Real reasons for the Civil War:

[IcyPeaceMaker]

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.

[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.

[IcyPeaceMaker]

You must remember that the Republican party was the liberal party back then.

This site explains Lincoln's true motives: http://www.secessionist.us/blog/2007...colns-war.html Forget the opposition retoric in this. We are still feeling the effects of that war, your state and mine lost their soverignty to the will of the majority. That was never the intent of uniting the soverign states.

[Aratus]

it all actually had its roots in the Clay Compromise during the era of good feelings.
when the Taney court Dred Scott decision rendered null and void the earlier
compromises, northern anger at promices not kept as well as regional fears
about the way the new states would hypothetically enter the union then caused
the older debates of the federalists and anti-federalists to split apart the nation.
the peculiar institution has its roots in england's feudal structure, yet in the new world
after independence, slaves had an increasingly reduced estate, even though slavery
began as a variation on having seven year bond servants being theoretically "owned"
by the person who pays their passage. the north was disgusted by the idea of people
being legally no better than property. owners could take out mortgages... on new slaves.

prior to george washington, arthur st. clair had served our nation with an ability.
the reason why we forget the format of gov't we had upon going for our declaration
of independence, is that with our constitution and bill of rights, we had a tighter union.
john marshall and andrew jackson were utilized by honest abe when henry clay's
brainfreezes ceased to have a political relevance. the years from 1858 to 1861 were
volatile, and almost unrecognizable to anyone who understood the quiet promices
jamie monroe got from the political factions and parties who were of his era. the same
compromise that monroe felt privately thankful for is the very same thing jefferson
almost cussed out monroe for. monroe had not resolved the idea at the core of our union,
namely as to WHAT is the nature of our union, not unless one goes by john marshall's time
as chief justice. the 20th century saw our rise from an obscure republic to a collosus.
the complex yet fair minded system james madison and alexander hamilton streamlined
and delineated out in the federalist papers was a unique human social experiament
that could not have succeded save for safeguards against any future tyrant's encrouching
on our freedoms and civil liberties. this system survived its worst hours, namely those from
1860 to 1865... and it has survived our PAX AMERICANA answer to the Rome of the Caesars!

[rpfreedom08]

That's why most historians call the civil war "the second war for independence". This time the American people lost and centralized government (tyranny) won...

[Aratus]

personally, because JQA is a distant kinsman of moi, i feel that
jamie monroe is the last potus who could have avoided the conflict...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/jb15.html
james buchanan, the bachelor president... who i think is related
to the pat buchanan who once tried to take over ross perot's lil party,
he was a fellow not in charge at all, pulled along by events, who left to
the victor of the election of 1860 a string of problems that perhaps
were almost impossible to resolve unless major concessions were made...
NONE of the other three guys on that ballot i feel would have lucked in to a
last minute plan that could have averted the terrible and bloody conflict.

[Aratus]

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..

[Aratus]

as Napoleon rose in power, we almost went to war
with France. New England ALMOST bolted the union
on presidents adams and jefferson, and was debating
having the closer ties with the U.K ... in the 1830s,
South Carolina almost left us... the politics of europe
indirectly gave us our freedom due to franklin's diplomacy,
and the short term governing structure we had BARELY took
us past all immediate threats. it was touch and go...

Virginia, to win against George III... sided with the Bay Colony
when the king asked for OUR charter. this is the second time
we faced a crisis over this, for charles II + james II had tried
this in the 1600s. the states had acted with an almost equal status
and in tandem, for to go after ONE charter threatens all...

[Gadsden Flag]

To say 'nothing could be further from the truth' is rather far fetched.

Slavery had a lot to do with it. There was a huge abolitionist sentiment among many people and this made for a very fractious political climate.

Now, the idea that slavery was the only reason is the kind of one-line, simplistic reasoning which is seems to be more and more common in the television age.

Certainly there are other reasons, and maybe they even played a bigger part than slavery. But slavery is just as real a reason as any other you can name.

[IcyPeaceMaker]

State's Rights and economic viability of the South were the reasons, slave holders were few and far between, slavery was only brought up in 1863, two years after the war began, to give the northern troops something moral to fight for, because they were losing to an inferior force. Lincoln was a tyrant and should have been executed earlier, instead of the industrialists killing him after the war because he was going to give aid and comfort to the South.