Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Americans always talk about the Civil War from an "Military strategy" point of view
But never want to talk about what starter the Civil War.
If you read that whole thread that I posted, you'll find lots of answers.
The Civil War started because the United States Federal government was founded with a compromise that Northern (Free states) would respect Southern (Slave states) right to own slaves.
A clause was placed in the constitution stating that slaves that runaway to a free state, should be returned to their owners.
That is the core of why the Civil War started.
Free States started refusing to return runaway slaves, Slave states, through congress started passing federal laws to for Free States to return slaves.
Slave states got tired and said that the compromise has been broken.
Tensions that caused the Civil War came from the time the country was founded in 1776.
The first U.S. national government began under the Articles of Confederation, adopted in 1781. This document said nothing about slavery. It left the power to regulate slavery, as well as most powers, to the individual states. After their experience with the British, the colonists distrusted a strong central government. The new national government consisted solely of a Congress in which each state had one vote.
With little power to execute its laws or collect taxes, the new government proved ineffective. In May 1787, 55 delegates from 12 states met in Philadelphia. (Rhode Island refused to send a delegation.) Their goal was to revise the Articles of Confederation. Meeting in secret sessions, they quickly changed their goal. They would write a new Constitution. The outline of the new government was soon agreed to. It would have three branches — executive, judiciary, and a two-house legislature.
A dispute arose over the legislative branch. States with large populations wanted representation in both houses of the legislature to be based on population. States with small populations wanted each state to have the same number of representatives, like under the Articles of Confederation. This argument carried on for two months. In the end, the delegates agreed to the “Great Compromise.” One branch, the House of Representatives, would be based on population. The other, the Senate, would have two members from each state.
Part of this compromise included an issue that split the convention on North–South lines. The issue was: Should slaves count as part of the population? Under the proposed Constitution, population would ultimately determine three matters:
(1) How many members each state would have in the House of Representatives.
(2) How many electoral votes each state would have in presidential elections.
(3) The amount each state would pay in direct taxes to the federal government.
Only the Southern states had large numbers of slaves. Counting them as part of the population would greatly increase the South’s political power, but it would also mean paying higher taxes. This was a price the Southern states were willing to pay. They argued in favor of counting slaves. Northern states disagreed. The delegates compromised. Each slave would count as three-fifths of a person.
Following this compromise, another controversy erupted: What should be done about the slave trade, the importing of new slaves into the United States? Ten states had already outlawed it. Many delegates heatedly denounced it. But the three states that allowed it — Georgia and the two Carolinas — threatened to leave the convention if the trade were banned. A special committee worked out another compromise: Congress would have the power to ban the slave trade, but not until 1800. The convention voted to extend the date to 1808.
A final major issue involving slavery confronted the delegates. Southern states wanted other states to return escaped slaves. The Articles of Confederation had not guaranteed this. But when Congress adopted the Northwest Ordinance, it a clause promising that slaves who escaped to the Northwest Territories would be returned to their owners. The delegates placed a similar fugitive slave clause in the Constitution. This was part of a deal with New England states. In exchange for the fugitive slave clause, the New England states got concessions on shipping and trade.
These compromises on slavery had serious effects on the nation. The fugitive slave clause (enforced through legislation passed in 1793 and 1850) allowed escaped slaves to be chased into the North and caught. It also resulted in the illegal kidnapping and return to slavery of thousands of free blacks. The three-fifths compromise increased the South’s representation in Congress and the Electoral College. In 12 of the first 16 presidential elections, a Southern slave owner won. Extending the slave trade past 1800 brought many slaves to America. South Carolina alone imported 40,000 slaves between 1803 and 1808 (when Congress overwhelmingly voted to end the trade). So many slaves entered that slavery spilled into the Louisiana territory and took root.
Northern states didn’t push too hard on slavery issues. Their main goal was to secure a new government. They feared antagonizing the South. Most of them saw slavery as a dying institution with no economic future. However, in five years the cotton gin would be invented, which made growing cotton on plantations immensely profitable, as well as slavery.
The Declaration of Independence expressed lofty ideals of equality. The framers of the Constitution, intent on making a new government, left important questions of equality and fairness to the future. It would be some time before the great republic that they founded would approach the ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence.
Well his books have been out for a long time but Anything by Bruce Catton is good, You can start with the Army of the Potomac Trilogy. The three books are Mr Lincons Army, Glory Road, & Stillness at Appomatox. They cover the Eastern part of the war. Each is a very read and provide a great narrative of the entire Eastern War from Ft Sumter to Appomatox. He was also the Editor of American Heritage and oversaw their large well illustrated book on the Civil War (also a good place to start)
I would look for books that don't dwell too much on each maneuver of each battle, not that the battles aren't an important part of the war, they actually get you inside the heads of the generals. You can get a little glassy eyed reading through play by play battle scenarios. There are separate books dedicated to battle summaries.
The drafting of the US constitution, the disagreements and the compromises that took place is the starting point of the tensions that would eventually lead to war.
Being spaniard, unfortunately I didn't study about American Civil War but since I have been reading about other wars/conflicts in later 19th century such as Indian Mutiny or Anglo-Zulu wars I am also interested in American Civil War but where to start? Seems that there are a lot of information about that.
Get a copy of This Hallowed Ground by Bruce Catton. I don't know how well you read English. However, either get that or a copy translated into Spanish. Its an excellent history of the war itself. However, if you look for the roots of the Civil War than I'd study these events.
1. The Constitutional Convention of 1787.
2. The Compromise of 1820 wherein Missouri and Maine were both admitted as states to the United States of America.
3. The Tariff of Abominations and Nullification Crisis of 1833.
4. The Compromise of 1850.
5. The history of "Bleeding Kansas"
6. The Dred Scott Supreme Court decision.
Slavery and whether it should be allowed to spread or not and whether a state had the right to secede from the United States were really the roots of the Civil War.
Where does it say that?
Slave states didn't want to secede, slave states wanted free states to return all runaway slaves
The issue of fugitive slaves fleeing to the north has been greatly exaggerated. The federal slave schedules of the 1850 and 1860 censuses have a place to list the number of slaves of each owner who had become fugitives within the year and it is extremely unusual for even one to be noted. As a matter of fact I don't remember ever seeing such an entry in all the schedules I have examined. Advertisements in newspapers of the period indicate that most escapee slaves were trying to get back to wherever they had been removed from.
Advertisements in newspapers of the period indicate that most escapee slaves were trying to get back to wherever they had been removed from.
What?
Runaway slaves took out newspaper ads seeking assistance to be caught and returned?
Huh?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
