The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Let's Talk About the Cause of the Civil War Here
Quid
Definitely not a bananaRegistered User regular
Definitely not a bananaRegistered User regular
You see that other thread over there? That's about the battles and shit. If you want to talk about the causes do it here so we can avoid people frothing at the mouth about slavery.
Its like a band-aid on an elephant in the room. I doubt anyone here is an expert in Civil War tactics and discussion about what the Confederacy should have done inevitably relies on why the Civil War was fought.
nexuscrawler wrote: »Also ironclad ships were awesome
really didn't have much effect on the war itself since they fought to standstills whenever they encountered each other
Well if the South had been able to build many they maybe could have broken the blockade which would have made it conceivable for the South to outlast Lincoln. But that wasn't going to happen.
I'm going to beat everyone to it because its inevitable: The South's societal system was fundamentally evil, the Civil War was 99.9% about slavery, Lee was not a good person merely fighting because he loved his state and the South got off easy on Reconstruction.
I think on Thursday I'm going to essentially be arguing for the first part in a speech I'm giving. I think the only person in class who actually disagrees with me outright is my teacher, the majority said they were neutral/uninformed on the issue. 99.9% might be overstating it a bit I'd say slavery was more like 75%-85% of the motivation realistically stuff like tariffs did play into the equation at least a bit.
I would agree with the idea that slavery was doomed with the South staying in the Union. But it also seems unrealistic that they could have won the Civil War and thus kept slavery that way. It probably would have been better to stay in the Union and see if they could put up a fight eventually resulting them having a gradual elimination of slavery or government compensation for their slaves.
Quid on
0
Posts
The general public considerd it to be less about slavery and more about unification and how much authority the government had over certain matters. Slavery was just one of the bigger being argued about at the time.
Basically he's saying The Man is keeping us down. 8-)8-)8-)
White FC: 0819 3350 1787
Hate the man :x. Lets stick it to him by enslaving a race of people.
Yeah, screw them with their industrialization and urbanizatioN!
http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html
Yeah, most of the states specifically mentioned slavery as a cause in their declarations of secession. Here is a gem from South Carolina's Declaration:
"The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation. "
I especially like the bold part because they are complaining about the northern states enacting laws that disagree with laws Congress passed. They are complaining that the northern states don't have the right to make those laws. They are complaining about state's rights.
These threads are always fun here at good ole PA.
But first, let me go ahead and get it out of the way. None of this excuses the act of slavery or the behavior of the South. None of it even remotely supports what happened in regards to slavery nor does it make light of, or approve, the evil of slavery.
Some historical facts:
Before the Civil War, the South was the political force in the United States. It was the political force in the United States because of the money they gained from production of slave labor. In the South, large plantation owners were the law.
During the mid 1800's, America was becoming a more industrialized nation. The advent of steam powered manufacturing over water powered manufacturing, plus with the increasingly large amount of immigrants settling in the North, allowed the North to wrestle away more and more political power from the South. Southern politicians, like any modern politician, didn't like losing power.
Lincoln did not want to abolish slavery. Lincoln and the slave states knew that the only way for slavery to not die out was to ensure that it expanded. This is why Lincoln wanted to allow the slave states to continue to hold slaves, while denying any new states that ability. The South, obviously, opposed this. Again, they knew that the institution that kept them in power would dwindle if not allowed to grow.
The South began losing more and more political weight and money to the North. When Lincoln took office, the South realized that the expansion of slavery was over. In order to maintain political power over a nation, the South succeeded.
Now, remember, both the South and the North knew that slavery would become extinct without expansion. So why would the South draw strict territorial lines and found the Confederacy? So the political powers in the South would be able to remain in power.
When you consider that and the fact that the 2/3rds of the population in the South that actively participated in battles in the Civil War were not slave owners and did not benefit from slavery, but instead made their living doing meager work and small time crop farming, it's hard to believe that the driving force behind the Civil War, from the South's side, was preserving an institution that the South knew was going to cease.
Finally, most major politician in the South post Civil War pretty much owned up to starting the whole war specifically as a power struggle.
Remember, money and power in politics often times result in horrible things. Amongst the many atrocities committed by countries over the years, the South had slavery, and the North, in an effort to grow it's power over the South, mobilized an army, and pretty much killed, starved, pillaged and destroyed an entire half of the nation, half that had relatively peacefully resigned from the Union.
It's shitty no matter which way you look about it.
I'm going by facts here. They didn't benefit from slavery what so ever. They fought because they were conscripted.
Much more plausible than saying "They fought cause they hate black people".
FYI, the first sentence in this reply contradicts the point you're trying to make near the end.
Slavery would have died without expansion. Drawing territorial lines and saying "We will not express control past this point" doesn't allow for any expansion.
The other issues being?
The South saw the inevitable conclusion of the slavery argument as abolition, they seceded to preserve the foundation of their economic system at the time. "States' Rights" may have been the legal issue at hand but even the other issues that are brought up (the 1828 tariff which was lowered by the time the war started) were directly related to the conflict between southern agricultural economy vs. northern industrial.
Had Lincoln decided to let the Confederacy go slavery probably would have been abolished in the North by constitutional amendment, as the main opposition would have been gone.
EDIT: To the above:
It's not entirely true to say that slavery would have died without expansion. Slavery would have died without expansion in the United States because without new slave states to counterbalance non-slave states, eventually you would get to the 3/4 majority needed for a constitutional amendment. The confederacy was made up entirely of slave states who weren't about to destroy the foundation of their economy.
Also, in saying that soldiers fought because they were conscripted you contradicted the claim that they were fighting for some kind of political reason OTHER than slavery.
Slavery would have been abolished in the North, followed by the South, 650,000 people wouldn't have died, and the South wouldn't be as ridiculously poor as it is today.
Why would slavery have been abolished in the south if it had seceded?
Except that the opening shots of the war were taken by the South. The attack on Fort Sumter was the opening salvo of the war. Davis made a deliberate decision to start the war, having been warned by his Secretary of State what the results would be. To declare the South peacefully resigned is just wrong.
I guess it is reasonable to assume that at some point the CSA would have abolished slavery, no idea how many years slavery would have continued for under the CSA though. At the very least it seems like eventually the use of mechanical equipment would have been a preferable choice to making the effort required to keep a large oppressed group under control.
In my opinion a war seems inevitable between the CSA and the USA. They showed at Fort Sumter that they were willing to attack the US. I think that a particular problem would be fugitive slaves escaping into the North which had contributed to the South getting angry enough to secede in the first place. I don't think the US would take too kindly to armed foreigners violating their borders to apprehend escaped slaves.
It wouldn't have been, they've had de-facto slaves in southern states as recently as the 40s via laws that were only enforced on blacks.
The abolishment of slavery generally comes with the modernization of a nation.
Happened in the United States.
Fort Sumter is in South Carolina, which succeeded from the Union. The Confederacy attempted to pay for the land and materials at Fort Sumter in which would have brokered a peace treaty with the Union. Lincoln flat out refused. Fort Moultrie was abandoned by the Union so the troops stationed there could reinforce Fort Sumter. Thus, the siege.
EDIT: Also, sorry to be pedantic, but you keep saying "succeed" when you mean "secede."
So? The fact is that the fort belonged to the US and by attacking the Confederacy started the war against the US. I guess you think that whenever we can't negotiate to get something we want from another country we should just declare war on them and invade.
Technological advancements and population growth would have eventually made slavery unacceptable.
Oh really
I would say that's racism and bigotry and evilness. Not slavery.
EDIT
Technically, it is, but I'm having a difficult time figuring out how to explain the difference between what the Confederacy did (slavery for political and economic gain) versus this example.
Just because you don't call unpaid forced labor of a specific ethnicity slavery, doesn't mean it isn't.
I don't think the men in that link did what they did specifically out of racism, but more out of the fact that they got a shit ton of money out of it.
Power and Greed are way more motivating factors than hatred.
It was Federal land. SC at no point had the right to seize it, even if you view the succession deceleration as legal, which it wasn't. There was no reason for control of the fort to be given over to rebel forces. The South attempted to seize it by force. Moultrie was abandoned because it wasn't defensible. It was designed to prevent an attack by sea. It was fairly easy to attack by land.
But it doesn't change the fact that no hostile acts were attempted by the forces at Fort Sumter. No attempts were made to interdict shipping in the area and the one attempt before the shelling to provide provisions to the fort was handled by an unarmed ship. To declare that the south a peaceful succession is simply wrong. Even if the Federal government refused to meet with them, the Federal government also wasn't attempting to use force to oppose them. Force was used in attempting to seize both Fort Sumter and Fort Pickens. Said force was used by the southern rebel forces.
The south wasn't backed into a corner. Davis made a deliberate decision to attack the fort. This wasn't an "oops, we didn't mean to fire" situtation. The CSA made the decision to attack at the highest levels. The decision was made knowing full well that it would lead to war. They did it anyway.
It was pretty obvious that it was going to happen. It's not like there was some insidious plot afoot.
Which was fired upon by Citadel cadets and Confederate troops.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Even if it was obvious that it was going to happen it doesn't change the fact that it wasn't peaceful. There is this really nasty trend in American history books to frame the Civil war in these romantic ideals. That the south was forced into fighting. They weren't. As you pointed out, the Federal stance was to ignore them completely. Which is the least hostile action you can take.
However the Primary states right they were concerned about was the fact that they feared Lincoln and the abolitionists would stop them keeping slaves, and in the North a strong motivating factor behing the agressive lobbying for the war by elements (churches etc) who would otherwise have been for peace was the demand that they freed the slaves. Furthermore a strong element keeping the British from joining the war on the side of the south was the fact that slavery had already been abolished in the UK, and Britain was attempting to enforce a worldwide anti-slavery embargo. Without this Britain, or many other european powers, would have been glad to intervene to promote the break up of an emerging great power. They certainly might have demanded clemency from the North. So it was over slavery.
And in fact the North was concerned that the south with its technological backwardness and strong overseas ties would prove a liability to their ability to control the entire north american continent. They were concerned that England, France and Spain would play the divisions of the continent against itself and exploit one party against the other. Northern business interests were interested in gaining control over southern resources, and building factories to be staffed by the newly freed slaves, so it was about Northern Agression and Greed.
And the south were indeed the ones to secede, and to fire the first shots, so they did indeed strike first and give the North cassus belli.
All the listed causes are true, so how can we argue that only one or the other caused the war?
Without the war, the south would be poorer and far more backward today as it would have faced its own civil war 30-40 years later when sheer numbers of disgruntled slaves demanded and were refused their freedom. This war would have been even more devastating than the actual civil war since it would have effectively been an attempted mutual genocide by both sides.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
It wasn't about states rights it was about a state's right to have slaves. The idea that it was about state's rights is just wrong.
From the Deceleration of Succession of South Carolina:
The Northern states listed are holding up the traditional concept of states rights. They chose to not enforce a clause of the constitution and federal laws they found morally wrong. The South wanted federal laws upheld and enforced. They wanted a continued superiority of the federal goverment over the states, as long as that superiority did what they wanted.
Bullshit. The northen mill towns already had a sizable population of low paid workers. Freed slaves might have been cheaper as a whole, but not enough to matter. And northern business intrests already had access to southern resources before the war. Industrializing the south and improving the rail system would have had a much more dramatic impact on the cost then attempting to seize it. It wasn't about northern agression. The North didn't start the war, the South did.