Bowdoin College Students Offered Counseling Over Sombrero Party

[Evo]

It turns out that the news sources did not verify before posting and are only partially true, see the snopes post below by Tobias. Thanks Tobias! So, here are the real reports - for the Emory Event, here is Newsweek's report which is more accurate.

EMORY STUDENTS EXPLAIN WHY ‘TRUMP 2016’ CHALK MESSAGES TRIGGERED PROTEST

When the words “Trump 2016” and other chalked messages supporting the Republican presidential front-runner appeared Monday around the Emory University campus in Atlanta, students say they immediately felt threatened. Within hours, they launched a protest.

“We are in pain,” one student said at a rally, according to The Emory Wheel, a student newspaper. “I don’t deserve to feel afraid at my school,” a second student reportedly said.

<snip>

“I legitimately feared for my life,” a freshman who identifies as Latino told The Daily Beast. Another student told the publication, “Some of us were expecting shootings. We feared walking alone.”

http://www.newsweek.com/emory-trump-chalk-protests-440618

Students offered counselling over small sombrero hats at tequila-themed birthday party
A university offered counselling to students “injured and affected” by a group of classmates who wore small sombrero hats to a tequila-themed birthday party.

The row, which erupted at Bowdoin College, a private liberal arts college in the US state of Maine, is being seen as the latest instance of a new mood of censorious political correctness sweeping university campuses on both sides of the Atlantic.

more...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...t-tequila-themed-birthday-party-a6915521.html

 

[Psinter]

This is getting ridiculous.

I can always find something more ridiculous in this world.

But yeah, this one... this one deserves a badge on the ridi-scale. (ridiculous scale)

Wait until I cosplay in their campuses with my Victorian Era clothes and see how many become offended and affected by PTSD because of it. If they would put the poor victims in a mental hospital with meds to treat them we would see for how long they can keep their traumatic charade.

charade - an absurd pretense intended to create a pleasant or respectable appearance.

 

[Evo]

If they're being taught not to cope with or learn how to live with things they just don't like and aren't an actual threat, how are they going to handle real life once they graduate? This just seems so wrong to me. What are these uni's and colleges teaching our children?

 

[JorisL]

The whole PC-thing has been getting on my nerves for a while.
Everytime I read about such an absurd over-reaction I think of a song (almost 20 years ago, 1999) by the Dutch punk band Heideroosjes.



Lyrics

 

[Hornbein]

Kitten in early stages of UFO abduction.

 

[JorisL]

Does PF offer counseling as well?

Because I can't stop thinking of that kitty now.

 

[Tobias Funke]

It doesn't seem to be quite as bad as the articles suggest (which should probably be obvious).

http://www.snopes.com/emory-students-trump-graffiti/

Just anti-Trump protests in response and the sombrero thing seems overblown too. Possibly still an overreaction by some students--we don't really know the story--but not a case of administration setting up emergency counseling for scared little babies.

 

[dlgoff]

Does PF offer counseling as well? ...

I hope!

 

[Evo]

It doesn't seem to be quite as bad as the articles suggest (which should probably be obvious).

http://www.snopes.com/emory-students-trump-graffiti/

Just anti-Trump protests in response and the sombrero thing seems overblown too. Possibly still an overreaction by some students--we don't really know the story--but not a case of administration setting up emergency counseling for scared little babies.

It's still pretty bad

an e-mail sent by student government representatives (i.e. students, not adult faculty or administrators) offering support for events, not counseling:

That being said, by nature of the fact that for a significant portion of our student population, the messages represent particularly bigoted opinions, policies, and rhetoric directed at populations represented at Emory University, we would like to express our concern regarding the values espoused by the messages displayed, and our sympathy for the pain experienced by members of our community...

It is clear to us that these statements are triggering for many of you. As a result, both College Council and the Student Government Association pledge to stand in solidarity with those communities who feel threatened by this incident and to help navigate the student body through it and the environment of distrust and unease it has created.

To that end, Emergency Funds within the College Council monetary policy were created to provide time-sensitive funds during circumstances involving discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, and such funds are available to any student organization looking to sponsor events in response to this incident.

 

[Evo]

Kitten in early stages of UFO abduction.

That is just TOO CUTE!

 

[Tobias Funke]

It's still pretty bad

Yeah, that quote does seem like a parody you'd find on Portlandia if it's really only over some "Trump 2016" chalkings. It's what you'd expect to read after finding a black mannequin hanging from a rope or something. There's either more to the story or I bet most of the students who just wanted to know when the anti-Trump rally was laughed and rolled their eyes when they read the email.

 

[PhotonSSBM]

At my school we had a speaker come who is known to be controversial, and imo a little nuts. But a group of students who attended the meeting had a similar reaction to the articles above and protested his speech to the student government, who kindly read them the first amendment and told them to be on their way. On top of that one student's family who was live tweeting at the event got doxed because they supported his world view. I feel like this isn't just a millennial thing though. This is the same mentality that a lot of angry people have about competing ideas. Most of them up to this point have just lashed out in punches instead of curling up in a ball. For what it's worth most of the students at my school think the kids who got upset were full of it.

 

[einswine]

It both saddened and distressed me to hear a young Japanese woman who was outraged by a performance of The Mikado by Gilbert and Sullivan which is obviously a satire of British government and culture of the period and which was deeply influenced by the Japonism then near its height. If one walks around with a pile of chips on one's shoulder one is certain to get bent.

I think the present fad of removing statues of Confederate "heros" is also misguided. Rather then be removed they should be augmented by statues that depict the evil they defended and plaques that explain that evil and explicitly condemn their uncritical lionization. Yes some were great generals, that does not make them good human beings and we Southerners need to be reminded of that, it seems.

 

[Sophia]

This political correctness thing has gotten out of control. Ok, I understand why it was created in the first place, but now we got to the other extreme when you can't express legitimate facts or have simple fun. Everyone gets offended for something.

I think the present fad of removing statues of Confederate "heros" is also misguided. Rather then be removed they should be augmented by statues that depict the evil they defended and plaques that explain that evil and explictyly condemn their uncritical lionization. Yes some were great generals, that does not make them good human beings and we Southerners need to be reminded of that, it seems.

Who are these Confederate heros?

 

[einswine]

Lets start with R. E. Lee. The school attended by my mother in the early 1900s was named after him.

 

[Sophia]

Lets start with R. E. Lee. The school attended by my mother in the early 1900s was named after him.

Oh, now I've googled him and see that it's about American Civil war. I don't know much about it, only that it was about slavery,

 

[micromass]

This is getting ridiculous. There was another incident recently with students crying and terrorized because a guest at their college was reading from a book at a designated location. They did not have to attend or listen to it.

more...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...t-tequila-themed-birthday-party-a6915521.html

And another

more...

http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/03/25/students-reportedly-frightened-pain-after-seeing-trump-2016-signs-campus

You know what's sad? Major news channels like the one you listed distorting and lying in their news in order to gain views/reads. Is it so hard to do some basic facts checking? The snopes site seems to be able to do it. This junk-journalism pisses me off.

 

[Hornbein]

Lets start with R. E. Lee. The school attended by my mother in the early 1900s was named after him.

A friend of mine used to wonder why Robert E. Lee had a Chinese name.

 

[einswine]

Oh, now I've googled him and see that it's about American Civil war. I don't know much about it, only that it was about slavery,

The real horror is that many Southerners say they don't believe that.

 

[collinsmark]

In case anybody didn't get @micromass's reference, here's the Snopes article:

http://www.snopes.com/bowdoin-mini-sombrero-controversy/

According to Snopes anyway, the "news" articles are Mostly False.

WHAT'S TRUE: In February 2016, a controversy arose at Bowdoin College over cultural sensitivity and a tequila party; Bowdoin officials stated that subsequent harassment (not sombreros) were the cause of the controversy.

WHAT'S FALSE: Students were offered counseling over the presence of "mini sombreros."

WHAT'S Undetermined: The specifics of the controversy, due to considerations of confidentiality.
​

Edit: I see @Tobias Funke already posted a Snopes link back in post #7. I missed that the first time. Although that Snopes link was about the Trump with chalk story, and this one is about the Sombrero and Tequila story.

 

[Sophia]

The real horror is that many Southerners say they don't believe that.

That's really strange... How can they deny it?
Building statues of people who were for slavery seems very politically incorrect to me. Doesn't matter if they were good generals.

 

[micromass]

Building statues of people who were for slavery seems very politically incorrect to me

You do know that would include most historical figures right? Slavery was a really common practice in human history with shockingly little opposition.

 

[Psinter]

Every time I see this thread I laugh when reading the word sombrero in the title. It sounds funny when reading it in the title.

Mad Hatter says: ♪ You could wear a sombrero... ♪

 

[OmCheeto]

You do know that would include most historical figures right? Slavery was a really common practice in human history with shockingly little opposition.

I read that about native Americans the other day.
I was kind of stunned.

Traditions of Native American slavery
Many Native American tribes practiced some form of slavery before the European introduction of African slavery into North America; but none exploited slave labor on a large scale.
...

Anyways, before I go off into my usual; "Oh yeah! Well I've had 5 conversations about this over the last year, and let me tell you!" schpiel, I decided to look up what an expert had to say about this:

Political Correctness Gone Mad
Emotional thinking and Folie à Plusieurs ["madness of many"] in the 21st century
Posted Sep 29, 2015

Introduction:

If the reports are to be believed, many Millennial students (Born after 1980) on college campuses have become “infected” with the mental contagion of emotional thinking or pathological thinking judging from a recent article appearing in the September 2015 edition of Atlantic Magazine. The cover story has a headline shouting “Better Watch What You Say: How the New Political Correctness is Ruining Education."
...

Fascinating article. I'd love to quote the whole thing.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Here is what the Emory Wheel says happened: http://emorywheel.com/emory-student...h-administrative-response-to-trump-chalkings/

I think the "emergency counseling" detail that Snopes seized on is possibly overblown, but the general description in the press seems to be mostly in line with what the student news paper reported.

 

[Hornbein]

That's really strange... How can they deny it?

Just do it.

Late in life I learned that all this stuff about evidence, logic, and truth has nothing to do with the beliefs of the great majority of people. Even smart people. They just believe what they feel like believing, which is usually what their friends believe.

It makes sense. If you stopped believing it and said so, then you'd lose all of your friends.

My friends from childhood have narrow beliefs. I just conform. They aren't going to change no matter what, so why make trouble? I don't.

Sometimes I wonder whether anyone really believes what they are saying. Maybe they are all saying it because everyone else is saying it and they are afraid they'll get in trouble if they deviate. Conformity is rewarded.

Corollary: Falsehood sells better than truth. Falsehood is more useful as support for self-interested programs. Besides, if it's true, you don't need to pay anyone to promote it.

 

[Hornbein]

You do know that would include most historical figures right? Slavery was a really common practice in human history with shockingly little opposition.

Suppose you didn't enslave others. Then those who did would become more powerful than you, and might enslave you. So you'd enslave others as the lesser of two evils.

Suppose you didn't colonize others. Then those who did would become more powerful than you, and colonize you.

That's how the British Empire got started. Spain and Holland tried to colonize England, and would have done it if not for a big storm. England built a navy to defend itself. Then it colonized countries to, among other things, pay for the navy.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I think the whole point of the British Empire was to find something better to eat than boiled beef and haggis.

 

[zoobyshoe]

That's really strange... How can they deny it?

For decades people in the North were taught that Lincoln initiated war with the South specifically to end slavery. In fact, that's wrong: his purpose was to prevent the Southern states from withdrawing from the United States and forming a new country. But, why did they want to withdraw?

Overall, the Northern population was growing much more quickly than the Southern population, which made it increasingly difficult for the South to continue to influence the national government. By the time the 1860 election occurred, the heavily agricultural southern states as a group had fewer Electoral College votes than the rapidly industrializing northern states. Abraham Lincoln was able to win the 1860 Presidential election without even being on the ballot in ten Southern states. Southerners felt a loss of federal concern for Southern pro-slavery political demands, and their continued domination of the Federal government was threatened. This political calculus provided a very real basis for Southerners' worry about the relative political decline of their region due to the North growing much faster in terms of population and industrial output.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War

So, while the South tried to withdraw from the union to protect its slave based economy, the North was actually only invading to preserve the Union, and not particularly to end slavery. In that sense a Southener can claim, "The War of Northern Aggression (The Civil War) was not about slavery."

 

[SteamKing]

That's really strange... How can they deny it?
Building statues of people who were for slavery seems very politically incorrect to me. Doesn't matter if they were good generals.

The history and politics of the U.S. in the first half of the 19th century are more complex than just the issue of slavery.

Many who fought on the supposedly "pro-slavery" side never owned any slaves (which were quite expensive to purchase and maintain), just as some who fought on the "anti-slavery" side did own slaves.

Robert E. Lee's father died when the boy was 11, and his mother had to raise her son and five other children by herself. Lee's father had done time in debtor's prison before his death and could not be considered prosperous enough by any means to be a slaveholder. Lee's wealth was obtained later in life after he married Martha Washington's great granddaughter Mary Anna Custis, and through her, came to own the estate at Arlington (now Arlington National Cemetery) and the slaves which worked the estate after the death of his father in law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Lee

On the other hand, Lee's nemesis from late in the war, U.S. Grant, also married up, and his wife's family was rather wealthy and prominent in pre-war Missouri, sufficiently prosperous to own several slaves. For a time, Grant himself owned a slave with whom he worked a small farm, but Grant freed his slave just before the war broke out when the farm failed and he had to seek other employment to support his family.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_S._Grant

Hindsight is always 20-20 and is a rather superficial means of judging the past by present day standards.

 

[Psinter]

For decades people in the North were taught that Lincoln initiated war with the South specifically to end slavery. In fact, that's wrong: his purpose was to prevent the Southern states from withdrawing from the United States and forming a new country. But, why did they want to withdraw?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War

So, while the South tried to withdraw from the union to protect its slave based economy, the North was actually only invading to preserve the Union, and not particularly to end slavery. In that sense a Southener can claim, "The War of Northern Aggression (The Civil War) was not about slavery."

Yup. It wasn't about slavery. I'm not American and I got that part of history right. A lot of people confuse it, but that's because of the way it is portrayed and the way history is delivered in teaching institutions like schools. The bunch of slaves been freed was simply a means to an end (protect the Union), not the end itself.

My[/PLAIN] paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery.

I was going to post exactly what you posted, zooby, but then I thought to myself: "Nah, I would be getting off topic if I do that."

Here is what the Emory Wheel says happened: http://emorywheel.com/emory-student...h-administrative-response-to-trump-chalkings/

I think the "emergency counseling" detail that Snopes seized on is possibly overblown, but the general description in the press seems to be mostly in line with what the student news paper reported.

Even with that update I still think the response from the students was ridiculous. I also read the responses of the President and while I do not side with the students I do not side with the president either. They are typical responses of someone who is trying to get rid of the ones questioning them.

 

[Tobias Funke]

Sure, most in the north didn't particularly care about slaves (that may be an understatement) and so in that sense the war wasn't about slavery. But it's hard to deny that it basically boiled down to slavery (that's why the south started the war). It's not revisionist history; everyone knew it at the time--read the Lincoln-Douglas debates. It's my understanding that the north wanted to contain slavery to have room for white immigrants to expand in an industrial society and they couldn't do that easily if they had to compete with slave labor. That probably isn't the whole story or even necessarily correct, though. I'm sure morality had something to do with it too, since after all there were plenty of abolitionists at the time.

I guess this is a slavery thread now...?

 

[einswine]

That's really strange... How can they deny it?
Building statues of people who were for slavery seems very politically incorrect to me. Doesn't matter if they were good generals.

To be clear, most of the statues in question were put up in the period following Reconstruction and ending with WWI, though they have continued to be built almost up to the present time. Regarding a very major one: "Finishing touches to the masterpiece were completed in 1972."

Many Southerners believe, against all evidence, that the South was fighting for State's Rights. And Hornbein is correct, to paraphrase P. Simon "People believe what they want to believe and disregard the rest." Honor, that scourge of so many tribal cultures, is fairly strong in the South. To preserve their fragile constructs of self esteem our fore fathers must be seen as great men beyond reproach. I mean, boy howdy, just look how glorious our guys look up on that mountain. Here is the appropriate monument of Lee: a life size statue of Lee standing at ground level, looking at a piece of paper in his hand with a satisfied look on his face. His back is to a group of his slaves, tied and being severely whipped for jumping him and trying to tell him they were legally just as free as him (Which they were at the time, as later ruled by the pre-Civil-War courts.).

 

[einswine]

For decades people in the North were taught that Lincoln initiated war with the South specifically to end slavery. In fact, that's wrong: his purpose was to prevent the Southern states from withdrawing from the United States and forming a new country. But, why did they want to withdraw?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War

So, while the South tried to withdraw from the union to protect its slave based economy, the North was actually only invading to preserve the Union, and not particularly to end slavery. In that sense a Southerner can claim, "The War of Northern Aggression (The Civil War) was not about slavery."

Quoting from the link above:

"As a panel of historians emphasized in 2011, '...while slavery and its various and multifaceted discontents were the primary cause of disunion, it was disunion itself that sparked the war.'"

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism_in_the_United_States for information on the history and impact of the abolitionist movements. I admit it's hardly possible to find a war that did not have economic motivations. But I think it is wrong to totally dismiss the role of human compassion and sense of justice in bringing about the end of slavery and the Civil War and so effectively deny the humanistic impulse any efficacy at all.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Here is what the Emory Wheel says happened: http://emorywheel.com/emory-student...h-administrative-response-to-trump-chalkings/

I think the "emergency counseling" detail that Snopes seized on is possibly overblown, but the general description in the press seems to be mostly in line with what the student news paper reported.

From Evo's link:

Officials at the Atlanta school, which has an enrollment of more than 14,000, were forced to act after the youngsters claimed their 'safe space' was violated when the messages of 'hate' appeared on sidewalks and buildings.

This sentence is constructed to sound like all 14,000 youngsters were upset.
But, from your link:

Roughly 40 students gathered shortly after 4:30 p.m. in the outdoors space between the Administration Building and Goodrich C. White Hall; many students carried signs featuring slogans such as “Stop Trump” or “Stop Hate” and an antiphonal chant addressed to University administration, led by College sophomore Jonathan Peraza, resounded “You are not listening! Come speak to us, we are in pain!” throughout the Quad.

Any article in the press at large that fails to point out that it was an exceptionally tiny fraction of the student body that felt threatened by the Trump graffiti is certainly distorting the story to create the erroneous impression that political correctness has gone out of control on campuses.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Quoting from the link above:

"As a panel of historians emphasized in 2011, '...while slavery and its various and multifaceted discontents were the primary cause of disunion, it was disunion itself that sparked the war.'"

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism_in_the_United_States for information on the history and impact of the abolitionist movements. I admit it's hardly possible to find a war that did not have economic motivations. But I think it is wrong to totally dismiss the role of human compassion and sense of justice in bringing about the end of slavery and the Civil War and so effectively deny the humanistic impulse any efficacy at all.

There's no doubt in my mind humanistic impulses would eventually have lead to great political conflict over slavery had the war not happened. Regardless, ending slavery was not the North's motivation in taking military action against the South. Had the South had no slaves but decided to secede for some other reasons, the North would have been just as adamant in keeping the union together. It really was a war about state's rights: did individual states have the right to withdraw from the United States and become their own independent countries? Lincoln decided that was not acceptable and went to war to prevent it.

 

[Evo]

From Evo's link:

This sentence is constructed to sound like all 14,000 youngsters were upset.
But, from your link:

Any article in the press at large that fails to point out that it was an exceptionally tiny fraction of the student body that felt threatened by the Trump graffiti is certainly distorting the story to create the erroneous impression that political correctness has gone out of control on campuses.

I replaced the link with a more accurate Newsweek link.

http://www.newsweek.com/emory-trump-chalk-protests-440618

 

[Hornbein]

The Northern public was so grossed out by Uncle Tom's Cabin that they formed the Republican party as a one-issue anti-slavery party. It wiped out the Whig party. By the way, it is one of my favorite books. Stowe writes great dialog and has ultrakeen insight into human nature. It was one of the best-selling books of all time.

The South had been openly importing slaves even though it was against the law and had been for fifty years.

After Senator Sumner gave an anti-slavery speech a Southern Congressman beat him up in the Senate cloakroom while another Congressman blocked the doorway. They caused brain damage, and the place was covered with blood.

I've gone over this issue a lot, but the best single piece of evidence is South Carolina's Declaration of Secession, the first state to secede. It's almost entirely about slavery.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I've gone over this issue a lot, but the best single piece of evidence is South Carolina's Declaration of Secession, the first state to secede. It's almost entirely about slavery.

But had the New England states banded together to secede for some reason of their own that had nothing to do with slavery, would Lincoln have said, "Oh, O.K. As long as it has nothing to do with slavery, go ahead," ? Obviously not.

 

[Sophia]

Thanks to everyone who replied to my question.
I'll definitely look into American history once I finish my list of books for European history.
It's obviously more complicated than my vague understanding.

 

[Ben Niehoff]

The "preserve the Union" justification for war was only used because it was politically expedient. While there was a strong Abolitionist movement in the North, there were also plenty of dissenters, and an openly anti-slavery justification would not have gotten through Congress. Basically, Lincoln was a pragmatist, and he stayed silent on slavery in regards to the war until a few years into it.

As it turns out, "preserve the Union" is not such a great rallying cry, and Union morale suffered a lot after a few years in. The Union troops were the invading force, far from home, while the Southerners were defending their homes. Not to mention that it was very costly on both sides, but particularly on the Union side. Near the end of the war (sorry, I forget details), Lincoln and Congress finally decided to make the war about slavery. Now conceiving of themselves as liberators rather than invaders, the Union soldiers' morale improved and they were able to win. Honestly, R. E. Lee was a brilliant and daring general and quite nearly won. The Union generals were mostly ineffective.

 

[micromass]

I highly recommend this book which deals with inaccuracies and lies in history teaching. One chapter deals about the Lincoln and race. https://www.amazon.com/dp/0743296281/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[Ben Niehoff]

Regarding morale, not only were Southerners defending their own homes, they were also in the position of being able to pretend they were having a second American Revolution. This is kind of a Big Deal to Americans. It's really amazing the Union won at all (and I think it was mostly by attrition).

 

[Tobias Funke]

Basically, Lincoln was a pragmatist, and he stayed silent on slavery in regards to the war until a few years into it.

Yes, he was openly opposed to slavery from a moral standpoint and he stated that he wished for it to die out, which he thought would have been inevitable if it was not allowed to expand with the rest of the country. But I guess politically he had to keep stressing that he had no intention of changing anything, only limiting slavery to where it already existed as the Founding Fathers wanted (and the south of course thought the Foiunding Fathers wanted something else.)

Honestly, R. E. Lee was a brilliant and daring general and quite nearly won. The Union generals were mostly ineffective.

I read a lot of Lincoln's letters and I noticed a pattern: Union generals constantly calling for more men and supplies, which Lincoln mostly couldn't give. Then Lincoln criticizes them for not being aggressive enough and letting opportunities slip away. It happened so often wth so many generals that I wonder if a lot of the blame shouldn't go to Lincoln here, but my Civil War knowledge doesn't go that deep.

It could also be that the south got most of the tiny sombrero hats that we stole from Mexico in the previous war and it boosted their morale.

 

[Hornbein]

But had the New England states banded together to secede for some reason of their own that had nothing to do with slavery, would Lincoln have said, "Oh, O.K. As long as it has nothing to do with slavery, go ahead," ? Obviously not.

True. There are several different meanings of the word "cause," going all the way back to Aristotle. If a new nation did form, the most likely result was a state of continual warfare as in Europe. This wasn't acceptable.

If you want to be precise, the reason the South was forming a new nation was to keep the price of slaves low. The North would have used the Navy to prevent the long-illegal importing of slaves, which would have caused the price to soar.

 

[Hornbein]

Yes, he was openly opposed to slavery from a moral standpoint and he stated that he wished for it to die out, which he thought would have been inevitable if it was not allowed to expand with the rest of the country. But I guess politically he had to keep stressing that he had no intention of changing anything, only limiting slavery to where it already existed as the Founding Fathers wanted (and the south of course thought the Foiunding Fathers wanted something else.)

I read a lot of Lincoln's letters and I noticed a pattern: Union generals constantly calling for more men and supplies, which Lincoln mostly couldn't give. Then Lincoln criticizes them for not being aggressive enough and letting opportunities slip away. It happened so often wth so many generals that I wonder if a lot of the blame shouldn't go to Lincoln here, but my Civil War knowledge doesn't go that deep.

It could also be that the south got most of the tiny sombrero hats that we stole from Mexico in the previous war and it boosted their morale.

When the Constitution was signed there was a deal that importing of slaves would be banned after twenty years. The South reneged on the deal and ignored the ban. I think they went to war because the ban was going to be enforced. The price of slaves would rise. The South was already falling behind the North economically. Plantation owners were deeply in debt to Wall Street and the price hike would have made things worse. The South was going to have to give up on the plantation system with big land owners. They preferred to go to war. A bonus was that they could default on their mortgages.

The South was used to being in charge. They'd already lost that. They'd rather be a separate nation than a poor relation. No luck. They remain the poor relation to this day. Perhaps the main thing that keeps some semblance of parity is Federal military spending. Newt Gingrich was all about the concentration of spending on the military. His district was third in the nation on that, after Arlington and Cape Kennedy. (I still think of it as Cape Canaveral. Much better name.)

General McClellan knew that all he had to do was stockpile tiny sombreros and the South would lose. Lincoln insisted that bloody battles be fought, which the unready North didn't win. It was a big military waste, though perhaps a political necessity. McClellan was fired and ran for President in 1864.

 

[Tobias Funke]

I forgot about the ban. I read a good deal about the war but it all gets mixed up after a while. Bloody Kansas, Lecompton, Clay's compromise, such-and-such latitude,...

I do remember that the north started doing much better after black soldiers were allowed. I guess those fresh, extra soldiers helped a great deal. Maybe the south would have won if they didn't have such a history of actively pissing off the north: claiming state's rights but wanting a strong federal government for the Fugitive Slave Act (and the whole Anthony Burns fiasco), burying Shaw in a ditch with "his negroes" (not being racists, I believe Shaw's family thought that was proper), Fort Pillow, etc. Stuff like that will give some extra motivation in a tough war I'm sure, although the latter two may have happened when the tide had already turned. Again, it all gets mixed up after a while.

 

[Hornbein]

In modern war battles don't matter that much. It is supplies that count. If your navy can cut off your opponent's supplies you have a big advantage. The North had the navy, had more population, and could outproduce the South in everything, so victory was pretty much a sure thing if they went the distance.

The South's main chance was to get the British navy to run the blockade. They had every reason to believe that this would happen. Having two warring nations in North America would have weakened both, thus relatively strengthening the UK. I think it is quite likely that the UK promised to support the South. I have read that the only thing that stopped this was that the British public was outraged by Uncle Tom's Cabin, which was very widely read there. British dockworkers refused to load ships headed toward the South. The UK gov't had to abandon its plan in the face of overwhelming public opposition.

 

[zoobyshoe]

The "preserve the Union" justification for war was only used because it was politically expedient.

However much he disapproved of slavery, Lincoln's war was primarily to prevent the country from splitting into two smaller countries. He didn't foment the Southern rebellion somehow as an excuse to invade and end slavery. The South seceded on its own, forcing him to react to the secession in and of itself. Like I said earlier, he would have invaded New England, where there was no slavery issue, if it had tried to secede for some reason. The secession gave him an excuse to eventually dismantle slavery, yes, but that was not the primary goal of the military action against the South. He would have had to invade the rebellious South and impose Northern rule in the complete absence of Southern slavery.

 

[Hornbein]

In 1814 there actually was a secession movement in Mass, Conn, and Rhode Island. A federal army was stationed in Albany, presumably to invade if the secession went through. See the "Hartford Convention."