Civil War History thread

[BigDan]

A post on another thread asked why so many people think the Civil War was over slavery. I would answer, because some teachers are too lazy to teach a complex subject, and they simplify things.

The War did not start over slavery, it started because the slave owning South felt it's political power in the federal government slipping away. The political power of the South was slipping away because the carefully maintained balance between free and slave states was ending as more states were added in the west. States in the west were not particularly suited for agrarian life, nor did they need slave labor.

By the way, this also flies in the face of presuming the war was over States Rights. Or else why shouldn't newly created states be allowed to chose for themselves? And why, if States Rights was such an issue were Northern states caught up in obeying the Fugitive Slave Act, a Federal law.

The South had a point that it might leave the Union should it desire. Lincoln's own Attorney General worried the South would win a Supreme Court battle. But instead of working within the law, the South chose armed insurrection, giving Lincoln the opportunity to put down the revolt by force. I think it is important to remember that even after secession, there was no war. Only after Ft. Sumter was fired upon did the North raise an army to put down the revolt.

I would ask, what rights did the South see taken away before secession? And, again, I don't think they gave a legal secession a chance before being the first to fire a shot.

Oh, and the war did become about freeing the slaves. But that was later and a different topic.

I would welcome a friendly discussion on The Civil War. I'm always willing to listen to other opinions. Just a caution, though, historians have debated many aspects of the war and often failed to reach agreement.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[Shortstack]

This subject has been hashed over and over on this forum as well as elsewhere. If you want to see the real crap that finally forced the Southern states to secede, check out the Federal Record for about 10 years BEFORE the start of the so called Civil War. Look at the asinine import / export laws the northern controlled Congress passed pertaining to the sale of cotton; in particular, to buyers OUTSIDE of the U.S.
You wrote that the South chose "armed insurrection". BOLONIE!!!! The situation at Ft. Sumter was brought on my Lincoln himself. Ft. Sumter was located in the middle of a MAJOR southern harbor. Do you really believe that the new Confederate States of America would allow the army of a foreign country to maintain a presence in that post? Lincoln ordered the US troops to remain in place and force the Confederates to physically expell them so that he could claim righteous indignation and start his war. Remember. Secession from the Union was LEGAL at the time the Southern states did it. Lincoln's worry was alllllll that revenue the U.S. was losing from the sale of KING COTTON. Cotton could be grown ONLY in the southern states; not in the northern states. At that time, there were only 2 countries in the world where cotton was grown in commercial quantities. In about 4 or 5 of the southern states of the U.S. and in Egypt. Cotton requires a very special set of circumstances related to CLIMATE actions.

 

[BigDan]

Alot to answer there

Ft. Sumter was a Federal Fort. The argument as to whether it stayed in the hands of the United States, or not, was never made. Just like many armories in the South, taken, by force. If Lincoln used it to fire up the North...it still wasn't he but one Ed Ruffin, who fired the first cannon.

As to improper taxes. That argument had been made time and again. Remember "Nulification"? If you count the number of Presidents elected from the South, up until the Civil War....if you count the Supreme Court Jusitices....and again, if you consider that at times the South was just fine with Federal control, such as Fugitive Slave Act, you'll see where I get my opinion.

You feel the topic was done ad nauseum? This is the first time on Treasurenet that I've brought it up. If you are tired of it, you don't have to read it. But maybe others would be interested?

Thanks, Big Dan

 

[BigDan]

BigDan....it is hard to hold a a friendly discussion, when the facts are skewed right outta the box.

This will be an interesting thread, if it survives

Which facts are "scewed"? Please presume I may get something wrong, without intent. That, is part of a freindly discussion. You may be right though, that, may be impossible if right away people start assuming another poster is intentionally scewing facts.

 

[BigDan]

Just forget it.

First two responses and I'm beating a dead horse and "scewing" facts. I would have liked a friendly discussion...and believe it or not I'm always willing to learn a new thing or two. But not in this environment.

Gentlemen. The North won. Still ticks you off, doesn't it.

 

[spartacus53]

Interesting topic, but keep in mind that are many reasons for this war and as previously stated it started long before April 15, 1861. For one thing as also mentioned earlier this nation under the constitution was actually set up as a Confederation of States. Under those terms in the constitution, states were able to argue their positions to the general group. I believe that it was a combination of several events that were unfolding over the years and finally culminated with violence. So at the time it was legal for states to withdraw from the confederacy.

Interesting fact: How many were killed on both sides over the bombing of Fort Sumpter in 1861?

Second part: What did happen at that fort nearly 100 years later?

 

[Michigan Badger]

I used to wonder how the south ever lost the war but then I attended college for a time in Alabama.

I haven't wondered since.

Just ignore...please continue. Great thread

 

[BigDan]

I used to wonder how the south ever lost the war but then I attended college for a time in Alabama.

I haven't wondered since.

Just ignore...please continue. Great thread

Wish I'd never started it. I thought it might make for a fun discussion. I even mentioned historians don't agree...if that didn't indicate that I didn't expect to "solve" anything, I don't know what would.

The definition of "Scewed": to give bias, to distort.

"Baloney": balderdash, blather, bunkum, claptrap, drivel, idiocy, nonsense.

If that's the kind of responses I can expect...forget it. I can see WHY the South barely took any peaceful steps to secede before being the first to fire in hostility.

 

[spartacus53]

If that's the kind of responses I can expect...forget it. I can see WHY the South barely took any peaceful steps to secede before being the first to fire in hostility.

Well just before the conflict they actually did take steps to resolve the issues without war. They were invited to a Blackjack contest, and they showed up with cards, the Yankees showed up with actual blackjacks and beat the tar out of them. You'll never see that in an history book, I guarantee it

 

[ivan salis]

folks often say the war was "about freeing slaves" -- while in the end actions took during the war did stop slavery (which is a good thing --slavery is just plain wrong and immoral) however its was the economics of slavery that caused the war -- the north at the time had control of the senate ( the north had many small states vs several larger states in the south -- since each state was given 2 senators --the edge was to the north (politically) -- the same went for population --the northern states had more "white" population and since members of the house are population based --the north held sway in the house as well --with the election of lincoln --the north had total political control over the south --- the south produced and sold cotton * at the time a HUGE cash boon to the US GOVT since it laid huge taxes upon it -- making the south support the nation fiscally but at the same time giving them no say so on how the tax money would be spent -- a nation wide coast to coast railway was being planned to be built with federal tax money aid -- (lincoln WAS a former RR ATTY by the way)--the south since it was funding the project via its taxes paid on cotton wanted a southerly route --the north of course wanted a northern route --everyone knew that wherever the train route ran --would be fiscally a huge boon == since the north had political "control" and did not wish to lose it , they limited the import of slaves and worked to stop more slave states from occuring in the south -- which would help break the norths political --stranglehold of the south --by bringing in more "slave state" senators and congressmen.

PLEASE NOTE -- IF SLAVERY WAS INDEED "THE ISSUE" OF THE WAR ---why is it that folks today NEVER talk of the historical "fact" that on May 22nd, 1862 then president lincoln RECINDED --union general davis hunters --GENERAL ORDER NO.11 which was issued on May 9th, 1862 * -- the order freed fotever all slaves in --south carolina ,georgia, and florida * --(the areas under gen hunters military command -- hunter freed the slaves for two reasons --#1 he honestly felt slavery was wrong and immoral --and 2 he hoped to raise troops for the union army

IF SLAVERY WAS THE REAL "ISSUE" WHY DID THE NORTH WAIT UNTIL ALMOST 2 YEARS INTO THE WAR TO DECLARE THE SLAVES FREE ? only after several large and manpower costly battles in late 1862 did lincoln - relent and "free the slaves" and then only the slaves in the states currently in rebellon --read the actual order for your self --this was done for 3 reasons -- 1 to get the slaves to flee the southern farms thus messing up cotton production and food raising 2 to force southern troops to be diverted to "slave catcher dutys" 3 to gain "manpower" for the northern army

with the slaves being "free" they would of course want the north to win so they could stay that way (they now had a reason to "care" who won the war --before be declared "free" by the north they would have still been slaves no matter weither the north or south won -- so why should they care who won the "white mans" war ? )--

oh by the way the north did offer the south before the war took place --the 13th admendment --that would have allowed the current then slave states to keep their slaves forever --but it also stopped anymore new "slave" states from being formed --so the "balance" of power would still rest in northern hands --- of course the south said --no thanks -- they were tired of being fiscally robbed and forced to pay everyones way with no imput -- --sounds alot like what caused the american revolt in 1776 --high taxes imposed on the "people" with no real say so on the matter -- the southern states felt --if I freely joined in the united states --I can freely opt out (like a woman who marrys a abusive husband --the south wanted a "divorce")--- the north knowing that the south was their cash cow --said --no way we can afford the south to leave us --they provude too much tax money and raw materials for our factory run north. -- so the north said --nope no "divorce" (I 'll force you to stay married to me.)

 

[Mighty AP]

The topic of slavery was argued & discussed long before the civil war, most chose to ignore the subject til a much later date. The civil war was fought over secesion, not over the issues of slavery. There was a mock trial in Brittain a few years ago over Americas right to secede from England.......Washinton was also put on trial for treason. The court found Washington innocent & also determined that the colonies did have the right to secede. The southern states also had the right to leave the Union as we had split from England, there should never have been a war. I think that civil rights for blacks would have come around much faster if we had allowed the south to leave, economics would have brought the south back to the Union eventually in my opinion.
One thing about the civil war that blew me away is the fact that before the war, the propper terminology of this statement was "The United States ARE going to war." The states were considered seperate entities. After the war the terminology changed to "The United States IS going to war denoting a singular entity. If you were from say Virginia before the war you were a Virginian first........an American second. Right or wrong, the civil war solidified us as a nation, we were no longer a bunch of seperate colony states.

 

[spartacus53]

Interesting fact: How many were killed on both sides over the bombing of Fort Sumpter in 1861?
Zero were killed on either side, go figure.

Second part: What did happen at that fort nearly 100 years later?
2 US soldiers were killed when they threw a "live" cannonball into a fire to keep warm

 

[Mighty AP]

Interesting fact: How many were killed on both sides over the bombing of Fort Sumpter in 1861?
Zero were killed on either side, go figure.

Second part: What did happen at that fort nearly 100 years later?
2 US soldiers were killed when they threw a "live" cannonball into a fire to keep warm


I knew that there were no deaths in the bombing of Fort Sumpter but did not know about the 2 deaths 100 years later.

 

[BigDan]

Wow, maybe I gave up too soon

Excellent posts by Ivan Salis and Mighty AP! You get a feel, from reading those posts, how the political climate had reached the breaking point...again.

Question. What happens if the Secession Commission of Virginia is given time to sue the Federal Government, to establish legally, the rights of states to leave the union? I contend Virginia wins, leaves the United States, and not a shot is fired. Other southern states would have followed.

If I am correct, and this is all conjecture, that means that by driving the United States troops near Charleston into seeking a better defensive position inside Ft. Sumter....by holding them under siege....and by firing upon the fort, South Carolina did in effect end all hope of a legal separation, and started a war. Whether Lincoln skillfully played them like pawns is another matter, IMO.

And, I question that had the South pursued legal means of separation, that the North could have raised an army to fight them. My logic is based in this...it's pretty hard to blame the North for starting a war when the South shot first.

(These are just my opinions. I've held discussions like this with reasonable people in the past, and usually the fact that there were MANY causes becomes a kind of compromise. But, too me, that is too simplistic. I like delving into it.)

 

[BigDan]

Spooky, I agree with you (mostly)...

...regarding Lincoln, and the slavery issue. Close enough there is little to debate.

Regarding States Rights, as you put it, I assert that the South was every bit as willing to expect the Feds to step in when THEIR interests mattered, as was the North. Thereby making the war NOT about some noble cause of State vs. Fed...but about the political power of the South slipping with each new state.

For example. Say you live in Ohio in 1855 and a runaway slave knocks on your door. You are compelled by Federal Law to arrest that man and see that he is returned to his owner! Your Sheriff is required as well to "Do his duty." Do you think the South was up in arms for their Northern brothers whose "States Rights" had been trampled upon?

 

[packerbacker]

Actually, (now keep an open mind here 'til I'm done) the slaves didn't really need "freeing". What they needed was union representation; you know, people that you pay dues to to stop the whippings, long hours and make it so you can earn holiday pay. If I have a job where I have to work to earn my keep am I not a slave? They can't make me work long hours without pay, they can't whoop me and I get Xmas off, with pay. (Of course I can't call it Christmas anymore nor can I celebrate Easter) Back just before the Civil War, how many Blacks had jobs? I rest my case.

 

[Shortstack]

Slavery was tacked on after the war was started as a desperate measure to drum up waning emotional support.

Slavery would have ceased to be relevent in 15 years anyway due to rampant industrialization, so they had to act fast, and latched on to a romantic "cause"

Lincoln was not some "emancipator" he was an opportunist and a politician and saw the chance to make the 'cause' heroic, when it was essentially northern business interests seeing control of southern resources dwindling.
He was swayed by northern politicians, who were bought and paid for by these same northern businessmen.

It was a war of arrogance and aggression, and went against the very nature of the constitution and the spirit of what it was to be an American.
Being self governed, and living your life without interference by a distant government who sees you as a resource and a number on a paper, not a citizen.
Which was exactly what this country was formed in the first place.
it was about money, power and control.

You are exactly correct. All one needs to do is read the Constitution of the Confederate States of America and pay close attention to the Article pertaining to slavery. I think it's part of Article 9. Then, read Lincoln's FIRST inaugural address. Add, finally, the fact that the Fed commander at Ft. Sumter was given the opportunity to peacefully leave the fort with his men and equipment. He asked for time to wire Washington for instructions and was ordered, by Lincoln, to stay and resist eviction at ALL costs. The Confederates then blockaded the fort and forced the feds to pull out; FINALLY. The Fed commander insisted on showing proper respect for the US flag when it was "struck" for the last time by firing a salute by cannonade. Their own cannon exploded and killed or injured a couple of Feds. That was the big bloodshed moment that "started" the War of Northern Aggression.

Before the war, the people in the southern states had homes, food, and medical care. AFTER the war, no one had any of those things.......blacks, whites, and green-with-pink-pokidots. The Federal troops; especially those lead by Sherman, burned everything they couldn't carry off. Sherman did everything he could to ruin and degrade the Southern people. FORGET?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HELL NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ALLOW HISTORY TO BE REWRITTEN?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Again, HELL NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And "the Chicago Way" that's being laid on us today is getting pretty reminiscent of those Lincoln days.

 

[BigDan]

Answer two questions

1. Was that not a federal fort?

2. Did the South not fire on a federal fort?

Those are simple yes or no questions.

 

[bigtim1973]

Interesting thread but, what if we turn time up to the present and lets say a state(of your choice be it Northern or Southern, it does not matter) decides to go independant under its own laws, jurisdiction and constituition and become a "Nation within a Nation" of it's own independance, would there be another "WAR" per say, because they no longer agree with the current condition this government is bringing upon it's own country? Would they be considered radicals or isolationist because that particular state no longer wants to be represented in the union? Do you think other states would follow it's exmaple or is this just no longer a concern because we have learned by example from history? Could another civil war possibly happen?

 

[ivan salis]

big dan -- yes its was a federal fort * ( however it was within south carolina "state" waters --- so when south carolina left the union all the lands within the states area of control went with them since the were no longer part of the union ) the federal troops were asked to leave the state of south carolina peacefully and hand over control of the fort --without blood shed * --

the fort commander even asked the us govt for permission to do so --he was told by lincoln to stay at all cost --mr lincoln wanted a "shot fired in anger" and bloodshed --- it was needed as grounds to go to war -- against a "armed" rebellion