Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-21-2017, 10:49 PM
 
10,732 posts, read 5,664,235 times
Reputation: 10863

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by residinghere2007 View Post
<<SNIP>>

So in its simplest form, it was about slavery because the south instigated the war.

<<SNIP>>
When a bully backs you into a corner, and you punch him as a result, you didn't start the fight. The bully did.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-22-2017, 05:10 AM
 
Location: *
13,242 posts, read 4,922,871 times
Reputation: 3461
Quote:
Originally Posted by ms12345 View Post
Vote to secede was in the state legislatures. I do wonder how they managed to fire up the common people and actually get their support. I bet more than a few fought just because it was what they were expected to do. No big political alignment, no fear of impending revolt, but huge social pressure.
It's not likely folks in the present day will be able to account for each person's reason for fighting back then. The piece linked attempted to address some of the, as you've noted, 'social pressures'.

Why Non-Slaveholding Southerners Fought
Address to the Charleston Library Society, January 25, 2011

https://www.civilwar.org/learn/artic...herners-fought

Imho, Mr. Rhea did a fine job in describing the social pressures, & included a some of the large amount of research he did to back up his findidings. Even so, it would not be possible to account for every individual's motivations or reasons.

I also think he did a fine job in describing the impact back then:
Quote:
This year initiates the commemoration of the Sesquicentennial of the Civil War. This is an occasion for serious reflection on a war that killed some 600,000 of our citizens and left many hundreds of thousands emotionally and physically scarred. Translated into today’s terms – our country is ten times more populous than it was then -- the dead would number some 6 million, with tens of millions more wounded, maimed, and psychologically damaged. The price was indeed catastrophic. ...
No one can dispute the price was indeed catastrophic. The failed reconstruction period was also catastrophic.

If the primary reason for secession was not to create a new Nation which would differ from the USA in only one significant way (by a reading of the Constitution of the CSA), i.e. race-based enslavement, how can the continuation of the 'black codes' & then the codification of societal enforced laws (Jim Crow State & local laws) in the former Confederate States be explained?

Some folks call the American Civil Rights movement the '2nd Reconstruction period'.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2017, 06:36 AM
Status: "119 N/A" (set 22 days ago)
 
12,956 posts, read 13,671,429 times
Reputation: 9693
One has to view slavery abstractly to understand that the war was over slavery and slavery alone. Many states rights advocates don't want to believe that 600,000 Americans lost their lives over servants and field hands. If you look at slavery the same way you would look at the oil industry today and think what would happen if a president got elected who was bound to the ideal that the US would be a country of renewable energy. Heads would roll and people would swear it wasn't about oil.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2017, 07:10 AM
 
Location: Hartford County, CT
845 posts, read 680,105 times
Reputation: 461
The war was over slavery.

The people who did not own slaves fought anyway because their homeland was being invaded by someone (the North) who were only invading because the slaveowning rich men who ran the states formed their "country" and then attacked the United States at Ft. Sumter. There was also a prevailing feeling in the south that one day, somehow, the poor white could own a slave if they just worked hard enough, thus making them want to defend it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2017, 07:59 AM
 
18,129 posts, read 25,278,015 times
Reputation: 16835
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell View Post
Were they? I think it was South Carolina's articles of succession, that it says something to the effect, 'without making provisions none better' in the area of the northerners passing laws that abolished slavery. I think I have found what they meant by that ...

" "[R]ace prejudice seems stronger in those states that have abolished slavery than in those where it still exists, and nowhere is it more intolerant than in those states where slavery was never known." --Alexis De Tocqueville, "Democracy in America" "
First, let's clarify that Alexis De Tocqueville is french and that book was published in 1835.
Here's something else I found in that book where he says that "The North are racists"



Here's how he describes slavery in Chapter 18

Democracy in America By Alexis de Tocqueville

The human beings who are scattered over this space do not form, as in Europe, so many branches of the same stock. Three races, naturally distinct, and, I might almost say, hostile to each other, are discoverable among them at the first glance. Almost insurmountable barriers had been raised between them by education and law, as well as by their origin and outward characteristics, but fortune has brought them together on the same soil, where, although they are mixed, they do not amalgamate, and each race fulfills its destiny apart.

Among these widely differing families of men, the first that attracts attention, the superior in intelligence, in power, and in enjoyment, is the white, or European, the MAN pre-eminently so called, below him appear the Negro and the Indian. These two unhappy races have nothing in common, neither birth, nor fea- tures, nor language, nor habits. Their only resemblance lies in their misfortunes. Both of them occupy an equally inferior posi- tion in the country they inhabit; both suffer from tyranny; and if their wrongs are not the same, they originate from the same authors.

If we reason from what passes in the world, we should almost say that the European is to the other races of mankind what man himself is to the lower animals: he makes them subservient to his use, and when he cannot subdue he destroys them. Oppression has, at one stroke, deprived the descendants of the Africans of almost all the privileges of humanity. The Negro of the United States has lost even the remembrance of his country; the language which his forefathers spoke is never heard around him; he abjured their religion and forgot their customs when he ceased to belong to Africa, without acquiring any claim to European privileges. But he remains half-way between the two communities, isolated between two races; sold by the one, repulsed by the other; finding not a spot in the universe to call by the name of country, except the faint image of a home which the shelter of his master's roof affords.

The Negro has no family: woman is merely the temporary com- panion of his pleasures, and his children are on an equality with himself from the moment of their birth. Am I to call it a proof of God's mercy, or a visitation of his wrath, that man, in certain states, appears to be insensible to his extreme wretchedness and almost obtains a depraved taste for the cause of his misfortunes? The Negro, plunged in this abyss of evils, scarcely feels his own calamitous situation. Violence made him a slave, and the habit of servitude gives him the thoughts and desires of a slave, he admires his tyrants more than he hates them, and finds his joy and his pride in the servile imitation of those who oppress him. His understanding is degraded to the level of his soul.

Last edited by Dopo; 09-22-2017 at 08:41 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2017, 08:59 AM
 
16,212 posts, read 10,819,047 times
Reputation: 8442
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy100 View Post
The problem when you tell a high school student that otherwise knows nothing else, that the primary cause of the war was slavery, then fail to elaborate, the logic immediately leads one to believe the war was basically over civil rights which couldn't be further from the truth. There were abolitionist (in both the North and South) who's motivations were strictly humanitarian, but the war wasn't fought to further a humanitarian cause. It was a war over differing economies, regional sectarianism and loss of political parity. Freed blacks in the North were not necessarily welcomed with open arms and racism was just as rampant on both sides of the Mason Dixon Line. New York City's wealth was tied to the cotton trade and the city itself shared Southern sympathies. Civil War's dirty secret about slavery - CNN.com
High school history largely downplays the economics and politics behind the war.

The two regions were founded by two different groups of people. Northern colonies were founded by religious dissidents, while the southern colonies were founded by proprietary companies looking for cash crop profits. By the start of the war they had vastly differing and conflicting economies. The South's export driven economy required cheap import tariffs for finished European goods, while the North required high import tariffs to protect their own economies. By the start of the Civil War, the South had more trade with Britain and France than it did with the North. The problem with slavery in the south was it was working too well. By the start of the Civil War the South was producing 2/3rds of the world's cotton. If no slave was ever freed, the two economies would continue to have competing interest at the national level. A 21st century equivalent would be pitting modern coastal urban economies against rural Midwestern ones.

The Missouri Compromise kept the peace temporarily by allowing one free state for every slave state. This would be the 19th century equivalent of allowing our modern political parties to gerrymander new territories as voting states that are either Republican or Democrat. As long as they're one for one, all is peaceful and government is balanced. When that compromise broke down the writing was on the wall that the South's future electoral maps would no longer sustain their economy and power at the national level, so seceding at that point seemed like the best option for the future survival. They were after all sitting on the country's most valuable exports and Texas had just recently defeated Mexico with far less so at the time, it seemed viable.


Slavery was the key divisive feature between the two regions, but not necessarily from a humanitarian standpoint like some would be made to believe.
As I've mentioned in other threads, if the war is taught to be only about slavery, then the lessons of history remain unlearned. After reading through the California secession threads after the last election (and the Texas secession threads after the one before) it dawned on me that a small but vocal minority is basically going down the same rabbit hole the South did probably because they were so focused on the actual slavery semantics, they can't the forest through the trees as it would apply today. Sure some truly educated historians know better, but elections are not held by historians, they're held by people with a rudimentary, simplified understanding of history who get their opinions from Facebook.
On the bold, that is not what happens in a regular high school American History class. I have a high school student right now who is learning about the Civil War. Kids in high school (should) already know that the Civil War occurred and what it was primarily about - slavery. They expand upon this at the high school level and discuss the fact that the following in regards to the south were about the institution of chattel slavery

Quote:
Originally Posted by NCN View Post
Judging from the posts on here from the people of the northern states, I don't think you are the only one who is ignorant of the facts that started the Civil War. It was basically economic.

Then there's the fictional book, UNCLE TOM'S CABIN.

I have quit listening to the lies. It happened more than 150 years ago. It is time to move forward without blame on either side. We don't need to be split again.

I am hoping some day those who are here because their ancestors were slaves will some day realize how lucky they are their ancestors were brought here instead of staying in a country where their fellow citizens sold them into slavery. In some of those countries selling young children into slavery is still going on.
On the bold - economics of the south was based on slavery. I already mentioned that the following were based on the institution of chattel slavery - do you deny that the following were the based on chattel slavery in the south....?

  • Property rights (Fugitive Slave Laws and Northern states enacting laws to protect free blacks in their areas) - the "property" in question that southerners wanted to protect was SLAVES (uppercase for effect as it seems many of you don't want to admit that slaves were property with an economic value)
  • Economic rights - the economy of the south was heavily agricultural and it was built upon SLAVES. Slaves were the major source of wealth for the south. Taxes would not decimate the south economically, but removing the value of slaves would and it did for generations
  • Admission of slave states to the union - the south was never going to be made to get rid of their system of slavery; however they would have less power with less slave states being admitted to the union. Lincoln was not going to take away their slaves. No one was, but they didn't want to give up the power that they had in Congress on the issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmccullough View Post
First, everybody knows that Uncle Tom's Cabin is a novel. Nobody pretends otherwise. It's a novel that graphically shows the evils of slavery, but it's a novel nonetheless.

Still, I congratulate you. This is the only honest post in this entire thread from the pro-Confederacy posters. You are the only poster here who will admit the truth: that you support slavery and racism. All the other pro-Confederacy posters also support slavery and racism, but try to disguise it by pretending to believe that the Civil War was not about slavery.

Of course, on your point that it "was basically economic" you're dead wrong. Your heroes told the world what it was about, and that was slavery, pure and simple.

Still, as the only person to come out publicly in favor of slavery you should probably get some kind of award.
I agree with this post and will point out, once again, that it actually was "economic" for the south because their economy was based on slavery. It is again, funny and strange that these people won't admit this. Property, states rights, and economic issues for the south are entirely tied up in the system of slavery in their region existing for their benefit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ApePeeD View Post
That's a common mistake by many Americans.

The Civil War was about economic disparity between the North and the South. The North was industrialized, and the South was agricultural.

Things like the cotton gin fueled the industrialization of the North and increased the demand for even more slaves in the South -- counter to the actual intent of Eli Whitney's intent to reduce our dependency on slaves.

The North originally had no intent to give freedom to slaves. However, when war broke out, it crippled the South's agricultural economy by supporting freedom of slaves. What did the slaves do? Flee the farms of the South and run to the North. Agriculture came to a halt and the economy was crippled.
On the bold, again, the southern economy was driven by slavery. A majority of the south's wealth was tied to the value of chattel slaves prior to the war.



Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd View Post
When a bully backs you into a corner, and you punch him as a result, you didn't start the fight. The bully did.
On this, no one was bullying the south. Lincoln hadn't even been inaugurated when states began to secede from the union. No one was going to remove their system of chattel slavery. They were paranoid over fearing their chattel slaves being taken from them, and if that occurred they would be left destitute and powerless. They were the aggressors.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2017, 09:22 AM
 
2,094 posts, read 1,925,699 times
Reputation: 3639
Quote:
Originally Posted by drinkthekoolaid View Post
So full disclaimer to get my background where I'm posting from.... I have a "northern perspective and education"

So I've really become interested in the civil war lately and the more I've been learning the more interested I've become.

I remember in school basically being told more or less the war was about slavery and related issues and that's the way it was. Never gave a 2nd thought about it and just thought that's that.

The more I read and learn I'm really challenging what I thought I knew. And I'm curious to get some more opinions on this topic or get some more books or documentaries recommended to me.

I also just visited Gettysburg this year and that's what really got me down the rabbit hole of the civil war.

Looking at everything I've learned so far it seems the cause of the civil war is so much more complex than I realized. Even reading Lincoln's inaugural address in 1861 he specifically mentions not trying to stop slavery in the South and its not his intention (I'm paraphrasing)

And that most people in the South readily admitted that they feel slavery would have naturally ended on its own.

The union still allowed border states like West virginia, Delaware, Kentucky to stay in the union and support the union cause AND remain slave states. That right there says the war did not originally start as a means to end slavery when the union allows its own states to continue on with slavery.

Like 97% of southern soldiers were far to poor to ever have slaves. Even some of the more aristocratic ones, for example Thomas Jackson actually went out of his way to teach slaves to read and write and helped build a Sunday school for them. I couldn't believe when I learned one of the confederates most famous generals was teaching slaves to read and write and with respect. It was quite a surprise for me to learn.

Lincoln only gave the emancipation proclamation addrssing slaves in confederate territory deliberately to undermine the south's economy, and to sow discontent and unrest.

Definitely didn't learn these things in school.

It's really changed how I look at the war.

I am really thinking that American civil war Was the South being angry and feeling mistreated over states rights issues. It's far more complex than I realized. And I am now viewing the confederacy differently than I did before. The North invaded to beat the South back into submission to preserve the union not to stop slavery, that became a method to inflict pain on the southern economy.

I've read/watched all the usuals...the killer angels, God's and generals, gettysburg, glory, (still have to read the last full measure) and I think It's called blue and grey? And others Etc..

If you guys have any interesting points or feedback let me know. I'm always willing to reevaluate and learn.

If you have any book or movie / mini series recommendations let me know
I think its a little more than just slavery- although that is the main point of contention, and the main "states right" they were fighting for. Their economy relied on slavery.

But there was also expansion and the rights of those states out west. I don't think Lincoln even cared that much about Slavery- he wasn't an abolitionist. He just wanted to save the Union.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2017, 09:31 AM
 
9,613 posts, read 6,944,788 times
Reputation: 6842
Quote:
Originally Posted by residinghere2007 View Post
On the bold, that is not what happens in a regular high school American History class. I have a high school student right now who is learning about the Civil War. Kids in high school (should) already know that the Civil War occurred and what it was primarily about - slavery. They expand upon this at the high school level and discuss the fact that the following in regards to the south were about the institution of chattel slavery



On the bold - economics of the south was based on slavery. I already mentioned that the following were based on the institution of chattel slavery - do you deny that the following were the based on chattel slavery in the south....?

  • Property rights (Fugitive Slave Laws and Northern states enacting laws to protect free blacks in their areas) - the "property" in question that southerners wanted to protect was SLAVES (uppercase for effect as it seems many of you don't want to admit that slaves were property with an economic value)
  • Economic rights - the economy of the south was heavily agricultural and it was built upon SLAVES. Slaves were the major source of wealth for the south. Taxes would not decimate the south economically, but removing the value of slaves would and it did for generations
  • Admission of slave states to the union - the south was never going to be made to get rid of their system of slavery; however they would have less power with less slave states being admitted to the union. Lincoln was not going to take away their slaves. No one was, but they didn't want to give up the power that they had in Congress on the issue.



I agree with this post and will point out, once again, that it actually was "economic" for the south because their economy was based on slavery. It is again, funny and strange that these people won't admit this. Property, states rights, and economic issues for the south are entirely tied up in the system of slavery in their region existing for their benefit.

On the bold, again, the southern economy was driven by slavery. A majority of the south's wealth was tied to the value of chattel slaves prior to the war.

On this, no one was bullying the south. Lincoln hadn't even been inaugurated when states began to secede from the union. No one was going to remove their system of chattel slavery. They were paranoid over fearing their chattel slaves being taken from them, and if that occurred they would be left destitute and powerless. They were the aggressors.
The problem is you’re downplaying economics and overplaying slavery. Slavery is just the machine, but economics and politicis what people fight over. It could have been over any economic driver from the conflicting party. Slavery is only of interest through a perspective of a modern civil rights researcher, which itself was not of interest to the North at the time. The vast majority of students believe the war was humanitarian in nature because they get distracted by modern views of civil rights.
That’s like saying Europeans colonized Africa to end slavery in Africa. That may have been the result, but that was not their intention.

Honestly I think everybody is saying the same thing on this thread in different ways. Not sure what it is you think people aren’t admitting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2017, 09:58 AM
 
Location: The High Desert
16,078 posts, read 10,738,506 times
Reputation: 31470
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dopo View Post
The South was losing slaves, the North was passing state laws to protect runaway slaves
I'm not familiar with those state laws but I am familiar with abuses perpetrated by slave catchers in the north which could have served as a basis to curtail their activities. The south was not hemorrhaging slaves into the free states. The numbers were quite small and some states, like Missouri, served as slave producer states with excess slaves born there being sold "down the river" for cash.

When I was researching the "Underground Railroad" I found that many common people in the north (especially Illinois) took an aggressive view of escaped slaves and UR agents always had to work in absolute secrecy. A few sympathetic people would secretly hide food or clothes in places like cemeteries along the route north but most people were not that supportive. I also recall one instance where a free black man entered into a contract with an Illinois farmer to work as a farm hand for several years as sort of an indentured worker. After a couple years the farmer sold the contract to a plantation owner in Mississippi which transferred "ownership" of the worker into slavery.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ms12345 View Post
Vote to secede was in the state legislatures. I do wonder how they managed to fire up the common people and actually get their support. I bet more than a few fought just because it was what they were expected to do. No big political alignment, no fear of impending revolt, but huge social pressure.
The common expectation was bolstered by religion and the weekly sermon from the pulpit. That was one method that kept the common people in line. Preachers supported the standard message that slavery was God's will. If they didn't, they were more than likely escorted out of town. In Missouri, where there was no uniform pro-slavery message from the pulpit, some churches were pro slavery and some were anti slavery. When fighting broke out as a true "civil war" some communities were torn apart based on what church you were a member of.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2017, 11:00 AM
Status: "It Can't Rain All The Time" (set 29 days ago)
 
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,592,007 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dopo View Post
First, let's clarify that Alexis De Tocqueville is french and that book was published in 1835.
Here's something else I found in that book where he says that "The North are racists"



Here's how he describes slavery in Chapter 18

Democracy in America By Alexis de Tocqueville

The human beings who are scattered over this space do not form, as in Europe, so many branches of the same stock. Three races, naturally distinct, and, I might almost say, hostile to each other, are discoverable among them at the first glance. Almost insurmountable barriers had been raised between them by education and law, as well as by their origin and outward characteristics, but fortune has brought them together on the same soil, where, although they are mixed, they do not amalgamate, and each race fulfills its destiny apart.

Among these widely differing families of men, the first that attracts attention, the superior in intelligence, in power, and in enjoyment, is the white, or European, the MAN pre-eminently so called, below him appear the Negro and the Indian. These two unhappy races have nothing in common, neither birth, nor fea- tures, nor language, nor habits. Their only resemblance lies in their misfortunes. Both of them occupy an equally inferior posi- tion in the country they inhabit; both suffer from tyranny; and if their wrongs are not the same, they originate from the same authors.

If we reason from what passes in the world, we should almost say that the European is to the other races of mankind what man himself is to the lower animals: he makes them subservient to his use, and when he cannot subdue he destroys them. Oppression has, at one stroke, deprived the descendants of the Africans of almost all the privileges of humanity. The Negro of the United States has lost even the remembrance of his country; the language which his forefathers spoke is never heard around him; he abjured their religion and forgot their customs when he ceased to belong to Africa, without acquiring any claim to European privileges. But he remains half-way between the two communities, isolated between two races; sold by the one, repulsed by the other; finding not a spot in the universe to call by the name of country, except the faint image of a home which the shelter of his master's roof affords.

The Negro has no family: woman is merely the temporary com- panion of his pleasures, and his children are on an equality with himself from the moment of their birth. Am I to call it a proof of God's mercy, or a visitation of his wrath, that man, in certain states, appears to be insensible to his extreme wretchedness and almost obtains a depraved taste for the cause of his misfortunes? The Negro, plunged in this abyss of evils, scarcely feels his own calamitous situation. Violence made him a slave, and the habit of servitude gives him the thoughts and desires of a slave, he admires his tyrants more than he hates them, and finds his joy and his pride in the servile imitation of those who oppress him. His understanding is degraded to the level of his soul.
Second, lets clarify the exclusion law of the northern states ...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:02 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top