Chapter 9 War, for what?

Brother Lu: Hello! The "Scott Case" mentioned in the last letter ruled that Negroes have no citizenship rights.The problem is, the original "throat bone" is protruding again at this time.Because under slavery in the South, blacks were the "property" of their masters.White people in the South, then, clearly deserved "Property Protection Rights."Inferred from this, if there is Congressional legislation like the "Missouri Compromise", it may appear to be "unconstitutional" because the Constitution stipulates that citizens' "property rights" are protected.Under the principle of partition, the abolition of slavery is only feasible under one circumstance, that is, the people in this area vote for self-determination, or the state legislature legislates to renounce such "property rights" by themselves.Because the state legislature is directly elected, that is to say, state legislature legislation is a kind of "indirect citizen self-determination".However, in congressional legislation such as the "Missouri Compromise," it was stipulated that no slaves could be kept north of latitude 36°30'.In essence, this is an external authority over the region, announcing the deprivation of the "property rights" of civilians in a region.This deadlock is tied at the joint of "black slaves are the property of their masters" left over from history.

This is why radical anti-slavery advocates actively encouraged Scott to go to the Supreme Court to try this judicial challenge.Because, if you want to untangle this deadlock, then American philosopher Charles Morris (Charles Morris, 1901—) created semiotics to recognize the citizenship rights of blacks, which is the most effective way.However, as we have discussed in our last letter, black citizenship is a deeper and wider issue, and the Supreme Court at that time could not make a trans-generational decision.Many people believe that this judgment came about because the chief judge was a slave owner from the South.I am not inclined to this view.Because Supreme Court justices were from the South, or were slave owners themselves, which was common at the time.However, the verdict is determined by an independent vote.Such correlations were not universal in votes related to slavery.We can already see this in the Supreme Court vote in the "Armstad" case.

Perhaps, there is also a circumstantial evidence that this historical limitation was prevalent at the time.In the second year after the "Scott case" was judged, a historically famous debate took place in Illinois, that is, Lincoln, who had just entered the political stage, debated the slave issue with his opponent.Lincoln expressed his staunch opposition to slavery; his opponents did not.They all typically represent the opposing viewpoints of the North and the South in society at that time.However, during the debate, they had the same point of view, that is, the freed slaves should be sent back to Africa as soon as possible.Neither of them considered an integrated society as a viable option.

In any case, this knot is still not opened.Although this is only a historical limitation, in today's U.S. Supreme Court, people from all over the world who come to visit are still told with a video introduction that this is a "serious historical event" committed by the Supreme Court in history. mistake".And tell people that this is also one of the causes of the Civil War. You can hear similar statements in various contexts.For example, before and after the "Scott case", every time a case of "returning fugitive slaves" to the south occurred in the north, it always caused shock.Li Cheng (1659-1733) became a thinker after the "Armstad" case was judged.The word Gangzhu, the name Shugu, and Baoding, the northerners' psychological tolerance for "sending back escaped slaves" has been greatly reduced.Therefore, when some people mentioned the incident of "returning escaped slaves", they said that this was one of the causes of the outbreak of the Civil War.Even when you read reviews of "Uncle Tom's Cabin," you must have seen "a book that started a civil war."

A more common way of speaking is that the election of President Lincoln was the fuse of this war.Lincoln came from a poor family and was born in the south.He became a rising political star because he expressed his firm opposition to slavery in a society where slavery became the main contradiction.It can also be seen from this that the United States has taken another step forward after the "Armstad" case.President Van Buren, who also held anti-slavery views, tried to maintain a balance during the campaign.In contrast, Lincoln showed a clear-cut banner.This is definitely related to the further advancement of public opinion.However, Lincoln's election as president undoubtedly made the South nervous.

All of the above factors related to the slavery issue obviously intensified the North-South relations at that time, making the United States before the Civil War more cloudy.However, talking here, I don't know if you have noticed such a problem.That is, what happened in this country is actually far from our imagination.That is, before the American Civil War, a slavery related to blacks caused the biggest social conflict here, not the conflict between blacks and whites. Until the Civil War, the power of blacks still did not grow, and they still only had a few occasional small-scale resistance, which could not be compared with the confrontation between the two major entities of the North and the South at that time.And both sides of this confrontation are white.The anti-slavery forces in the north were increasingly powerful among the white people at that time.Seven volumes.From Juan 1 to Juan 4 and Juan 60, the only appeal to the people is the principle of humanitarianism and humanity.Therefore, you can imagine that since the establishment of this country, its people have an almost naive pursuit of humanity that has nothing to do with interests.This pursuit with a broad popular base has formed the mainstream of thought in this country.This makes it preserve such a tradition in today's way of thinking, so that many mature and sophisticated nations often find it inexplicable and unreasonable when viewed from the outside.

Let's go back to the eve of the Civil War.Almost at the same time as the occurrence of the "Scott Case", Kansas, located between the North and the South, implemented a referendum on slavery for self-determination, and there were small violent conflicts between the two opposing parties.The question is, how did the Civil War start? Was it a regional conflict triggered by the slavery issue like Kansas, and then expanded and formed?In other words, after President Lincoln came up, the North became tough and rushed to the South to free the slaves?Or did Lincoln become president, and when the South became nervous, it rushed to the North to expand the power of slavery by force?neither.

So, what kind of war is this?Believe it or not, the war known for emancipating slaves had little to do with that goal in the first place. Before and after Lincoln came to power, all the conflicts about slavery did make the conflicts between the North and the South increasingly acute.However, the election of President Lincoln does not actually mean that the whole North-South stalemate situation is one of the philosophical masterpieces of German Feuerbach. In 1841, something substantial would change very quickly.Just like in the United States today, the party that the president joins often does not have a majority in Congress.You are already very familiar with the operation of this system. If there is any real breakthrough, President Lincoln, as the chief executive, will not be able to play a big role at all, because he has no legislative power.In Congress at the time, President Lincoln's Republican Party held only a minority of seats.However, how did a war come out?

In fact, it was the long-term increasingly acute contradictions that made the South feel disappointed and tired of the United States, which they joined. They planned to withdraw unilaterally and get out of this contradiction.We have mentioned that since the War of Independence, the two extreme southern states at that time, South Carolina and Georgia, had very different ideas from the mainstream ideas of the United States during the founding period.They did not at that time, though never say, disapprove of the humane foundations of the new nation, nor did they deny that slavery was inconsistent with this humanitarian aim.However, for them, the greater significance of independence is to get rid of the British governor's rule and live their own lives.Today, they feel they are living under the shadow of an abolitionist slogan, although they are largely living on their own terms under the American ideal of Partition.Now, though the North expanded more rapidly, the South also found its own pro-slavery allies in the expansion of the Union.

At last the day came when the South did not want to try to gain the upper hand in this stalemate.Since the stalemate has been stalemate for a long time, there is still no way out, and according to the trend of decades since the founding of the country, there are more and more states that abolish slavery on their own, and the abolition force is getting stronger and stronger. Lincoln's election has confirmed this historical trend in the United States. .In theory, it doesn't make sense.Simply put, doesn't it mean that we do not conform to the founding philosophy of the United States?Then we don't want to be Americans, can't we?We back!

This is the real cause of the Civil War, because in addition to being a firm anti-slavery person, President Lincoln is also a person who attaches great importance to maintaining the Union, and the latter is even stronger than the former. So, this is not an increasingly acute conflict that has lasted for decades, a war detonated by a point of contact. On the contrary, it is a confrontation where one side wants to withdraw, while the other side grabs its back. , You must drag it back, and then the fight will start.The South really doesn't want to be an American with so many rules.Those "like-minded" states in the south can completely unite themselves and form another alliance.They're not called a federation, they're called a confederation.From now on, I can set up my own rules, keep slaves if I want, live as I want, and it's done.The Yankees no longer have any reason to "mess up with them" with the founding ideals and spirit of the United States.Because the principles of the United States can no longer control us, we are not the United States anymore!The South finally found a breakthrough in their own way. If the knot cannot be untied, just cut it with scissors. Wouldn't it be straightforward. In fact, this idea of ​​the South did not arise suddenly. For a long time, on the issue of slavery, a large part of the reason for the compromises made by the North in Congress was to maintain this federation.Because as soon as the south is pushed into a hurry, it often has the idea of ​​leaving.It's just that between the two sides' constant coordination and compromise, they have never made up their minds. It was an era of sluggish economic development. There were no roads or cars. The presidential candidates would have a debate, not to mention being on TV, without even a loudspeaker.I can only yell out my views in the noisy crowd, and it is difficult to maintain a demeanor.The south is even more of a classical-style large farm, full of farmers and manors.The poor try to be self-sufficient, and the rich sell the produce of their estates through brokers. There is no reason why this America should be.What's more, if we want a united federation to feel safer or have greater power, then, after the establishment of the United States, many slave holding areas joined in.As a result, the total number of slave-holding states in the south, although there were only a few slave-holding states in the United States at that time, some slave-holding states were sparsely populated but large in size. of the total area.Therefore, if the South establishes a "confederation", its scale will not be inferior to that of the United States when the country was founded.It can be seen that the South was "forced to do nothing" on the issue of slavery, and it was inevitable to make such a bad move. The point is that when the South made up its mind to leave the United States, the connotation of the whole contradiction changed completely.At this time, the issue facing the United States was no longer the issue that southern slavery violated the founding ideals of the United States.Because, since the South will get away and become another federation, or another country or region that has nothing to do with the United States.The original problem itself drifts away with its carrier.As if business as usual, the South would obviously continue to keep slaves.However, this is no longer your business in the United States.In those days, there were many slave-holding countries and regions. Can the United States control them all? "Inhumanity" is the consciousness of non-slave-holding countries, and you can only condemn it morally, at most it is announcing that you will no longer do business with slave-holding countries.The rest, can only stand by and watch. In fact, under the principle of partition, the U.S. federal government and the northern states have long had no greater right to interfere with the actions of the South than they have with Cuba.This is also the fundamental reason why the United States will not be able to completely solve the problem of slavery for a long time as long as the South is not aware of itself.However, in the same federation, theoretically they have the same Declaration of Independence with the concept of founding a country, even if there is a contract signed by the South.Therefore, the North certainly has more reasons to condemn the South morally.At the same time, there is the right to move closer in the judicial field on issues related to slavery.In the end, it may be possible to win more Confederate states, and to win more conversions in the Southern states, and when there is enough power, in the form of constitutional amendments, legally establish the abolition of slavery throughout the Union.There is a process, but it is a historical trend. One thing is for sure, if this status quo continues, no matter how serious the contradiction is, in the entire American system, whether it is the concept, the system or the way of operation, the federal government and the North will never have the right to go to the United States just because the South insists on slavery. Start a war to attack the South and free the slaves.Just because of their understanding of this country, the South did not worry that the North would "liberate the slaves by force", and did not feel "threatened by force" because of this.The South just wanted to get rid of its passive position on the abolition issue and leave the United States.In this way, not only can it continue to keep slaves, but it can also get rid of many troubles such as judicial challenges once and for all, and it can live a righteous life. Generally, when a war is fought, people will have this question, that is, who fired the first shot?It was the first shot from the South.However, this does not mean that the South intends to provoke a war, and it does not mean that the South will fight to the North.The shot was fired in the port city of Charleston, South Carolina.Strictly speaking, it was the first shot of the Civil War, not the first shot.Because at that time, it was a frontier castle built by the federal army in the center of the estuary, Fort Semut.Not only is the city wall thick and solid, but it is also surrounded by water, so shooting a gun is useless at all. As I told you before, it was no surprise that the "first shot" took place in Charleston.Since the founding of the country, South Carolina has been the leader of the only two extreme southern states at that time. Georgia started very late, and compared to it, it is scumbag. At first, it was just booing after it.At that time, Charleston was a fairly mature small city, and it was even one of the first five cities in the United States.You already know that a third of the slaves who came into North America from the time of colonization landed here.It is also conceivable how much this place has benefited from slavery.Therefore, South Carolina was the first southern state to declare its secession from the Union of the United States at the end of 1860.It was here that the first shot was fired. At that time, the United States did not have many troops at all, mainly some border guards, scattered in border castles similar to Fort Semut in various states.The purpose is only to defend against the outside world, not at all.These almost token border guards are small in number and have good relations with the state.The southern commander who attacked Fort Semut was an old friend of the commander in the fort and an artillery student. Therefore, this war can be said to have been a tragedy of fratricide from the first shot. So why on earth did Charleston fire?In fact, after several southern states announced their separation from the United States, similar incidents have occurred in many southern states, that is, the occupation of some frontier castles and ammunition depots placed by the federal army in the south, but they were all occupied peacefully.The southern states just feel that when we declare secession from the Union, these federal troops in the southern stronghold should also leave.It turns out that these garrisons and local civilians have no hatred, and they have never been "enemies".Therefore, when the southerners, who were basically civilians, rushed to occupy these military facilities, the federal army did not resist.Several federal castles next to Fort Semut were occupied by local civilians in this way.The army did not think that it was necessary to defend by force. They were originally some defense facilities, and they did not have any mental preparations for internal use of force. However, even though the South had no fear that the North would solve the slave problem by war, they also felt that they were starting another story after the Southern states seceded from the Union.They really start to get nervous.Because they are not sure how the Federation will react.As more and more southern states declared secession from the Union, and as the occupation of Union military installations in the South intensified, tensions in the South rose despite little action from the North.In particular, the seceding southern states did form a "confederation" and on February 18, 1861, elected their own president, Jefferson Davis.At this time, a new stalemate began.One country, two systems has become truly two countries.At this time, the silence in the south makes people dare not take a deep breath. The geographical location of Fort Semuter is very special. It hangs alone at the mouth of the sea and cannot be easily obtained.Therefore, several other castles near the port of Charleston have fallen, and Fort Semut is still in the hands of the Federation.The South had demanded the Confederate surrender, but it was refused.After President Lincoln took office, he ordered federal ships to resupply Fort Semuter, as if to stick to it.This made the already overstretched South determined to capture Fort Semut by force. Bolger, who received the order to fire, was indeed very uncomfortable.He notified his former instructor and good friend, Anderson, the commander of Fort Semut, to hand over the castle.Anderson replied, I can't just hand it over like this, but in fact, in a few days, we will have to come out hungry.Bolger said, if you don't come out, I can only attack according to the order.To tell the truth, Anderson really didn't know how to deal with it.Although many federal military facilities have fallen, the situation is different from what he encountered.He therefore cautiously replied that if after four days he had not received instructions from the Commonwealth, nor any further supplies, he would leave the castle.South refused to wait another four days.So, on the second day, Bolger once again informed his old friends that if they did not surrender, they would have one hour to attack.An hour and ten minutes later, Borg ordered the first shots to be fired at Fort Semut, where his friends were stationed.This day is April 12, 1861. After thirty-four hours of fighting, Anderson gave the order to abandon the castle, which wounded five soldiers when its ammunition depot was hit.But no one was killed on either side.After surrendering Fort Semuter, the Union defenders calmly embarked back to New York.As long as the South wants them to leave, it doesn't mean to embarrass these soldiers.I believe that Bolger, who fired the first shot, watched his good friend and the five wounded soldiers being carried aboard, facing the "results" of Fort Semuter, his heart was not full of victory. happy.This is the story of the "first shot", and you can see that up to that time, they still hadn't really accepted the concept of being "enemies" to each other. However, is it true that firing the first shot will inevitably lead to a war?I think that's not the case.For, as you have seen, the fall of Castle Semut was only one of a series of Confederate military installations that fell in the South at that time.These facilities are mainly used for border defense, because in the relationship between the United States and the states, border defense is the responsibility of the federal government.This is one of the reasons these highly self-governing states still needed a federation at the time, because they could have less to worry about.We find that this relationship holds true today in the United States. After the South announced its secession from the United States and established its own "Confederacy", this new country "Confederacy" also had its own "Confederate Army", and of course it came to take over the border defense facilities on its own territory.Therefore, the fall of Fort Semut was somewhat different from the previous situations. It was no longer an emotional and spontaneous occupation by the people of the southern states.After the South has its own new alliance, a new president, and its own army, it is an action to officially take over the old border guard facilities within its own territory in the name of the new border guard.Moreover, before that, a peaceful handover was formally proposed, but under the refusal of Lincoln's predecessor, President Buchanan, he decided to take a military action. However, in essence, the fall of all these federal military installations, including Fort Semut, was an act of taking over by a southern "confederation" on its own land.It's not aggressive.In other words, if the United States decides to agree to this separation, the "confederation" in the south will not fight to the north.Because their whole purpose is to live their own lives, they prefer a peaceful transition.It's just that Fort Semut's location is really special, it's firmly stuck at the throat of Charleston port.If the federal army resolutely does not withdraw, it will be a great threat to the foreign trade and connections in this region.In addition, a month ago, the newly-elected President Lincoln made it clear in his inaugural speech that he did not approve of the secession of the South.As soon as I got nervous, the first shot was fired like this.However, so far, no historian believes that this means that the South intends to "take advantage of the victory and go north." Now, it's up to the U.S. federal government.The president at the time was President Lincoln, who had just taken office for a month.Today, when you are in the United States, no matter which statue of Lincoln you walk in front of, you can always see a frowning, dignified face.President Lincoln is undoubtedly a tragic figure.This is not only because he ended up being assassinated, but also because his entire presidential career was in a whirlpool of pain. We talked about how Lincoln was elected president because of his very clear views against slavery.However, according to the presidential transition procedure in the United States, after he wins the election, he will have to wait for a transition period of about three months before he is sworn in.However, in these three months, the situation changed suddenly. By the time President Lincoln actually took office, there was no need to deal with the "two systems conflict" of "one country, two systems".Because slavery had left the United States with the South, half a month before he was sworn in as president, Jefferson Davis had sworn in as the president of the Southern "Confederacy".The southern president, like President Lincoln, was born in Kentucky, and the two of them even look alike.Therefore, when President Lincoln took office, strictly speaking, there were actually two countries, two presidents, and two governments.In the southern land, except for a very small number of federal border guards like Fort Semut, there is nothing substantial.Because here is a high degree of autonomy, and all government management agencies are owned by the southern states.From an operational point of view, the North-South decoupling at that time was really a simple and easy thing to do. Although in President Lincoln's inaugural address, he still called for the South to return to its lost ways, but he should know that two countries have been formed, and the appeal is difficult to be effective.The choice he had to make was to acknowledge this fact, or to attack the South and "bring them back" to the Union by force.This choice is firstly based on the perception of the United States as a federal country.Why do you say this way? Because the establishment of the United States was a "special case" from the very beginning, it is completely against the "normal".At that time, generally speaking, when people think of a country, it is always a top-down concept.A central government controls various local governments, and the local governments are sent down from one level to the next, until a small official manages a group of grassroots people.Has a strong integrity.From the very beginning, the founding philosophy of the United States has been to safeguard the "individual freedom" of grassroots people.Its starting point is not the convenience of management "above", but the guarantee of freedom "below".Such a reverse journey of a concept from bottom to top has resulted in "self-government" and "union" that start almost from the individual and go up one level at a time.This kind of national concept can be said to have completely surpassed that era at that time.Its appearance does not stem from a brilliant theory, but from a human instinct yearning for equality and freedom. From the perspective of the common people, one person, one family or several people do their own independent business.A village, a city, everyone signs a contract to determine how they will unite and coexist.This is what it means all the way up to the states and the federation.This is where "divide and conquer" comes from.So, the higher you go, the looser the connection.This kind of connection is originally the choice of the people who are connected because they think that the existence of union is more conducive to their survival.The problem now is that at the federal level, everyone cannot reach an absolute majority consensus on the issue of slavery.According to their own understanding of "partition" and federation, the South believes that under the principles of the federal system of the United States, freedom and partition are absolute, while the form of union is relative.Therefore, if you can unite, you will unite, and if you cannot unite, you will divide. Now it was the turn of President Lincoln to define the Union.He feels very difficult, and no president has ever encountered such a situation.In the past, there was only a loosely existing federal reality and the principle of partition. No president had to define whether it was an absolutely indivisible whole, or a union that would unite if voluntary, or divide if not voluntary.The form of existence of the United States and the continuous expansion of alliances have always been very natural.After a period of transition, the newly joined regions are granted autonomy as a matter of course.However, what should they do when they are unwilling to stay in the league?No one has seriously thought about this situation.In the history of the United States, this is the first time that a "point" requirement has appeared.It happened to hit President Lincoln's hand. In the three months before Lincoln took office, he had to make a choice.I believe that Lincoln understood the significance of a free alliance, but he felt that he could not bear the historical responsibility of the division of the United States in his hands.However, as long as the South does not look back, it means a civil war, and a civil war started by him.And no American president would want to take responsibility for such a civil war.He is undoubtedly standing in a dilemma historical position. Ultimately, Lincoln defined America as an indivisible whole like any other.Under such a definition, the South must be defined as a divided rebellion, and what Lincoln raised in the North was a banner of patriotism.President Lincoln knew all too well that this was extremely dangerous.He has no definite legal basis to confirm this definition, and in his inaugural speech, he was extremely reluctant to explain the legal interpretation of this point.So, in a last hope, he appealed to the South to believe in his good intentions, to show that the Union would not illegally compel the self-governing South to abolish slavery by force.He wanted the South to renounce secession so that he could escape such a miserable position. Unfortunately, what he promised was not the reason for the secession of the South.We have said that the South never feared that the North would illegally wage war to free the slaves, and that was not the reason they demanded secession.The state they want to achieve is that there will be no legal judicial approach on the issue of slavery, no moral pressure, and they will completely "go their own way."The South is well aware that there is no other way to achieve this than separation.Their request was impossible for President Lincoln to promise to the South on behalf of the United States, which was determined by the founding philosophy of the United States.Therefore, they actually understood better than Lincoln that they had only one way, which was to leave the United States.If they go back, the original problem will still not be solved in the slightest. Perhaps, what prompted President Lincoln to finally make up his mind, apart from the fact that he could not bear the reality of the division of the Union, was that he imagined too simply the war to "drag back" the South.Obviously, the "first shot" of Fort Semut was also a reason. At least, he would think that with this shot from the south, his responsibility seemed to be lighter for triggering this civil war.You may also wonder what I said earlier about Lincoln "starting a civil war."Isn't it obviously the first shot fired by the south? Yes, the South fired the first shot, but this was still only an announcement of a determination to separate.If President Lincoln had recognized the secession, there would have been no civil war.The decision on the war was still in the hands of President Lincoln.Almost all the process of the Civil War took place in the South, and almost the entire South became a battleground.On the clear territory of the Chuhe-Han border, if the north did not rush to seize the south, there would be no such war at all. After the fall of Fort Semut, President Lincoln found an unclear legislation from the time of President Washington, that is, in case of emergency, the president can call up the state militia.At that time, the United States, neither the North nor the South, was not prepared for war.The South is not some "premeditated" armed rebellion.The north also never had the idea of ​​​​"arming and freeing slaves".Therefore, in terms of combat readiness, both sides have almost zero starting point.Why can you say that?Because although the Federation has the original federal army, it is just a little border guards. You must not have thought that the total number of troops in the United States with such a large territory at that time was only 16,000. From the situation of President Lincoln's first conscription at that time, it can be seen how underestimated he was about the prospects of this war.He announced the conscription, the number of which was 75,000, and the term of conscription was three months.I have been thinking, if he had expected the consequences of his decision at that time, which would be four years of bloody fighting, the death of 600,000 young Americans, and the entire South being almost burnt to ashes, I wonder if Lincoln would have Say, let the South go. I don't think so for nothing.Because President Lincoln has never been an image of a revolutionary who goes forward bravely and does not care about the cost.He was simply forced by history to make such a decision.It seems inevitable that he made this decision.Although this country has a principle of partition and rule established by reason that is far ahead of history, Lincoln, as a president, could not easily break out of the nest of historical limitations and recognize such a country that was at that time No country in the world can tolerate separation.Facing the South with almost no military power, he would not have expected how cruel this war would be. No wonder President Lincoln underestimated the war, and the entire North was optimistic about the attack.Fort Semut was hardly a serious battle.First of all, the defenders inside did not intend to defend at all, and there was no intention of reinforcements from its rear.It was uncertain at the time whether it should be the first battle of a real war.Therefore, the north's loss of Fort Semuter is probably only regarded as a voluntary abandonment.Although everyone thinks that there is no need to defend to death, many people in the north may think that the reason for the loss is that they did not fight seriously. If they fought seriously, the south would not be able to withstand a few blows.Such an optimistic attitude is not unreasonable, because the South is not only inferior to the North in strength, but the "army" that came out after that is indeed even worse than the temporarily recruited Northern Army. After formally drawing a fight, the four states between the north and the south, which were still on the sidelines, decided to join the southern "confederation".Virginia was thus split into two states, with West Virginia joining the North.As a result, the Southern "Confederacy" moved its capital north to Richmond, Virginia.In this way, the capitals of the North and the South are only about a hundred miles apart, which can be said to be far away from each other.At that time, the North generally believed that as long as they concentrated their forces to fight across the hundred miles, captured the capital of the South, and taught the South a lesson, everything would be over.The South lost its capital, and the dragons had no leader, so of course they returned to the Federation obediently.This was President Lincoln's three-month conscription plan, and it was also the entire mental preparation of the North for this war. In this way, for the first time, the North officially went to war and set off to attack Richmond. A large number of civilians followed behind with picnic utensils, and the atmosphere was quite relaxed.However, just after leaving Washington, the capital of the north, and less than thirty miles into Virginia, it was resolutely blocked by the south.The scarlet blood of the dead and wounded really kicked off this fratricidal war in which both sides held high the banner of patriotism.如果说，塞姆特堡的炮声停顿之后，人们还有可能通过理性阻止一场战争的话，那么，在这一仗之后，就一发不可收拾了。 战争是有它自己的发展规律的。当一场战争的火药被点燃，你要再想把它捂灭，就几乎是不可能的了。预定要响的炸药，一个个都会响起来，不管你是愿意还是不愿意。而且，对美国南北战争的号召，是最具有鼓动力的战争口号之一。这就是爱国主义。而同伴的鲜血所激起的仇恨，是战争中最典型的燃油。到这个时候，仗不打出个胜负来，是死活也不肯罢休了。 现在想来，这真是一件难以理解的事情。在战争的初期，南北双方的士兵都以极大的热情投入了这场战争，用的都是同一个爱国主义的口号，打的却是一场内战。这不论怎么说，我听上去总是有什么地方出了毛病，至少怀疑是不是有一方用错了口号。问题在于他们谁也没错，他们的确都是为爱国而战。只是南方的爱国，是指保卫他们的家乡和南方“邦联”不受侵犯，而北方所说的爱国，是指的保护美国联邦的整体不被分裂。真可谓此“爱国”非彼“爱国”也。 双方的爱国主义都是真诚的。开战之前他们除了对于“爱国”的理解不同之外，并没有什么深仇大恨。所以，一些事情回想起来，简直令人难以置信。例如，尽管当时的士兵都是临时招募的，可是双方的将领不少都出自西点军校。于是，当战争开始，同学们便握手告别，根据自己家乡的归属，分别去为自己的“国家”效劳，此后的同学相见，只能是战场上的生死较量了。 在这里，我必须提到南方的最高将领罗伯特.李了。李将军出身于弗吉尼亚，在战争开始前，他一直在联邦军队服务。至今为止，在美国他始终是受到人们敬重的一个历史人物。这不仅是由于他始终如一的人格尊严和绅士风度。更因为他在人道立场上的无可挑剔。他一贯反对奴隶制。在南方宣扬分离的时候，他反对南方脱离北方。但是，当北方因此而要对南方发动攻击的时候，他又坚决反对这样的战争。 但是，他无力阻挡战争的车轮，他所最不愿意看到的一场内战，最终还是发生了。林肯总统一度找不到一个好的联邦军队指挥官，曾请罗伯特.李担任北军高位指挥官，攻打他的家乡弗吉尼亚，但是被他谢绝了。作为军人，历史逼迫他在两方之间作一个选择。最终，罗伯特.李决定退出联邦军队，参加了南军，并且被南方“邦联”任命为总指挥。在当时，所有的人都认为，这个选择是非常自然的，他是一个弗吉尼亚人，他必须回去，保卫他的国家。结果，历史就对罗伯特.李开了这样一个恶毒的玩笑，一个反对联邦分裂也憎恶奴隶制的人，却作为维护奴隶制一方的“叛军”总司令，被记载在许多历史书中。然而，我想，他作出回南方的选择，并不那么单纯。北方决心攻打南方的态度，也是促使罗伯特.李下决心离开联邦军队的重要原因之一。因为，对当时许多弗吉尼亚精英来说，仅仅因为南方的分离行为，北方就要以武力相威胁，这对于美国建立联邦的精神来说，无论如何是既没有法律基础，也没有道德基础的。 作出同样反应的，还有美国的第四届总统，约翰.泰勒。他也是弗吉尼亚人。他和李将军一样，一直是反对南方离开美国的。并且在战争前夕在首都华盛顿主持了调解的和平会议。可是，和平会议的提案被国会参议院否决。联邦军队执意要进攻南方，他断然回到弗吉尼亚，参与南方“邦联”的议会工作。这决不是仅仅因为他的故乡在南方，他是以参与抵抗的方式，表达自己的态度，就是他不能认可这场战争的合法性。 甚至整个弗吉尼亚的离去，战争刺激都是一个重要原因。弗吉尼亚你早已经熟悉，它虽然属于南方，可是位于南北交界之间。在南方蓄奴州中，它是州内主张废奴的力量最强的一个，甚至弗吉尼亚的一半，西弗吉尼亚，自行废奴而加入了北方的阵营。它是南方最智慧的一个州，也是一个具有悠久理性传统的地区。在独立战争时，弗吉尼亚是创建美国和建立它的原则的最主要力量之一。弗吉尼亚出了整整一批建国者。从打下江山的华盛顿将军到“独立宣言”起草人托玛斯.杰弗逊，都是弗吉尼亚人。这是南方对美国感情最深，也最不愿意离开美国的一个地区。 当南方州纷纷宣布离开美国的时候，弗吉尼亚刚刚选出新的州议会，他们在讨论南方的这一行动时，不同意从美国分离的“联邦主义者”，占了绝大多数。可是，有一点几乎是一致的，就是议员们都同意，假若联邦军队用武力侵犯那些南方分离州的话，他们也将离开美国。因为，对于弗吉尼亚来说，他们不赞成南方以离开美国的方式解决矛盾，可是并不意味他们认为，一个州就没有离开联邦的合法权利。如果北方动武，就意味着北方偏离了美国的立国精神，他们将立即站到南方一边，以表明他们对此的抗议，因为他们确信，林肯并没有这样的合法权利。 不幸的是，弗吉尼亚最终无法避免这样一个悲剧性的结局。在北方决定进攻南方的时候，弗吉尼亚和另外三个位于南北之间的州，在最后时刻也离开了美国。由于弗吉尼亚特殊的地理位置和它重要的政治地位，使它成为最首当其冲的战争现场，厮杀惨烈。这真是一个惨痛的时刻，就是弗吉尼亚必须以不情愿地离开美国，来表示他们对于美国这个联邦立国原则的尊重。而促使他们这样做的，正是这个州一贯的坚持理性的传统。 就象罗伯特.李，当他离开联邦军队，回到南方的时候，他所面临的选择，不是要不要奴隶制的问题，（他从来也没有赞同过奴隶制），也不是赞成不赞成联邦分裂的问题（他也从来都没有支持过联邦分裂）。他所面临的，是马上就要爆发一场战争，作为一个军官，他必须选择站在战争正义的一方。从这个角度来说，他和许多弗吉尼亚人一样，他们认为，不论一个州是不是应该离开联邦，但是，可以选择和作出决定，是一个州的民众的权利。同样，不论一个州是不是应该离开联邦，联邦都无权因此去对这个州动武。因此，就战争而言，李将军不认为正义在联邦军队一边。可是，当他一站到南方一边，又象是跳进了一口泥潭。从此，他就再也无法洗清与极端南方相连的奴隶制的污泥浊水了。这是罗伯特.李生命的悲剧，也是许多弗吉尼亚人的悲剧。 所以，在美国南北战争打起来的时候，在双方战士高扬的爱国主义热情之下，矛盾的焦点是一个分离的问题。北方在林肯总统定的原则下，认定这个自愿联合在一起的联邦，是神圣不可分割的。因此，他们把维护这个完整联盟，不容许南方离开联盟，上升到了爱国的高度。对于南方来说，最早一批宣布离开美国这个联盟的南方州，是自己要求离开，他们萌生去意的动因是要维护奴隶制。然而，在建立了南方“邦联”政府以及北方攻击之下，他们所面临的被讨伐问题也与奴隶制无关了。他们保卫的是自己要求分离的权利，对于一些加盟美国时间不长的南方州来说，“只准来不准走”更是一个难以接受的荒唐。南方已经建立了自己的国家，所以，他们把对于分离权利的要求，也上升到了爱国的高度，即爱南方“邦联”这个新国家。更何况，在当时的美国，人们从来就认为自己的州和家乡才是自己的“第一祖国”。 最容易被历史的烟尘所掩没的，就是以弗吉尼亚和南军总司令罗伯特.李为代表的温和南方。他们的本意决不是要离开美国，也不赞同分离。但是，他们认为美国这个联邦的建立原则，就是保障人民的自由，一个地区的人民有权利决定自己的命运。他们认为，州与联邦的关系以及分治的原则，是美国建国原则最重要的组成部分之一。他们更反对联邦以武力胁迫的方式，强行维持联邦整体。他们实际上是一个第三力量。 可是，在战争逼近时，这个第三力量不可能在夹缝中保持平静。他们加入南方，是为了表示他们对于地方分离权利的支持，以及对于联邦入侵南方的反对。他们要求的是一个抽象的联邦自愿离合的原则，而不是自己的分离愿望。但是，一旦他们加入了南方“邦联”，也就被卷入了这场战争。在一片血与火之中，他们已经无法把他们的理性诉求与极端南方的诉求杂烩分割开了。 即使在战争过去之后，在一百多年以来的南北战争研究中，人们也很难把这样一个第三力量从南方剥离出来，认真地考察他们的悲剧和思维逻辑中的合理性。因为，战争创伤形成的血痂，已经把他们和南方死死结在一起。更因为，他们的理解和诉求是超前于历史的，甚至，美国这个联邦建立的原则本身就是超前于历史的。就连大多数美国人也要经过漫长的历史进程，才能逐步理解，他们的建国者们是一些多么不可思议的人。他们站在最贴近地面的朴素的人性基础上，却远远站在历史的前面。 也许，你还是要追问，那么，这场以解放奴隶出名的南北战争，打起来的原因就真的不是解放奴隶，而是一个能否“分离”的争论吗？我只能回答说，是的。这样回答的理由，只能是历史事实。就是说，假如南方不提出离开联邦的话，这场战争是绝对不会发生的。 实际上，林肯总统虽然鼓起了北方民众对于保卫联邦完整的高昂的爱国热情，但是，他自己心里始终是明白的。他只是痛苦地处于两难之间，是承担联邦在他的手里分裂成两个国家的责任，还是承担发动一场并不那么有理的战争的责任。当时南方“邦联”的首都离华盛顿太近，南方又没有传统军队，这些都使得林肯总统产生一种错觉，似乎快刀斩乱麻地小打几战，痛苦几个月，只要打下南方的“邦联”首都，一个两难困境就在“两害取其轻”之间解决了。 我们对于这场战争的起因与解放奴隶无关的说法，并不是无迹可寻。南北战争之前，林肯总统最重要的一篇讲话，就是他的就职演说，在这篇演说中，林肯总统竭力劝说南方放弃分离，并且提醒南方，在他以往所有的演说中，都强调了这样一个事实，就是南方没有任何理由担心，在林肯所在的共和党执政以后，“他们的财产，安定的生活和个人安全会遭到危险。”林肯总统还引用了他以前演讲中的一段话：“我无意直接或间接地在有奴隶制的州里，干预蓄奴制度。我相信我没有这样做的合法权利，而且，我也没有这样做的意愿……” 在1860年12月22日，正在等待宣誓就职的林肯总统，已经知道他上任以后最大的麻烦将是什么了。他已经开始努力劝说南方，给自己的南方朋友亚力山大·斯第芬写了一封短信。他在信中写道，“南方人真的就担心，一个共和党人领导的行政分支，会因为他们蓄奴就干涉他们和他们的奴隶吗？如果他们有这样的担心，我作为一个老朋友，我希望至今还是你的朋友而不是敌人，向你保证，这样的担心是根本没有必要的。在这个方面，今天的南方并不比当年在华盛顿的时代更受威胁，我想，这并不在点子上。你们认为奴隶制是正确的，应该扩大；而我们认为奴隶制是错误的，应该有所限制，我想这才是分歧所在。这才是我们之间实际存在的分歧。” 作为美国总统，林肯的思路很清楚，由于南方州尚未废除奴隶制，就发动一场内战去攻打南方，不论他有没有这个意愿，他都不具有这样的合法权利。林肯总统在上面的演说和这封他所不愿意公开的私信中，都清楚表明，南北双方确实存在分歧，但是，假如南方不要求离开，他绝对不可能采取内战这样一个行动去解决南方的奴隶制问题。关键在于这类行动是违法的。 美国人并不认为林肯总统这样的表态是虚伪的。相反，他们认为这是符合逻辑的，因为，对于美国人来说，憎恶奴隶制，合法地尽一切努力去达到废奴是一回事，但是违法地去发动一场内战，这是另一回事。所以，从来没有人因此怀疑林肯总统对于奴隶制的憎恶，就如同当时没有人认为，他因为憎恶奴隶制就会去违法地攻打南方一样。 由于一个无法解决的“分离”问题，战争还是打响了。在战争发生以后，南方在心理上的负担，比林肯总统要轻得多。不仅他们认定他们具有分离的合法权利，在感觉上是站在战争被动的一方。还在于，南方的“爱国”是非常直观的。因为这场战争基本上都发生在南方的土地上。他们是站在自己家乡的土地上，在和入侵自己家园的军队打仗。在这里，你可不要以为南方人都是在为保住自己的奴隶而战，在南方，实际上奴隶主只是南方白人的极少数。战争开始的时候，南方的奴隶主实际上不到白人人口的百分之五，即使是在他们中间，大量的奴隶主也就是拥有几个黑奴仆人而已，真正拥有百名奴隶以上的奴隶主，不到南方白人人口的百分之一。 然而，对于林肯总统来说，从此，他的总统生涯成为一场真正的恶梦。他给这场内战开了头，可是，却再也无法按照自己的愿望使它“速战速决”。南北战争象是一辆无法控制的战车，隆隆地轰响着自己向前滚动。枪炮船舰都在“自觉地”改进，自动地创造了无数“奇迹”。在人类历史上，这是第一次使用装甲舰，平射炮，地雷，水雷和潜水艇。也是在人类历史上第一次广泛使用气球空中照相的侦察技术。在这场战争开始的时候，整个美国，连同海防队在内，一共只有90艘战舰。开战的时候，当然全部都在联邦军队一方。南方根本没有海上力量。可是，在战争结束的时候，联邦军队已经有600多艘战舰，南方更是从无到有建立了一支海军。 来福枪也在南北战争中由联邦一方开始使用，命中率大大提高。可是，当时的阵地战还完全是拿破仑时代的战术。当我们来到弗吉尼亚的一个个古战场，我们发现，双方战线的距离是那么近，人们密密地排列射击，可想而知，当枪械更新的时候，带来多大的杀伤力。尤为悲惨的是，当时的医学发明却远没有跟上。人们还不知道抗生素为何物，也没有更多的消毒的知识。所以，非常简单的外伤就会导致无可挽救的死亡。无数年轻的生命，就这样被碾进了这架战车的车轮之下。 这决不是林肯总统所希望看到的战争，可是，我们已经说过，战争是有它自己的规律的，这个时候，林肯总统即使想要拖住这辆战车，也已经回天无力了。 下次再继续给你写南北战争吧。 wish it is good! Linda