American Civil War Question

[rvkpa]

Sorry, I went to school in America so this point was never truly resolved in class. Was it the intention of the confederacy to merely secede from the union, or did they then want to make the rest of the states follow their lead by force of arms? Did the remaining states make a decision to reign in the rogue confederate states through military operations? Who was the aggressor in the civil war?

[nate895]

The Confederate States objective was merely to become independent of the US, not to force any other state to do so. The USA was the aggressor, the Lincoln Administration continued to try to enforce the Federal Tariff and Federal Laws, and therefore they incurred the wrath of an erstwhile free nation, and so Fort Sumter was eventually attacked when Lincoln attempted to reinforce and resupply the fort.

[IcyPeaceMaker]

Here's an article I ran across while debating a Huckabee fan on another forum:
The Real Reasons Why The Civil War Occurred By: Vikki Gigante Date: 11/2/05 The following was an assignment I gave to my daughter, Johanna, while she was being home schooled in American History last year. I feel that this is well-reasoned document concerning the reasons the Civil War occurred. Many people think the Civil War of 1860-1865 was fought over one issue alone, slavery. Nothing could actually be further from the truth. The War Between the States began because the South demanded States' rights and were not getting them.

The Congress at that time heavily favored the industrialized northern states to the point of demanding that the South sell is cotton and other raw materials only to the factories in the north, rather than to other countries. The Congress also taxed the finished materials that the northern industries produced heavily, making finished products that the South wanted, unaffordable. The Civil War should not have occurred. If the Northern States and their representatives in Congress had only listened to the problems of the South, and stopped these practices that were almost like the taxation without representation of Great Britain, then the Southern states would not have seceded and the war would not have occurred.

I know for many years, we have been taught that the Civil War was all about the abolition of slavery, but this truly did not become a major issue, with the exception of John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry, until after the Battle of Antietam in September 1862, when Abraham Lincoln decided to free the slaves in the Confederate States in order to punish those states for continuing the war effort. The war had been in progress for two years by that time.

Most southerners did not even own slaves nor did they own plantations. Most of them were small farmers who worked their farms with their families. They were fighting for their rights. They were fighting to maintain their lifestyle and their independence the way they wanted to without the United States Government dictating to them how they should behave.

Why are we frequently taught then, that the Civil War, War of Northern Aggression, War Between the States, or whatever you want to call it, was solely about slavery? That is because the history books are usually written by the winners of a war and this war was won by the Union. However, after following my family around since I was just a year old to Civil War Living History scenarios in Gettysburg and elsewhere, I have listened to both sides of the story, from those portraying historical figures, both Union and Confederate. Through listening to these people and also reading many different books, including some of the volumes of The Official Records of the Civil War, Death in September, The Insanity of It All, Every Day Life During the Civil War, and many others, I have come to the conclusion that the Civil War was about much more than abolishing the institution of slavery.

It was more about preserving the United States and protecting the rights of the individual, the very tenets upon which this country was founded. I personally think that the people who profess that the Civil War was only fought about slavery have not read their history books. I really am glad that slavery was abolished, but I don't think it should be glorified as being the sole reason the Civil War was fought. There are so many more issues that people were intensely passionate about at the time. Slavery was one of them, but it was not the primary cause of the war. The primary causes of the war were economics and states' rights.

Slavery was a part of those greater issues, but it was not the reason the Southern States seceded from the Union, nor fought the Civil War. It certainly was a Southern institution that was part of the economic system of the plantations, and because of that, it was part and parcel of the economic reasons that the South formed the Confederacy. The economic issue was one of taxation and being able to sell cotton and other raw materials where the producers wanted to, rather than where they were forced to, and at under inflated prices. Funny, it sounds very much like the reason we broke from Great Britain to begin with. The South was within their rights, but there should have been another way to solve the problem. If they had been willing to listen to Abraham Lincoln, perhaps the war could have been avoided. Lincoln had a plan to gradually free the slaves without it further hurting the plantation owners. He also had a plan to allow them to sell their products anywhere they wanted to and at a fair price. They did not choose to listen to the President, however, so they formed the Confederacy and the Civil War began. Thank you to Johanna! Vikki Gigante (e-mail)

I have been a southerner and a civil war buff all my life, and I learned these same things from my elders.

[pinkmandy]

In the south the Civil War is aka The War of Northern Aggression. Just throwing that out there because I find it interesting. It's all a matter of perspective.

[nate895]

In the south the Civil War is aka The War of Northern Aggression. Just throwing that out there because I find it interesting. It's all a matter of perspective.

I like War for Southern Independence because it has a positive approach to the same opinion.

[pinkmandy]

I agree, Nate. Dh used to be a cw re-enactor (that hobby became too expensive as our family grew) and they all referred to it as the war of northern aggression.

[Mesogen]

How about "War for the South to be free to enslave people"? and not pay high tariffs :rolleyes:

[nate895]

How about "War for the South to be free to enslave people"? and not pay high tariffs :rolleyes:

Wait, I shouldn't have said that, let me find my intelligent response.

[nate895]

How about "War for the South to be free to enslave people"? and not pay high tariffs :rolleyes:


Here it goes;

The South has been vilified by the Northern victor since before she seceded from the Union. It has been said they were "racists" and fought for the preservation of slavery or that they were "traitors." These claims are based on nothing but propaganda issued from the printing press of the aggressor. I will prove that the South had the right to secede, the South's so-called "racism" was never as bad as the North's, and the South fought fought for the preservation of her self-determination.

Secession and states' rights are two controversial subjects in American politics and government. Although they are now contentious, these were some of the guiding principles in the early days of the Union. The people of the states believed that a government closer to home, such as those in the states, had the true interest of the people in their heart. The document that declared our independence from the crown declares us to be "free and sovereign states" and have all the rights of a sovereign state. Why would the founding document of the states say the states are sovereign if a central government had the authority to push them back into line? The assertion to any casual observer that a document that is itself is declaring independence, forbids it to others.

The next document important to the development of the United States is the Articles of Confederation. In article two of the said document it states:


II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

If the Articles of Confederation didn't state it was perpetual, that would be enough. Explanation of the perpetuity clause; it was meant to say that the Articles didn't end just because it was passed a certain date, and need I mention that the Articles ended in 1788, after starting in 1781.

Then the Constitution is the structure of the current government. In the Constitution it never declares that the states lost their sovereignty by ratifying, if that was the case I guarantee you that it wouldn't be ratified by any of the states. Many opponents of secession would say that the supremacy clause trumps this argument. This is ridiculous, the clause means that the states by ratifying are guaranteeing that they will uphold their end of the bargain, not that the federal government is supreme in all laws it passes, no matter what their contents. Otherwise Article I Section 8 is nothing but a waste of ink and parchment.

The claims issued forth from Northern presses are also false when they claim that the South was motivated by "racism." If that is the case, so was the North the following is a quote from the much admired Northern general William Tecumseh Sherman:


As long as a doubtful contest for supremacy exists between the two races they cannot control their choice; but as soon as we demonstrate equal courage, equal skill, superior resources, and superior tenacity of purpose, they will gradually relax and finally submit to men who profess, like myself, to fight for but one single purpose, viz, to sustain a Government capable of vindicating its just and rightful authority, independent of *******, cotton, money, or any earthly interest.
(O.R., Series I, Volume XXX, p. 234-235)

If you don't believe he said this, go look it up in Official Record, Cornell University has it on their website. It looks like at least Sherman believes this. It is also widely acknowledged that Lincoln believed in "colonization" of the blacks, sending them back to Africa. This sounds like a policy of 19th century ethnic cleansing to me, hardly a policy of tolerance. The South on the other hand gave a plan to the European powers to recognize them in late 1864 on the basis of gradual emancipation. Why would a person fight for something it was willing to get rid of? That is a question the aggressor rarely likes to be faced with.

My last point concerns the South's cause in seceding. Given the facts from the previous paragraph I feel that no significant argument is needed as to her cause. If her cause was not slavery or racism, how could anyone dispute her reason for her secession, it is a moot point. So we may philosophize about her reasons but they are really not of any note, other than to try to prevent future instances of secession.

The South not only had the right to secede but wasn't motivated by "racism" or any other such cause. If you still wish to contend her cause, please elaborate on why you believe that she seceded from the Union for that purpose.

[New Governor Of Alaska]

Actually it was not a Civil War but war between states.

[wv@SC]

Actually it was not a Civil War but war between states.

Glad someone said it! You have to remember that the United States is not a nation per ce, but a Union of States. Even if you said to the contrary that it was (or is), a number of the states had seceded by the time Fort Sumter was fired upon, which means they were NOT part of the United States.

[Truth Warrior]

Isn't "civil war" just another oxymoron? :)

[danberkeley]

Isn't "civil war" just another oxymoron? :)

lol. Depends on what you mean by "civil".

[danberkeley]

Glad someone said it! You have to remember that the United States is not a nation per ce, but a Union of States. Even if you said to the contrary that it was (or is), a number of the states had seceded by the time Fort Sumter was fired upon, which means they were NOT part of the United States.

Also, a civil war means that there is a fight for control of the government. In the case of our "Civil War", the Confederate States did not want to take control of the United States. If anything, the United States invaded the Confederate States and continue to occupy it.