Real reasons for the Civil War:
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.
Wasn't the North losing when slavery was abolished?
It was my understanding that the Emancipation Proclamation was enacted when the South was winning the war. The proclamation had the effect of destabilizing the South, improving Lincoln's chances of being re-elected by appealing to Republican abolitionists, and effectively cutting off military support to the South from Britain and France. It was Lincoln's best political move of his career.
England's Civil War is in the mid-1600s...
our european ancestors north or south had firm opinions about oliver cromwell
and/or charles the first if they arrived before the year 1800. what our states
later did in the 1850s and 1860s stems from how we were colonized...
the laws defining slavery became increasingly restrictive, serfdom
and a bond servant status as under english commmon law infers
more social status and human dignity. there was a deepset moral
crusade in the north where all christain conversions in tandem to
the preamble to the declaration of independence was almost
as inclusive as were the french revolutionaries to the ideals of
liberty, egalitie, fraternity! the economics of slavery that john c. calhoun
thought he was so logically defending ran into this biblical fervor.
the way we define our federal, state and local levels of gov't was
also at the core of the dispute. the regional nature of our cash
crops and the type of farming practices might have been a secondary
concideration, although there was a regional economics. most of
the early puritans were into the idea of founding utopian communities
in the new world, and they weren't the only group to do so. the bay
colony DROVE roger williams and his followers out and away from they.
for the longest time, there was a law on the books that impelled
rhode islanders to find our mututal border before sundown... [or else!]
this ironically said as i know rhode island and vermont are about to vote..
We should concentrate more on our common culture as Americans than on our conflicts
Quote:
Originally Posted by
anonymous6728
It was my understanding that the Emancipation Proclamation was enacted when the South was winning the war. The proclamation had the effect of destabilizing the South, improving Lincoln's chances of being re-elected by appealing to Republican abolitionists, and effectively cutting off military support to the South from Britain and France. It was Lincoln's best political move of his career.
We tend to forget that the American Loyalists in the British Colony of New York lost in great shame to the American Patriots during the Revolutionary War. Such colonists had to start over after they were so bitterly defeated because everything was taken away from them. The Civil War likewise created an existential crisis which produced similar winners and losers. Why do we leave the south so naked when teaching the history of their defeat while we tend to clothe the American Loyalist so kindly? I would think that the Loyalists would be considered the greater traitors in comparison.
Anyway, our nation has gone through a lot of healing despite the shameful way the south is still depicted in history. One example of this healing was demonstrated by Presidential Candidate John Conally when he openly converted from a yellow dog, southern Democrat (a conservative) to that of a conservative Repuplican. Ironically, we haven't gone about establishing the more perfect Union we are today because of our victories together in the 2 great wars; but, to the contrary, we have become a more perfect Union because of our mutual butt kicking we collectively received in Vietnam.
A Legal Conflict of Chaos Versus the Civil Unity of Purpose
Legal conflict pays lawyers well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mesogen
Ever since I got into this Ron Paul thing, I've been baffled by this whole fascination some "libertarians" have with states' "rights" to enforce the institution of slavery. Some people who call themselves libertarian simply want more state sovereignty and they put that above individual freedom and sovereignty.
"State rights" was the first way in which a movement successfully brought our nation back to the original civil purpose that our founding fathers intended in the Constitution from the brink of a legal tyranny that our Federal government had quickly become. This movement also created the excellent legal precendent of our 2 party system which allowed in the ushering to power the Presidents of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison who wisely tweaked the interpretation of the Constitution without having to resort to the necessity of an ammendment (clarification) to do so. Their interpretation of our Constitution as a consequence brought us back ultimately to the original civil purpose intended in the Declaration of Independence regarding "We the people in order to establish a more perfect Union . . . regarding the pursuit of our collective happiness (contentment)."
So, I just think of state rights as a tool for us to have to use to insure that the civil purpose of our Constitutation reins supreme over any legal purpose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mesogen
It reminds me of a debate I watched about the legalization of marijuana. The anti guy says that the pro people all scream state's rights when it comes to the legalization of weed. But then the same people cry against state's rights when it came to Jim Crow laws and especially slavery. I say the debate about state sovereignty is totally false. I don't give a crap how much sovereignty a state government or a federal government has as long as it doesn't interfere with MY personal, individual rights. If a state government is defending my rights from a tyrannical federal government (or world government) then great. If a federal government is defending my rights against the tyranny of a state government, then also great.
When our forefather designed our Constitution, they didn't care about who, what, when, where or how we all might sleep together. To the contrary, our forefather's left the Bill of Rights as our tools so that we could use them to get out from underneath legal tyranny. So, as a courtroom should be considered hell to our American culture, any place outside of a courtroom should be considered heaven.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mesogen
This thing about defending state's rights during the civil war have nothing to do with freedom or liberty, IMO.
Through the use of an irresponsible political agenda which naively proposed social conflict between a righteous 51% of the masses at the expense of the welfare of the remaining 49, African Americans can't deny that they have traded in the bad condition of slavery for an even worst condition of being imprisoned within a legal tyranny. In other words, who makes up the majority of the prison population in the United States? Do you honestly call this freedom?
The only responsible solution for African Americans is for them to trade in social conflict for a more responsible movement which develops a common American culture rather than continuing in on the same old arguing about differences.
States' Rights Explained:
http://www.civilwarhome.com/statesrights.htm
Slavery & States' Rights:
http://www.civilwarhome.com/wheelercauses.htm
The War for States' Rights:
http://civilwar.bluegrass.net/
USCA: Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
curiously yes... loyalists who supported the crown had to leave...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Uncle Emanuel Watkins
We tend to forget that the American Loyalists in the British Colony of New York lost in great shame to the American Patriots during the Revolutionary War. Such colonists had to start over after they were so bitterly defeated because everything was taken away from them. The Civil War likewise created an existential crisis which produced similar winners and losers. Why do we leave the south so naked when teaching the history of their defeat while we tend to clothe the American Loyalist so kindly? I would think that the Loyalists would be considered the greater traitors in comparison.
Anyway, our nation has gone through a lot of healing despite the shameful way the south is still depicted in history. One example of this healing was demonstrated by Presidential Candidate John Conally when he openly converted from a yellow dog, southern Democrat (a conservative) to that of a conservative Repuplican. Ironically, we haven't gone about establishing the more perfect Union we are today because of our victories together in the 2 great wars; but, to the contrary, we have become a more perfect Union because of our mutual butt kicking we collectively received in Vietnam.
the english civil war in the 1600s has cavalier verses roundhead...
in truman~esque terms... i think i euphemized!
like the Battle of the Bulge and if its [a.] "nuts"... or actually [b.] "balls"...!!!
http://www.thedropzone.org/europe/Bulge/kinnard.html methinks
Gen'l Wheeler might have used a word with more packed emotion in it than
the humble word "darn"... a word which brings to mind a broadway musical
and something sometimes said by boSox fans! me included! Bess Truman spent
years as "The Boss" as she tries to get Harry S. to simply say "horse manure"!!!