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.
I think there is NO DOUBT that all the colonies/states certainly felt that way especially when they joined. If they didn't think they could freely leave, they would never have joined...
I'm not sure why there is no doubt, you will have find that clause in the Articles of Admission. I do doubt that states would not have joined freely if they thought at some point other states would leave. The articles do state that there was an equality clause. Leaving the union would make that state not equal in their dealings with the US, that is, by not being part of the union it could garner favorable treatment from the United states as it is now not in the union.
Secession would not have been a onetime thing. The upper south and lower south were different. Would the Confederacy have allowed further secession? If the Constitution made the right of secession implicit, then it would have certainly been amended by now. Segregation was an issue as big as slavery and there would have certainly been a few states that would have seceded rather than integrate.
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
He was a politician - he knew he couldn't come on and just say that given the minds of the times. But he had voiced a number of times before that slavery had to go.
"Now, I confess myself as belonging to that class in the country who contemplate slavery as a moral, social and political evil, having due regard for its actual existence amongst us and the difficulties of getting rid of it in any satisfactory way, and to all the constitutional obligations which have been thrown about it; but, nevertheless, desire a policy that looks to the prevention of it as a wrong, and looks hopefully to the time when as a wrong it may come to an end." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Lincoln-Douglas Debate at Galesburg" (October 7, 1858), p. 226.
The bold is odd. Do you deny that the economy of the south was driven on slavery? That the value of slaves was the bulk of the wealth of the south? That limiting the amount of "slave states" being admitted to the USA would be detrimental to the south?
I didn't overplay anything. And I didn't even mention civil rights. What I stated above is the truth and you and others actually have said the same things in the course of the thread lol.
Economy was driven by slaves
Political issues were driven by the institution of slavery
States Rights was driven by issues relating to slavery (rights of northern states to enact laws/procedures for the return of fugitive slaves vs. rights of the south to go get their escaped slaves in northern states)
None of the above have anything to do with civil rights. I think you are acting like all of the above are not related to slavery when they are. Not sure if it was you but someone said "slavery was both a direct and indirect cause of the war" (which literally made me giggle loudly and someone looked at me)
How can something be both a direct and indirect cause of the war, yet it wasn't what the war was about lol? I think some of you are just kidding yourselves, maybe because you are sensitive about civil rights or racial issues or something. For me it is a simple thing. I agree slavery was the direct and indirect cause of the war BTW because slavery was the cause of the war - I just say it in a simpler way and don't try to step around the subject.
ETA: I agree most are saying it is about slavery. The issue I have is that it is funny that people are saying that, but then saying it was not when it was. It is funny to me. I also don't see what civil rights has to do with the civil war. The actual Civil Rights Movement started after the Civil War not during the war or before the war. So that has nothing to do with it. I am not some high school student who is naive and PC about civil rights issues BTW. I also am not someone who dances around a subject and act like "direct and indirect" causes are not THE cause of something. It is just funny to me that some do this.
Well I think I was the one who first mentioned direct and indirect causes of the war, so maybe you are referring to me. Like I said, SLAVERY was the main cause of the Civil War, first and foremost. And this thread and other poster's comments have convinced me more and more that it was.
But having said that, there was other causes of the war. Do people actually think that everybody that supported secession in 1860/1861, many of them non-slaveowners, only cared about the one issue of slavery?
If you were a white Southerner in 1860, maybe you would be angry about the sudden election of Lincoln and other Republicans across the North and see it as an anti-Southern movement by Yankees up North. Maybe you would become defensive and retreat into arguments about state's rights.
I am not saying I agree about the Deep South states seceding from the Union, even the argument about states rights is still mostly about slavery. But my point is that there were other issues at the time, even if slavery was by far the main issue.
Well I think I was the one who first mentioned direct and indirect causes of the war, so maybe you are referring to me. Like I said, SLAVERY was the main cause of the Civil War, first and foremost. And this thread and other poster's comments have convinced me more and more that it was.
it was more of a lifestyle/culture fight than slavery, slavery was part of the culture but not all of it
no different than USA vs USSR, a war to contain communism, but it was more than that, it was two sides trying to promote themselves and choosing that as a the rally cry
I am not saying I agree about the Deep South states seceding from the Union, even the argument about states rights is still mostly about slavery. But my point is that there were other issues at the time, even if slavery was by far the main issue.
Here we go with that BS again,
Yes, you can always find one person that had another reason for supporting secession/Civil war.
You can say the same thing about absolutely any topic.
Yes, you can always find one person that had another reason for supporting secession/Civil war.
You can say the same thing about absolutely any topic.
Perhaps but i don't think were talking about a small number.. If half the country (confederate states) had another reason for supporting the Civil War then why would that explanation be BS?
I suspect many YOUNG soldiers volunteered for the Confederate Army simply for the adventure... to get away from a home he had probably never been more than 20 miles from his entire life. Why is that BS? A bit naive for sure and no doubt he quickly seconded guessed himself but to discount any ones motives as BS is arrogant to say the least. As if you know better their reasons some 150 years later than than they did.
Perhaps but i don't think were talking about a small number.. If half the country (confederate states) had another reason for supporting the Civil War then why would that explanation be BS?
I suspect many YOUNG soldiers volunteered for the Confederate Army simply for the adventure... to get away from a home he had probably never been more than 20 miles from his entire life. Why is that BS? A bit naive for sure and no doubt he quickly seconded guessed himself but to discount any ones motives as BS is arrogant to say the least. As if you know better their reasons some 150 years later than than they did.
You are claiming to know better than the people that wrote the secession articles
The bold is odd. Do you deny that the economy of the south was driven on slavery? That the value of slaves was the bulk of the wealth of the south? That limiting the amount of "slave states" being admitted to the USA would be detrimental to the south?
I didn't overplay anything. And I didn't even mention civil rights. What I stated above is the truth and you and others actually have said the same things in the course of the thread lol.
Economy was driven by slaves
Political issues were driven by the institution of slavery
States Rights was driven by issues relating to slavery (rights of northern states to enact laws/procedures for the return of fugitive slaves vs. rights of the south to go get their escaped slaves in northern states)
None of the above have anything to do with civil rights. I think you are acting like all of the above are not related to slavery when they are. Not sure if it was you but someone said "slavery was both a direct and indirect cause of the war" (which literally made me giggle loudly and someone looked at me)
How can something be both a direct and indirect cause of the war, yet it wasn't what the war was about lol? I think some of you are just kidding yourselves, maybe because you are sensitive about civil rights or racial issues or something. For me it is a simple thing. I agree slavery was the direct and indirect cause of the war BTW because slavery was the cause of the war - I just say it in a simpler way and don't try to step around the subject.
ETA: I agree most are saying it is about slavery. The issue I have is that it is funny that people are saying that, but then saying it was not when it was. It is funny to me. I also don't see what civil rights has to do with the civil war. The actual Civil Rights Movement started after the Civil War not during the war or before the war. So that has nothing to do with it. I am not some high school student who is naive and PC about civil rights issues BTW. I also am not someone who dances around a subject and act like "direct and indirect" causes are not THE cause of something. It is just funny to me that some do this.
Nobody is saying slavery wasn’t a factor. We’re saying it’s was a small part of a larger problem.
The problem with over emphasizing slavery is simple...it’s useless in modern day context.
If you want to avoid repeating past mistakes you have to acknowledge what those mistakes were. If you simply say “it was about slavery, it’s written right here in a secession document”, then your only takeaway is don’t have slaves and the problem is solved.
The takeaway should be:
1) Be careful with political disenfranchisement. When one region feels like they have no chance of being politically represented at the national level in future elections, they tend to resort to extreme actions.
2) Diversify your economy. Don’t put all your eggs in one basket because one industry is profitable right now. Integrate economically with your political rivals so they can’t punish you without punishing themselves regardless of who wins the election. If the South invested heavily in manufacturing, import tariffs wouldn’t have been as big of a deal and reliance on slaves wouldn’t have been as high.
3) just because you’re state/region is a powerful export economy, doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll survive as an independent country. After the war, cotton prices were supressed by foreign cotton and the insect infestations decimated crops. Even if the South won, surviving would have been a struggle after the war.
I'm not sure why there is no doubt, you will have find that clause in the Articles of Admission. I do doubt that states would not have joined freely if they thought at some point other states would leave. The articles do state that there was an equality clause. Leaving the union would make that state not equal in their dealings with the US, that is, by not being part of the union it could garner favorable treatment from the United states as it is now not in the union.
Secession would not have been a onetime thing. The upper south and lower south were different. Would the Confederacy have allowed further secession? If the Constitution made the right of secession implicit, then it would have certainly been amended by now. Segregation was an issue as big as slavery and there would have certainly been a few states that would have seceded rather than integrate.
If that rationale was true, then you would expect northern states would have further secession movements. There’s more differences between the West and the Northeast than there was between Virgina and South Carolina. The economies however were similiar and that would have been their common bond.
Nobody is saying slavery wasn’t a factor. We’re saying it’s was a small part of a larger problem. The problem with over emphasizing slavery is simple...it’s useless in modern day context.
If you want to avoid repeating past mistakes you have to acknowledge what those mistakes were. If you simply say “it was about slavery, it’s written right here in a secession document”, then your only takeaway is don’t have slaves and the problem is solved.
The takeaway should be:
1) Be careful with political disenfranchisement. When one region feels like they have no chance of being politically represented at the national level in future elections, they tend to resort to extreme actions.
2) Diversify your economy. Don’t put all your eggs in one basket because one industry is profitable right now. Integrate economically with your political rivals so they can’t punish you without punishing themselves regardless of who wins the election. If the South invested heavily in manufacturing, import tariffs wouldn’t have been as big of a deal and reliance on slaves wouldn’t have been as high.
3) just because you’re state/region is a powerful export economy, doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll survive as an independent country. After the war, cotton prices were supressed by foreign cotton and the insect infestations decimated crops. Even if the South won, surviving would have been a struggle after the war.
But it was not a small part...
Every issue you mentioned in this thread is related to slavery. Again, it is odd and funny to me that you admit that it is about slavery then try to act like it was not. Slavery was the economic, political, cultural, and traditional issue of the south.
Again it is interesting to me that you cannot admit this to be the truth when it is, indeed the truth when it comes to the war. And slavery in the context or the Civil War is not "useless." Chattel slavery is no longer in our modern day. As historians, you discuss/study history (at least you should) based upon the context of that time period based on independent study of the era.
Independent study of the era shows that the American Civil War was about slavery from all angles - politically, economically, and culturally/traditionally
The takeway for me and what it should be for the entire nation is not to get paranoid when you guy doesn't win and do something stupid that may kill over half your male population and decimate you. Also that when you know your position is immoral, don't try to make it moral. Wrong is wrong and when you know it is wrong, it is dumb to try to reason that "wrong" is somehow "right." ETA: the last part of that comment speaks directly to what I mentioned is one of the main focuses of my own research of the early 19th century to the Civil War in America - the fact that abolitionists implored Lincoln and the Union to make the war one about freeing slaves instead of just putting the union back together. They did not gain the upper hand in the war fully until they did that. I do believe they would have even without going the emancipation route, but it galvanized blacks in particular to join the Union Army as soldiers which was a benefit to the war effort of the north and it made the north morally superior to the south and caused any partnerships the south could have made with European powers null and void due to the north being on the "right" side of morals/ethics in regards to slavery.
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.
