's when the soldiers look to their morals to know what is right.
The North and the South both had beliefs on how things should be ran in America. The South justified their fighting with their right to own slaves. The South believed that slaves weren't even considered men there for the statement "every man is free" didn't apply to the blacks, so in their opinion it was just fine to have slaves. The South was pretty much ran by slave owners and the slaves did all the work with out being payed to do all the work. If the slave owners had to start paying their workers the South would become poor. By the South having slaves they were able to keep their money but still have all the labor they needed. However when a law can be enforced that states every slave is free, war is created and fighting is just fine in their opinion. The North believed that slavery was a sin and should not be allowed in the land of the free anymore. This act of sin was North's way of justifying their fighting with the South. Yes the North was right slavery was/ is a horrible thing. When a person is enslaved they lose all their rights and dignity. Slaves were treated like dirt they were spat on by their owners. How could any god want this? If the South was really made up of a Christians then they should have seen how wrong this was. It is not OK to enslave a person to treat any person on the earth like they are lower than them. If you were treated like you were nothing I'm positive you would not put up with it why should they have to?
ReplyDeleteThe North and South both had their own separate justifications for killing; their reasons were to stand up for what they believe in. And that is what started the Civil War in the first place. At first, killing was to preserve their beliefs about slavery. Without killing, the nation wouldn't have truly expressed what they thought was right. Then, after the killing of both sides occurred more than expected, there was no choice but to keep fighting. As a result, both sides killed for defense. The North wanted to defend the slaves and keep the nation united. On the other hand, the South wanted to oppose [the slaves] and defend the idea of slavery. With these strong opinions, killing was the only thing to do. In addition, the North and South wanted to defend themselves as well. One could not let the other execute them without a fight.
ReplyDeleteBoth the North and the South must have had strong feelings toward the other side in order to justify killing them. When it sank in that the soldiers were not playing a game or simply harming the other side but actually taking the only life the soldiers would ever have, they would have asked themselves whether or not their actions were moral. The North justified the war by saying that it was for the purpose of saving the Union, ending slavery, and preventing future wars with the new nation that was the Confederate States of America. The South, on the other hand, was fighting to protect their economy that relied on slavery, to keep the nation that they had worked hard to form, and in self-defense from their northern enemies. I don't really think that their motives were all that different, as both were fighting to protect their nation, and I think that the only reason soldiers chose one side over another was based off of where they lived and where their allegiance was owed. I do, however, think that I agree more with the South because they did not have any choice but to fight. The North could have let the South become their own seperate country and perhaps come back in time, but once the North had made their decision, it was fight or flight for the South. The Union was not being directly threatened by the Confederacy, but once they decided to fight, they were on Southern land and Confederates would have had no other choice other than to surrender immediately.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Rachel:
ReplyDeleteI agree that the North was well-justified to fight to keep the Union together. However, I do not think that this would have accomplished their purpose. After all, if you had just seceded and your homeland was being invaded and destroyed by the nation you were running away from, you probably would not want to go running back and join back up with them. The South was more justified because they were trying to keep themselves seperate, so fighting was the best option. Fighting for peace is an oxymoron, and that is what the North was trying to do.
Killing violated the Ten Commandments; both the North and the South agreed on this point. A recruit from Texas stated that "fighting in battle seemed 'the most... blasphemous thing perhaps on earth'" In this statement, he clearly expresses his opinion on the matters of killing people in battles - it was wrong. Many men shot their guns into the oncoming enemy because they saw their comrades fall, and a natural instinct of revenge took over; before they knew it, they had begun killing people in an attempted effort to stay alive, and to avenge the fallen. But by killing other men, most of them just like themselves, many soldiers felt that the "devastation they had created and survived" left part of them feeling empty or unwhole, even if they could justify their reasons for killing. Both North and South had ways of justifying the killing that they did. The North justified their actions saying that the South had seceded from the country. By seceding, the North was left without a huge part of their economy. They also "fought to save a nation that represented 'the last best hope on earth.'" The South justified their actions by saying that they were defending their country. Be that as it may, their country had once been the North's country as well - the North was trying to get it back. Besides that reason, they also acted as "Confederate crusaders": "they invoked... the notion of divine sanction for a holy war." Some men didn't have to justify their killing, as they did no killing. Twenty-four thousand loaded rifles were discovered on the feild of Gettysburg, some time after the battle. About half of the rifles had more than one load. "'Most of these discarded weapons on the battlefield at Gettysburg represent soldiers who had been unable or unwilling to fire their weapons in the midst of combat and then had been killed, wounded, or routed.'" Some men just didn't want to kill. I agree most with the North's justification for killing. They wanted their country to be whole again, but if that meant that it was short a few traitors, and enemies of the US, then that was OK with them. I don't like the South's justification that they were fighting a "holy war" and that they should have God's support when it was because of them that the whole war started anyway. Their justifications just don't work. The North's justifications work because they had a cause worth fighting for.
ReplyDeleteIn Response to Sam Cook...
ReplyDeleteI don't fully agree with your answer that the North was fighting just for the ending of slavery. While I do agree with you that the North had better justifications, i don't agree that the South didn't have good justifications either. They were different because they had a different culture, and that culture said that slavery was okay. But the whole war wasn't over slavery. It was also about bringing the South back into the US, restoring their governments, mending the relationship between North and South, and making the country whole again.
In response to Michelle McClurg,
ReplyDeleteI was writing from the soldiers' point of view.
Both the South and the North felt that they did have the right to kill the opposing army. Throughout the chapter it constantly repeated on how the soldiers felt they had disobeyed God in killing someone because of the "sixth commandmant" of the ten commandments.(pg 334.) On both sides they justified the killing because of the ,"confederate baptist insisted taht men were exempt from the comandment not to kill "when lawful war calls for the slaying of our country's foes." Also later in the chapter many soldiers were angered by their fallen commrades in return acted like mad men not afraid to kill. Their justification to be in the war and to kill were very simple. The South were upset by the North's attempt to end slavery which would depleat their economy. This was the main reason the South left the Union. The North, much like Great Britian in the revolutionary war, needed to South to become one of the strongest nations in the world. These two disagreements and someother escalated into a bloody civil war. What if the South had one the war? Would you agree with their justification more? Of course I will side with the North because I believe that slavery was wrong and the South was wrong to do it. But, what if the south had one. I believe many of us would side with the South thinking the North was crazy to try to bring us back. Which side did you side with during the revolutionary war when something simular happened, but for different reasons?
ReplyDeleteNorthern and Southern soldiers believed killing was blasphemy, yet they killed anyway. The North felt it was their duty to save their country and stop the South from becoming their own country. They also wanted to stop slavery, for they believed it was a sin. The North had "religious justification for violence" (pg. 34), or so they thought. Those two justifications go hand in hand because if the South became independent, they would still have slavery. The South justified the killing with a self-defense excuse: "self-defense against invasion" (pg. 33). But for both sides killing was justifiable by religion. According to many religious publications and sermons about "just war", killing was "required in God's service" (pg. 33). Apparently, just war doctrines made soldiers exempt from the Sixth Commandment "when lawful war calls for the slaying of our country's foes." I do not agree with that statement, as no one should be exempt from any commandment. But I do agree with the North's justification more because it was very important to save our country. Where would we be now if the nation had divided and we were no longer the 50 states? Or The United States of America? It would be a whole lot different, and not a lot of good.
ReplyDeleteResponse to Alfredo:
ReplyDeleteI agree with everything you said except: "I would side with the north because i believe they had a better life style to defend than the south." I do agree with the North, but not for that reason. The Southeners had a lifestyle they were defending primarily as their justification for war: slavery. We may not agree with that, but it was their lifestyle. Also, I don't believe that the North was really defending a lifestyle, but they were defending a country.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteResponse to Brenna Hjelle
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that the soldiers justified them selves by pretending that they were Native Americans. It must also be taken into account that though we in today’s day and age have been taught that everyone is a human being and that it doesn’t matter what your skin color is, they were not taught this. The soldiers in the civil war had grown up believing that the Native Americans were worse than slaves. The soldiers used justifications such as that God was on their side, or that the slaves needed to be freed and the only way to do so was to fight the other side.[33 and 34]
The men in the Civil War were fighting to defend their lifestyles and rights. The problem had escalated so far that the only way to do this was to go to war. Dying was one matter as the author shows that the soldiers felt that they were Christ like. “Dying exemplified Christian devotion, as Jesus had demonstrated on the cross”. [33] In this way, the soldiers had only to over come the physical fear of dying. Killing on the other hand, forced men to overcome a spiritual bump. The believed that killing was unforgivable and that they would endure an eternity of hell for it. They therefore found justifications for killing such as that God was on their side as both the north and the south believed. The men also claimed that duty and self defense drove them to destroying men’s lives. “Duty and self-defense released him from and initial sense of guilt and helped him to do the work of a soldier”. [35]
ReplyDeleteThough both sides had their justifications, I can sympathize with them both. In today’s society, we are taught that the north was right, and though I know that they were because of the brutality shown to the slaves, could that be because that was the way that I was brought up. The southern men were brought up to believe that slaves were animals and nothing more, these men were fighting for what they thought was right just as much as the northerners were doing. The justifications in essence were all the same.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn the Civil War, the South justified killing by saying that it was to protect them from an attack. The North, however, justified killing by claiming they were saving the world.
ReplyDeleteA Union soldier states, "When we are attacked and our lives ar in danger by a gang of men opposed to the best government on Earth I shall fight." (pg. 33). This statement shows the passion behind the beliefs of the North. The Union soldiers believed that it was an unforgivable sin to kill, and still, every soldier took on his responsibility to protect their beliefs. The South also believed killing was forbidden by God as one soldier states that the idea of killing was, "'the most... blasphemous thing perhaps on Earth.'" (pg. 33). Although I agree with the religious beliefs of both sides, I will side with the North because of their view for the common good. The South was only looking at the effects that would hurt their way of life while the North looked at how the events would effect the future and the entire country. Therefore, I agree with the North's justification for killing.
Shstigers,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that the North had a better defense than the South. From pages 44-60 it basically informs us of how the South moved their attention from Yankee's as a whole, too African-American Yankee's. "White Southenors feared and detested African-American troops" (44). Southern soldiers victimized Black Yankee's. Basically it seemed as if the focus of the war shifted to the focus of African-American soldiers, which basically gave the Yankee's a leading edge on the South too "use invasion on their side," as Jamie B. said.
During the Civil War both the North and South justified their actions for killing and taking thousands of lives. The South fought with the justification that they were protecting their home land and their way of life. They were defending their territory from the Northern invasion. To them the Civil War seemed self defense. The North used the justification that they were holding the Nation together and stopping the sin of slavery. Both sides claimed God to their side and their cause to fight, the South believing they were Confederate Crusaders in a holy war and the North believing they were defending the last best hope on Earth. “I am apposed to one man killing another,” a Union soldier wrote to “Friends at Home,” but he continued, “When we are attacked and our lives are in danger by a gang of men apposed to the best government on earth I shall fight (33).” This justification was of great importance to each side because it went against their religious beliefs and they needed a reason to believe God wouldn’t punish them for the violent and killing they committed. I believe the North had a better justification to abolish slavery and keep our Nation together. If the North didn’t succeed the outcome of the United States wouldn’t have occurred and the World would be dramatically different. It is only when our country is united and strong when we made our great accomplishments.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Evan Lanz:
ReplyDeleteI agree with Evan L. that each side believed they had a right to kill the opposing side. The main reasons of justification such as ending slavery and keeping the nation together for the North and defending their land as the South’s justification were not the only reasons that they fought. The fighting was building and growing off itself. The more they fought the more they wanted to fight and their reasons grew. The men wanted to avenge their fallen friends and comrades and as more died their justification grew. The War and conflict was fueling itself. Each side even preached and interpreted the bible to their own cause to inspire their side of the War and their soldiers.
The Northerner's justification for killing was by invasion and by trying to keep a great nation together and to end slavery. The South's justification was killing by “appealing to self-defense against invasion.” (p. 33) The South used self-defense as a way to protect their way of life and their freedom. The North found killing an unforgivable sin, however to protect the well being of a successful country they fought on. The South took a more religious approach to killing, believing that God was completely against killing and that it was the worst action on Earth. I tend to lean more towards the North's side because they were once again trying to keep a strong country together and only eliminate it's flaws, such as slavery. WIthout the North's determination, our world would be very different today and that's not exactly a very good thing. So, because the North had seemingly better morals and goals to help the United States, they had better justification for killing.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Evan:
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with you I had the wrong impression about this question. Pretending to be an Indian didn't justify killing, though it might have made an impact or the author wouldn't have out it in the book. I agree with your statement, "throughout the book they felt awful after they killed someone", as I'm sure they did. I was merely pointing out that acting like savages could have been "the spoonful of sugar that helped the medicine go down". Thank you for your feedback.
Both sides used the justification of killing by claiming God to their side during the Civil War. They used this justification so they would not think that they were going against the 6th Commandment. Both sides thought that they were right. The North thought that they were better while the South thought the opposite. Although both sides used this justification, they also used other justifications. The North thought that killing was okay since they were fighting the sin of slavery. “…the goal of overturning the wrong of slavery made the conflict a righteous one and its carnage justifiable.” (pg.34). The South justified killing by saying, “appealed to self-defense against invasion,” (pg. 33). I agree more with the South’s justification. The North’s justification is like fighting fire with fire. They sinned by killing to stop the sin of slavery. Although the North thought that they were protecting the nation, the South was not ready to put an abrupt end to slavery.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Sophia:
ReplyDeleteI agree with the justifications you stated with the North wanting to keep a great nation together and the South using self-defense. However, the South was using this justification to protect their selves. The South didn’t know life without slavery, so they didn’t know what would happen if slavery were to end. Nobody knows what would’ve happened if the North and South did not fight, but most likely it would be very different and bad. Although the war was very sad for everyone, it gave a chance for the South to first start getting used to life without slaves and it allowed the country to be whole again.
During the Civil War the Union and Confederate sides both claimed it was ok to kill because god was on their side. Many churches and “religious publications North and South invoked and explored the traditional “just war” doctrine, emphasizing that killing was not merely tolerated but required in God’s service.” [pg. 33] Besides the “just war doctrine,” the Confederates focused largely that the killing was ok because it was in self-defense. They viewed that since the Northerners were invading them, it was ok to kill. On the Union side, they believed that it was ok because they were fighting for the end of slavery in the South. In their view, slavery was a sin. Of the two sides, I believe in the justification of killing in the North and South equally. In the North’s perspective, they had to invade the Confederates. Innocent slaves were killed and beaten on a daily basis. In the South’s perspective, the north was invading their homeland. They had to kill in self defense.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Cameron W.:
ReplyDeleteI agree with Cameron in his statement saying that both sides had the same right to kill. As he said, both sides were defending their morals and culture. The morals, being the Confederates’ slavery and the Unions’ anti – slavery. I also agree with Cameron and his statement, “I think that both sides have the same argument (which is to defend their lifestyle), so, to me, neither one stands out to be more justifiable on a global scale. It really comes down to opinion and which lifestyle I agree with more.” Both sides had their opinion on killing; it just depends on the person’s interpretation and values on what side they agree with.
During the civil war, the north and south each had close to the same reasons for justifying the killing they did, both of their reasons were that they had god on their side and if god was on their side they can kill for what they believe in. the north and south differed in their beliefs in that the north believed that because the south was threatening the union and thus became enemies of the nation so it justified the killing of the southerners. the south justified the killing of the northerners by saying that the north was invading their way of life and their land so the south decided to take the land for themselves and to do that they thought killing them and pushing them out was the only way and thats how they justified their killing of the northerners. Of the norths and the souths reasons for fighting i agree mostly with the norths reasons because, the south was fighting the north and they had to fight back or risk losing half of the country, and that half of the country was very important because thats were most of the cotton and other clothing materials plantations were.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Jenna:
ReplyDeleteThat is a very interesting point you bring up and I do somewhat agree with it. You said: "Although the war was very sad for everyone, it gave a chance for the South to first start getting used to life without slaves and it allowed the country to be whole again." I do agree that it allowed the country to be whole again. However, if the idea of slavery had not been brought with South when they emigrated from England, then the war might have not occurred. Yes, this is a large point to make and somewhat vague, but it does show the mistake that the United States made by even bringing slavery into the states. I thought you made a great point that I hadn't even thought of.
"Sermons and religious publications North and South invoked and explored the traditional, 'just war' doctrine, emphasizing that killing was not merely tolerated but required in God's service." This quote on page 33 pretty much is how people in the north and the south justified killing during the Civil War. In the Confederacy, the Confederate Baptist said that the men were "exempt from the commandment not to kill" when the war called for killing the country's foes (33). Southerners often claimed self defense and "invoked as well the notion of divine sanction for a holy war (33)." For both North and South alike, vengeance played a huge role in legitimating violence (35). Both sides came to hate their opponent, as Hugh McLees states on page 36, "I saw some nasty blue Yankees in the cars at Atlanta, and as I looked at our poor Boys there with their grisly wounds and some of them cold in death I could much more easily have taken a dagger and said to them see there what a carnival of blood you have made and as you love it take still more that of your own hearts take that with what you have already drunk I could more easily have done that than I could act toward them in the part that I know a truly brave magnanimous man must ever act toward a foe in his power and unarmed. May God give me grace to live a Christian." This shows one man's hate for the opposing side, and I'm sure everyone else felt the same way. Also, as said by Confederate artillery officer Osmun Latrobe, “ I rode over the battlefield , and enjoyed the sight of hundreds of dead Yankees.” By killing Yankees, he found a sense of accomplishment and “a successful execution of his duties as s soldier (37).” Another Southerner named Frank Coker said, “there is an excitement, a charm, an inspiration in it that makes one wish to be where is it going on (38).” Much like any other war, both sides gave the other side a nickname, the South were the Rebels and the North were the Yankees. By giving the opponent a nickname, it makes it a little less difficult to admit that they are killing Yankees or Rebels, rather than a living breathing human being with a family and people who love him. Another example of giving, to the Union is this case, a nickname is, the confederates called snipers or sharp shooters, “snakes in the grass (42).” On a smaller scale, soldiers tried to legitimize killing their opponent by making excuses. In the case of Andre Cailloux, a black soldier, the Confederates believed that he should not only be killed, but dishonored for taking up arms against a “superior race” (50). In another incident, The Confederacy declared, “Our officers of negro regiments declare they will take no more prisoners--& there is death to the rebel in every black man’s eyes. They are still but terrible. They will fight… The negroes know what they are doing (53).” This is one of the ways the Confederates legitimized killing black soldiers. One Southern newspaper observed, “The feelings of a soldier walking over his first battle-field and over his second, are widely different.” Men reported that they felt calloused, hardened or numbed (58). Elijah Petty of the South explained to his wife that they do as they are commanded and don’t get their emotions involved (59). As stated on the last page of this chapter, the Confederacy issued a notice to all soldiers warning them that with all of the death and battles that they see daily, they can get accustomed to it. It was a warning against recklessness and indifference. Those were the excuses that the South had for killing. continued...
ReplyDelete...The Northerners, on the other hand, said that God was on their side (33). They justified their actions by saying that they deserved to be punished for the sin of slavery (34). Also, like in Edwin Spofford’s case, a man was shot and killed standing right next to him, so Edwin instinctively pulled the trigger and killed the shooter. He reported, “I felt bad at first when I saw what I had done, but it soon passed off, and as I had done my duty and was not the aggressor, I was soon able to fire again.” His response was powered by the “motive of revenge,” and, “to kill came almost as a reflex (35).” Oliver Norton on page 36 confessed that, “ uppermost in my mind was a desire to kill as many rebels as I could,” after his fellow soldiers were shot and killed by confederate fire. Sergeant William Henry Redman said that he would kill every Rebel that entered northern soil because they are the ones who invaded and they should pay the penalty (37). On the same page, John W. De Forest said that it is exciting and is the joy of battle to fire at someone who is firing at you. It seems that to take the pressure away from killing, Northerners made it a game to kill the opponent. Perhaps since killing is just pulling the trigger, and the soldiers were already withdrawn from feeling sad for the dead, they found it easy to kill millions of opposing men, as stated by H. C. Matrau, “we learn the art of killing far easier than we do a hard problem in arithmetic (38).” The news of Fort Pillow made soldiers of the North want revenge. They would not stop fighting , “until they shall have made a rebel bite the dust for every hair of those… of our brethren massacred at Fort Pillow… give no quarter; take no prisoners… then, they will respect your manhood (53).” Killing for black soldiers in the north was for freedom, liberty, personal empowerment, human rights and no more discrimination based on race (55). Private Wilbur Fisk sarcastically though truthfully said, “The more we get used to being killed, the better we like it (59).” All signs of emotion or feeling or even so much as personality disappeared in soldiers, so they could kill and be killed without the blink of an eye. Those were the justifications for the North. Over all, the South used self defense as justification and the North used God for justification. I found three statements that pretty much sum up the justification for killing of both sides. 1) “By replacing their own identities with those of men they regarded as savages, they redefined their relationship both to violence and to their prewar selves (37).” 2) “Do all you can and be a machine—that’s the way to act; the only way (59). 3) “Killing was the essence of war (60).” Of the two sides, I have to agree more with the Union. Their cause was the better one, they were fighting for freedom for everyone. Slavery is a sin, and it is possible the confederacy lost because that was their punishment for the slavery. I don’t believe anyone is at a higher level or a more “superior race” and neither did the north; therefore, I agree with their justification more.
ReplyDeleteThe North and South both justified as to why there was so much killing in the war. The North wanted to keep the Union together while abolishing slavery. They also wanted to keep the crippling country together. Therefor the North went into the south fighting on land they believed was theirs. I also believe that the South wanted to become their own country. That way slavery would still be allowed, even though it it awful, but without it their economy would cripple. So when the north came onto "their" land it made sense for them to fight. Therefor I agree with the Norths justification more than the South. I believe that slavery was and is wrong, also the North wanted to help keep the Union together. If the South had won the war, then we would be living in a much different world. The Northerners had good morals, beliefs, and just wanted what was best for everyone.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Orion,
ReplyDeleteI agree with all of your points. When you stated that the Union "wanted the USA to become the most powerful and prosperous nation in the world so they fought for it." I believe that is a true justification of what they wanted to do. If slavery was part of the lives of all Americans, then it would be going against what America was built upon, freedom. The Nation would then not prosper and grow. Therefor the North was killing to save, what they believed could be a great nation.
There were obvious reasons during the Civil War of how the North and South justified Killing. For the North their main goal was to keep the Union together. So they saw their killing as a way to save their country. Clearly each soldier coped with the killing differently but for the most part they probably looked at it as if they don’t kill the country they know and love would fall apart. The South’s main goal was to gain their freedom from the North. The soldiers were fighting for something they truly believed in. Since the South was desperate to have slavery which was a big part of why they were fighting I think the south’s point of view was they had more to lose than the south. But both the North and the South believed they were dying honorably for something worth fighting for.
ReplyDeleteBoth sides justified the war in some of the same ways. The South and the North said that God was on their side. The South believed that God would exempt Confederate soldiers of the sixth commandment when "slaying a of a country's foes."(pg. 33) The North believed that the sin of slavery could be defeated by violence. Both also justified the war by saying that they were acting on duty, revenge, and self-defense. The South also fought for their way of life. The North fought for "the last best hope of earth."(pg. 33)Both sides had reasons to fight, and believe that their reason was better.
ReplyDeleteBoth the North and the South use the justification that the war is a holy war and thusly they can kill without breaking the commandment to not kill because God is on their side and murder does not apply to them. The book mentions that the South use the justification of self defense against invasion, but seeing as the South is originally part of the United States I fail to see how they can claim it as invasion. Faust gives an example of a Northerner who justifies his role in the war by the danger the South puts his life in and this can be seen as claming self defense on the North side as well. After the emancipation the North can more easily use slavery as the reason for killing the Southern soldiers. Although all of these reasons justify the war to the people on both sides of the conflict to many of the actual solders it still did not justify killing as Faust proves in this chapter by showing how vast numbers of soldiers did not shoot their guns before dieing or abandoning the guns. I tend to side with the North’s justifications not because in any way were they exempt from the commandment to not kill but because they were trying to keep a nation together verse ripping it apart and also for the main reason thought of today the freeing of the slaves.
ReplyDeleteJonah- in response to David White:
ReplyDeleteYou do a fine job of showing the two sides justifications for the killing, but what do you think about the killing. Were the Southerners right because their way of life was being threatened or was the North right because the owning of slaves was unacceptable? You could also go on the moral defensive and say neither was right in the least because killing is always wrong and it is never justified. So basically just voice your opinion better.
On page 33, it stats how both the North and the South justified killing through thier christian beliefs. The North was saving thier nation, a nation that they believed in strongly, and they believed it was ok to kill in battles against the South because they believed the slavery is a sin. The South was justifying killing with self-defense against the North nation to try and start thier own nation where they believed it was ok to have slavery and that it wasn't a sin. I agree more with the North on this. They had an established nation, although it wasn't perfect yet, still isn't today, but it still was something. They didn't want to lose the South over a fight like something of slavery. They wanted to keep the South apart of the United States of America and what it was becoming.
ReplyDeleteThe North and the South both justified killing in almost the same sense. The South justified killing by excusing themselves from the sixth commandment in the Bible "when lawful war calls for the slaying of our country's foes," stated on page 33 by a Confederate Baptist. The North had a little bit of a different justification. The North justified killing by noting why they were killing. They justified it becuase they wanted what was best for the country. I agree with North's justification of killing. They were standing up for what they believed was best for the United States, whereas the South was more for just killing their enemies because they disagreed with them.
ReplyDeleteIn response to jpduerst:
ReplyDeleteYou asked me to voice my opinion better on which side I agreed with more. I believe that both sides had reasonable justifications for killing, and I don't have a strong opinion on which side had better reasons for fighting. Both sides had reasons that soldiers believed in enough to die for. So I have no real opinion.
In response to Justine:
ReplyDeleteWhen you say “They justified it becuase they wanted what was best for the country,” what exactly are you referring too? I believe that the South had more reasons to fight than simply excusing themselves from the sixth commandment: “Southerners … appealed to self-defense against invasion.” (p. 33) I believe that the South killed for more than just disagreement, too. The South was trying to preserve its way of life through secession and war: the South was heavily reliant on slaves, and without them, their economy would have shriveled. However, I do understand that slavery was not (at least officially) a major reason for war at its onset, but it still played a major role. I do agree with your statement that “The North and the South both justified killing in almost the same sense:” God and religion were both claimed reasons for war.
In response to Jordan Voegele:
ReplyDeleteI see your point that both sides were fighting for what they believed they needed, however, I want to add on to what you said about the South. You said, "the South's point of view was they had more to lose than the South" (i think you meant North). I also think the south thought that if they won the war that they could create a more powerful nation based off of slavery than the North's view of a country based off of freedom. I believe the South felt that being "masters" of slaves and being able to order people around gave them a certain sense of power which filled their heads with the idea of already being powerful. This thought I believe was what powered their minds into believing that they could make a stronger country than the North which was also a main reason for why they were fighting.
Response to Jordan Voegele:
ReplyDeleteYou say that “the South’s main goal was to gain their freedom from the north.” I disagree. I think that the South’s goal was more to maintain he freedom that they already had. The Confederate States of America was established several months before any shots were fired just as the the colonies had already established a firm self-government before any military hostilities with the British. Therefore, I think both sides saw “killing as a way to save their country,” or, in the South’s case, defense of their establishment. I also disagree when you say that “the south had more to lose than the north.” The north had an entire half of their country to lose which was a big part of the economy. If the South had won and seceded permanently, the north would have no border with Mexico and less access to major southern ports among other things. Both sides had plenty to lose even though they never directly cited those as reasons to fight.
The southerners justified killing as self-defense. The northerners justified killing by saying they needed to protect what they considered "the best government on earth". I think they are both pretty good justifications, but I think that I agree with the Northerners more. They were both trying to fight for what they believed was right, however, I believe that defending your form of government is more important than self defense. Obviously, if someone is attacking you, you should defend yourself, however, the Northerners weren't really the only ones doing the attacking. Therefore, I believe they have a stronger justification in saying that they had to defend their government. As one Union soldier put it, "I am aposed to one man killing another [but]...when we are attacked and our lives are in danger by a gang of men opposed to the best government in the world I shall fight" This shows that they were against killing, but they were willing to kill for what they believed in, which I think is a very good justification to kill.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Celina:
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you said about the south believing they could form a stronger nation based on what they believed in. However, the same could be said about the North. I think both sides fought for what they believed in. The north believed that they could form a stronger nation by getting rid of all slavery. So although the south believed they could make a stronger nation, so did the north. Therefore, I think they both have a pretty good point, but you can't really say that one or the other had more motive to fight.
Both sides in the Civil War often turned to biblical and patriotic reasons for killing. The North believed that its fight to emancipate the slaves was holy and righteous; they both believed they fought for God and country. Northerners thought that the South was rebelling against the “best government on earth” (pg.33). The North fought to keep their nation together. After the battle at Gettysburg Lincoln said, “we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.” Whereas the South believed the North was invading the proposed Confederacy and justified the killing as defending their home and their ideals.
ReplyDeleteThe north and south both had their excuse for killing each other. The north used the evil of slaver to promote their cause, when the south argued self defense from invasion. Also they use the "just war" doctrine, emphasizing that killing was not merely tolerated but required in gods service." as justification for slaying the enemy. both sides did have valid reasons but in my opinion the south's was better. Slavery was bad but they were fighting to protect their life style and their home. The north was just trying to make the southerners take their views.
ReplyDeleteIn response to David Wolf
ReplyDeleteWhen you say, “…both of their reasons were that they had God on their side and if God was on their side they can kill for what they believe in.” I disagree with you. Just because they had God on their side they were fine with killing people. I think more soldiers would have been prepared to kill then to die if they thought it was acceptable in the eyes of God. However I do agree with your opinion on the different sides justified with killings of the other. The North thought the South was threatening everything in their government. When the South thought the North was trying to control them.
In response to Justine,
ReplyDeleteI disagree, the south weren't killing them just because they didn't agree. The were fighting to protect their way of life. The north was invading the south and their purpose was to destroy slavery, a southern tradition. Im not saying that slavery wasn't bad but it was a way of life. The north were fighting to force their way of life on the south.
Taking sides on this paticular subject is difficult because we may not even know all of the information, after all none of us were there to experience the true conflict. But I would say that the North was fighting for the slaves freedom and the South was fighting for their life style. The war wasn't about who disareed with who or what it was deffending the beliefs of how the people should live and what life style was the proper one, but also for the freedom.
ReplyDeleteThe North and South had very different ways of justifying killing during the Civil War. As written on page 33, the North claimed that "when we are attacked and our lives are in danger by a gang of men apposed to the best government on earth [we] shall fight." The North fought to discipline and defend against a country they thought ignorant and wrong. They believed that a country that believed slavery was just must be overthrown to bring about equality.
ReplyDeleteThe South claimed that one could disregard the sin of killing "when lawful war calls for the slaying of our country's foes." The South found that when threatened, one can throw away any moral laws. They felt that the North the aggressor, and thus, a war of defense was warranted, so as to protect the new country of the Confederacy.
As I am a believer in equality and fair treatment of every man or woman, regardless of race, I tend to support the actions of the North. Though the North perhaps was more of an aggressor, to allow the horror of slavery to go on, even beyond the borders of the Union, was unacceptable. Though killing is never a just act, in my opinion, the North had more right to fight. I do not believe either had more or less right to kill, however, for to take another's life should always leave a bit of guilt, no matter how justified it is.
In response to Kaylie Haynes,
ReplyDeleteThough the North attacked the newly formed Confederacy, it was not completely for peace. The South was like an illegitimate son running away from home. It stood against everything the North believed in. And, though war is not always the answer, the North had to stop atrocities like slavery. The fastest way to such a goal was conflict. The North acted to stop the South from becoming a monster. The Union had to strike.
In response to Zach L.
ReplyDeleteI think I disagree with you that killing is never justifiable. It’s a hard issue because on the one hand, killing is wrong and evil but on the other hand so is one man owning another man. But to say that killing is never a just act is a little misleading.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThey justified killing because each side had a reason to kill. The reason for the South was that it truly came down to kill or be killed. They were about to loose their way of life. They had a system that seemed to be working. The South basically lived off the sweat of the slaves. They couldn't pay people to do the work on these large plantations. For the North their reason was not as strong as the south. Their mind-set was that the south shouldn't be getting away with whatever they want because it could ultimately damage our democracy. The North should have had that war finished in a year with all of their resources but since they were not as strong willed as the south, it dragged out. To long and to bloody. The reason that i agree with more is the south's. Their reason was justified. If somebody was coming into my world telling me that what i did was wrong and not okay, i would fight them. I am not very good with change so thats why i agree with the south.
ReplyDeleteIn response to ben:
ReplyDeleteI agree with your thoughts about both sides feeling as though their causes justified killing.
It all boils down to whether or not the Southern states had a right to secede. The Southerners thought that they did so they justified killing because the United States invaded their new nation and they were just defending themselves. On the other hand the North did not think that the South had a right to secede so they went in to quell the rebellion. I refuse to believe that the Civil War had anything to do about slavery until Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, making the war a “Crusade” by making the Southerners out to be villains and making it seem ok to kill the “sinners” who were slaver owners. I have to side with the South on this one because I don’t believe the Constitution was clear enough on whether or nor states could secede, and I believe that states did have the right to secede. It was all a matter of interpretation.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Sophia:
ReplyDeleteI agree with you about the North's determination. Without their determination to win they could've easily given up because of all of great troubles that came with war. And we would've been a Confederate country to this day if the North had surrendered.