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.
It's informative that all of these C-D threads that discuss the cause of the Civil War almost universally ignore the undisputed motivation of large minorities of the U.S. population often very large percentages of Confederate state populations, that contributed a significant part of the Union military force -- African Americans. The African Americans of the Civil War period, whether free or slave, were concerned primarily by the issue of slavery.
Posters repeatedly discuss the reason that the average Confederate soldier fought in the war, but ignore the hundreds of thousands of African Americans who actively supported the Union.
E.g., North Carolina had not only Unionist white regiments, but also African American regiments.
Civil War historians say the primary cause was slavery
<< DREW GILPIN FAUST, Harvard University: Well, historians are pretty united on the cause of the Civil War being slavery.
And the kind of research that historians have undertaken, especially in the years since the centennial, when there has been so much interest in this question of the role of race and slavery in the United States, that research has shown pretty decisively that, when the various states announced their plans for secession, they uniformly said that the main motivating factor was to defend slavery.>>
James McPherson, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of the "Battle Cry of Freedom," well explains why the Confederate states seceded:
<<“Probably 90 percent, maybe 95 percent of serious historians of the Civil War would agree on the broad questions of what the war was about and what brought it about and what caused it,” McPherson said, “which was the increasing polarization of the country between the free states and the slave states over issues of slavery, especially the expansion of slavery.”>>
In it, South Carolina laments the election of a new president “whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery.” State leaders indeed sound incensed about “states’ rights,” but not in the way most people think today.
“They are against states’ rights,” Loewen said. “And they name the states and they name the rights that really upset them.”
Specifically, South Carolina spells out grievances with 13 Northern states that had passed local laws that “render useless” the federal Fugitive Slave Act. South Carolina is miffed at New York for denying slaveholders the right to transport slaves through its territory, and at Ohio and Iowa for refusing to surrender escaped slaves charged with crimes in Virginia. It’s angry at several Northern states for giving freed blacks citizenship and even the right to vote (a decision that was then the responsibility of the states, not the federal government). These northern laws were essentially an attempt to hold federal slave policy at bay — using states’ rights.>>
Also noted in the linked article:
<<Writing about this disconnect earlier this year when Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell proclaimed Confederate History Month, PoliticsDaily.com Editor Carl Cannon quoted the Confederacy’s vice president, Alexander H. Stephens, on the new nation’s raison d’être:: "Its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.">>
Slavery was mentioned implicitly in the Southern Constitution. It was the fundamental reason behind secession, yet southerners and racism deniers still to this day are trying to prove otherwise. Tiresome.
It's informative that all of these C-D threads that discuss the cause of the Civil War almost universally ignore the undisputed motivation of large minorities of the U.S. population often very large percentages of Confederate state populations, that contributed a significant part of the Union military force -- African Americans. The African Americans of the Civil War period, whether free or slave, were concerned primarily by the issue of slavery.
Posters repeatedly discuss the reason that the average Confederate soldier fought in the war, but ignore the hundreds of thousands of African Americans who actively supported the Union.
E.g., North Carolina had not only Unionist white regiments, but also African American regiments.
That's a good point but i don't think they are ignored as much as just taken for granted. At least their reasons were taken for granted. They certainly were not fighting to keep the Union whole. Most would probably welcome the South being dissolved from the Union. Good ridance. Many likely had family members still down South and that was likely their reason... fighting for their continual freedom and the freedom of their family members. The abolishment of slavery had to be paramount on their minds.
Agree it's problematic when folks don't get the history correct, it's not a partisan issue, it's a good history issue. Particularly when using the past to validate or legitimize or to rationalize their own present day political beliefs. In historical analysis, it's called 'Presentism':
Maybe in some parallel universe but not in the one we inhabit. There are many different minor issues but they all lead back to slavery. You can cut it anyway you want but it always comes back to the basic issue.
Sectionalism in the US was always a point of friction (and still is to a small extent) but holding the Union together was always in everyone's interest. Secession in the south would never have been popularly supported to the point of war if you pretend slavery never existed. The states would not have had enough in common.
Except the same economy. Again, notice slave states not as dependent on cash crops didn’t secede.
Slavery was mentioned implicitly in the Southern Constitution. It was the fundamental reason behind secession, yet southerners and racism deniers still to this day are trying to prove otherwise. Tiresome.
I agree that slavery was a fundamental reason behind secession but i don't think you can use the Confederate Constitution as proof. I think the articles of secession do a much better job than the Confederate Constitution does.
Except the same economy. Again, notice slave states not as dependent on cash crops didn’t secede.
I have read compelling arguments that secession could have occurred without slavery... I am not convinced but it certainly not an improbably theory. We have to remember that it was NOT the fire eaters that got the border states to secede it was the Norths call for volunteers to squash the rebellion. The border states simply had more in common with the Southern States than the North. SO in theory, you just got to get one states (South Carolina) to secede, coax a fight with Lincoln, and the other states would follow. Plausible.
<< DREW GILPIN FAUST, Harvard University: Well, historians are pretty united on the cause of the Civil War being slavery.
And the kind of research that historians have undertaken, especially in the years since the centennial, when there has been so much interest in this question of the role of race and slavery in the United States, that research has shown pretty decisively that, when the various states announced their plans for secession, they uniformly said that the main motivating factor was to defend slavery.>>
James McPherson, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of the "Battle Cry of Freedom," well explains why the Confederate states seceded:
<<“Probably 90 percent, maybe 95 percent of serious historians of the Civil War would agree on the broad questions of what the war was about and what brought it about and what caused it,” McPherson said, “which was the increasing polarization of the country between the free states and the slave states over issues of slavery, especially the expansion of slavery.”>>
In it, South Carolina laments the election of a new president “whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery.” State leaders indeed sound incensed about “states’ rights,” but not in the way most people think today.
“They are against states’ rights,” Loewen said. “And they name the states and they name the rights that really upset them.”
Specifically, South Carolina spells out grievances with 13 Northern states that had passed local laws that “render useless” the federal Fugitive Slave Act. South Carolina is miffed at New York for denying slaveholders the right to transport slaves through its territory, and at Ohio and Iowa for refusing to surrender escaped slaves charged with crimes in Virginia. It’s angry at several Northern states for giving freed blacks citizenship and even the right to vote (a decision that was then the responsibility of the states, not the federal government). These northern laws were essentially an attempt to hold federal slave policy at bay — using states’ rights.>>
Also noted in the linked article:
<<Writing about this disconnect earlier this year when Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell proclaimed Confederate History Month, PoliticsDaily.com Editor Carl Cannon quoted the Confederacy’s vice president, Alexander H. Stephens, on the new nation’s raison d’être:: "Its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.">>
In other words federal law didn’t protect their state’s interest so what’s the point of being in the union?
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.
Civil War historians say the primary cause was slavery
