1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Why they fought the Civil War.

Discussion in 'History Forum' started by Ducken, May 27, 2009.

Why they faught.

  1. Slavery

    4.1%
  2. States rights with slavery as a major factor.

    44.6%
  3. states rights with slavery as a minor factor.

    51.4%
  1. Ducken

    Ducken Luxury Box Luxury Box

    8,465
    2,216
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    Lower Delaware
    This is my 1st attempt at a poll so I hope I did not screw this up.

    What was in your opinion why the Civil War happened, based on your knowledge of the war, not based on your heart.

    This is a public poll.
     
    sking29 and gafinfan like this.
  2. gafinfan

    gafinfan gunner Club Member

    Ducken, you are a brave man.:up::theman:

    With that let me say that if one believes all of the chatter taught in public school then Freeing the Slaves is the ONLY issue and all Southern Slave owners were racist. Of course that then puts the 30 % who were black slave owners in a tither of sorts.

    IN point of fact the largest owner in the NO, LA area was a Black lady while one of the 5 largest in SC was also a Black man who started life as a slave. It should also be noted that there were more Free black people in the South in 1860 than there were free Black people in the North.

    While all the talk was going on the truth of the matter was MONEY and GREED-new tariff that Congress laid on the southern states. The North, now that it had the votes to do so, wanted to build Railroads to California and more public schools and better roads and better harbors. All that takes money plus the fact that none of those RR's, Schools, Roads, or Harbors were to be in the Southern half of the Country while that same Southern half was going to supply 80 % of those taxes to do these improvements.

    I'm ready
    :crapstrom:
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2009
  3. anlgp

    anlgp ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ← → ← → B A

    Vote is cast.

    I would like to point out that I am from a state that said as the first to join it would be the last to leave. The civil war tore Delaware apart by and large.

    Here is a link on Delaware and the Civil War. Ducken you may enjoy this:

    http://www.hsd.org/civilwar.htm
     
    Ducken, sking29 and gafinfan like this.
  4. sking29

    sking29 What it takes to be cool

    7,053
    2,181
    113
    Dec 9, 2007
    East Tennessee
    Definitely states rights with slave rights as a minor factor.
     
    Ducken and gafinfan like this.
  5. gafinfan

    gafinfan gunner Club Member

    Fantastic!:up:
     
    anlgp likes this.
  6. sking29

    sking29 What it takes to be cool

    7,053
    2,181
    113
    Dec 9, 2007
    East Tennessee
    Oh and GA I forgot to mention that the reason there was probably more free blacks in the south than the north is because the vast majority of blacks lived in the south, so it was a numbers thing.

    That may be wrong but that's my guess, prove me wrong as always. :up:

    Oh and I think we actually agreed for once in this thread. :knucks:
     
    gafinfan likes this.
  7. gafinfan

    gafinfan gunner Club Member

    This is just some quick numbers off the top and I'll get back to this later with links as I know I have them some where.


    http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/1860a-15.pdf

    There were about 220,000 free Black people in the North while it was about 268,000 free Black people in the South for a total of 488,000 with about 3.9 million slaves as of 1860. My feeling is, and I get this thru what I've read, that the Free people in the North had it much worse than anyother free person. As you may be aware the first Jim Crow laws were started in the North to be able to "Control" those Black people who were free. There were some very harsh laws in most Northern states against black people. Some say they were treated worse that their Southern slave brothers. The City that had the most free Black people in the US was New Orleans where there were over 3,000 at that time who owned slaves out of a total of over 10,000 free black people.

    http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm
    .
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2009
  8. Ducken

    Ducken Luxury Box Luxury Box

    8,465
    2,216
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    Lower Delaware
    I have waited until there was some discussion before I chimed in:wink2: I have to go to work here in a bit so after work I will try to add some more.

    The reason I started this pole was because of another thread and the tone from some was that slavery was THE reason for the war which is purely false, and I am pleased to see that so far we all can agree on that.

    For me GA hit the nail on the head, it was mostly about money and the States rights ( more power to the state then the Feds). And in those State's rights was the right to say if that state thought it was legal or not to own slaves in that state. I believe the Southern states were sorta backed into a corner. On one hand I doubt they really wanted to split off from the US, but the recent shift in population had left the South with less say in Congress. I believe the North had made up it's mind to go forth with the stuff GA has outlined, and a large portion of that money was coming from the South, where that money was needed to make capitol improvements in the south.

    And instead of a compromise, the Southern states felt compelled to stand up for what they believed was their rights granted to them by the Constitution and our counties fathers.



    Time to get ready for work, Hope there is some good talk about this when I get home so I can learn something.
     
    hof13, sking29 and gafinfan like this.
  9. gafinfan

    gafinfan gunner Club Member

    When you go back and truly look at the figures it still is surprising that the South pulled out at all. While the numbers of which States pulled out, on the surface, seem to say slavery was the reason. Looking deeper proves that to be false. Let me explain:

    The real fear here is that the North would not return the Slaves to their owners, a States Rights problem. There were two options open to those states. 1. Stay in and fight this in court (slavery was legal in the Constitution). 2. Stay in because Lincoln himself stated that he would live by the law of the land and would not try and change the law. He even went so far as to have put into play an amemdment (secretly before he was sworn in as President) that would have guarantied slavery forever more plus reinforcing States rights.

    http://www.southernmessenger.org/14th_amendment.htm

    You will also notice that the northern most of the slave states didn't jump on the secession bandwagon to start with and 4 of those never did. (there are several reasons why this happened both legal and illegal) Truthfully if Lincoln had backed off I believe war would have been averted. Why didn't he? If you read anything about the man you will find that once he made up his mind to go one way you could NOT change it. Lincoln had said for months and months that he would fight to keep the Union together. He was backed by big business so the tariff had to stay; he would not lower that for any reason so War was a given. But just how to start it and look as if the victim? The Tax collecting forts were Federal land and would not be given up by Lincoln.

    The South had one chance to get it right and have the world on its side and IMHO it blew it.

    http://xml.education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry/34530

    In 1832 in response to the same type of problem SC used nullification to get a compromise from the Federal government, why didn't they use it this time and force Lincoln in making the first move?

    We will never know and thus over 600,000 American lives were lost and part of this country was put under the sword for 18 years.

    The very worst part in all of this is that it has left a legacy of hate and distrust that lives in some even today 148 years later. I truly wonder if Lincoln looks down and is happy with his handiwork in our history? Or is he still to hardheaded to see the division that still exist.:no:
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2009
  10. sking29

    sking29 What it takes to be cool

    7,053
    2,181
    113
    Dec 9, 2007
    East Tennessee
    I agree GA but my argument was that because there were many more blacks in the south that a pure numbers game would lead to there being more free blacks in the south than in the north. So let's take a quick look at the numbers.

    So according to what I can find you are correct that there were a total of 488,000 free African Americans during the 1860 census. However, there was roughly a total black population of 4,500,000 in the entire United States with roughly 3,950,000 in slavery. So we'll round that to about 500,000 free blacks and there we can see our agreed number of 488,000 free blacks come in. Since nearly 4 million of the 4.5 million blacks in the United States were slaves that means they lived in the south/border states. Factor in that there were as you say 268,000 additional free blacks in the south and we have only about 220,000 total blacks in the north. The final numbers through all of this leads to roughly 4.27 million blacks, both free and slave, in the south with only about 220,000 blacks total in the north. Seeing this things appear to be as I thought, that many more blacks existed in the south thus by a pure numbers game we can figure that a total number of free blacks would be greater in the south where as percentage wise they would be much less. So if we want to look at percentages 100% of blacks were free in the north versus about 16% in the south. So it comes down to a numbers game of who you want to look better on whether you use total numbers versus that in relation to the actual population (percentage wise). My final argument is that the majority of blacks being in the south, it only makes sense that more free blacks in total numbers would come from there based on pure majority.

    As for treatment, it is no doubt that treatment was not great for blacks in the north and there was in fact more chance for economic growth in the south for free blacks because the north had more competition. Here's a quick overview of treatment in North and South and neither are great:

    I suppose its all how you look at it but I feel we can agree to at least a draw on the lives of free blacks in the north and south. I am going to favor the north as a better place for blacks because at least there wasn't the fear of being forced into slavery for not having proper papers and the very fact of being put into slavery would make me think the south was the worse of the two places to be. Neither place was great and the north was not the wonderful place history textbooks make it seem.

    Also you are partially correct on the Jim Crow laws from what I can find. You are right that the laws' name originated in the north because of the use of separate facilities for blacks and whites, but the actual Jim Crow laws began in the south.

    From all the evidence I have ever found, although the treatment of blacks in the North was never the paradise our History textbooks have made it out to be, the north still gave blacks the better overall lifestyle namely not being sold as slaves (which included selling children from their parents and other despicable acts).

    Please GA don't take this lengthy post as a way for us to re-enter the whole discussion of the right to secede, etc. but rather my post is just to show that from the evidence I have found the south was not your favorite place to be if you were a black American even if you had more economic freedom if you were lucky enough to be free (~16% of the southern black population).

    Here's some links from where I got my numbers for my numbers game :wink2::

    http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html

    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080105170123AAN9tDl

    Yours truly,
    The Lone Union Supporter
    :wink2:
     
    Boik14, Ducken, cnc66 and 2 others like this.
  11. Regan21286

    Regan21286 MCAT's, EMT's, AMCAS, ugh

    10,439
    3,176
    0
    Dec 3, 2007
    UCLA, CA
    I believe it was more state rights oriented though I suppose slavery could be considered inclusive under that category as far as they were concerned. But I'm sure there were several other cultural issues that also played a part.
     
    Ducken, sking29 and gafinfan like this.
  12. sking29

    sking29 What it takes to be cool

    7,053
    2,181
    113
    Dec 9, 2007
    East Tennessee
    Most definitely, slavery just seemed to get lumped in with the overall cultural differences between the south and north. :yes:
     
    Ducken, Regan21286 and gafinfan like this.
  13. gafinfan

    gafinfan gunner Club Member

    you are right, its all a numbers game, thats true. Also true is just how and who we talk about as to which person North or South was better off. You could point to your Northern Ship owner or many others while I could point to any one of, who knows how many, Southern Blacks who arose from slavery to wealth. Both you and I know we do this to try and prove our points to eachother while the diehards, on both sides, do this to trade tit for tat. This is why I've always said that the distinctly anti-southern slant of taught history gives rise to distrust and division which is the very last thing most southern leaders, after the war, wanted to happen. From Lee and Davis, who both loved their country, to most others they all wanted the the country to come back together as a strong nation without division. Yet some also warned that history taught the wrong way would lead the the very division that we still have of both North to South and Black to White. Which to one who loves his country today makes me so very sad; but it is what it is.:no::up:

    I had to come back and add: To me History should be taught as it truly happened, no I was right; you were wrong, to get the true flavor, meaning if you will, of what and why something happened. To embelish one side or one person with saint like qualities, which are not true only gives rise to the very division of which I speak.:lol:
     
    sking29 and Ducken like this.
  14. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,378
    3,376
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    If you bother to read the articles of secession it's plainly obvious the South seceded because of slavery.

    There were plenty of non-political people writing in the 1850s that war was coming and it was coming because of slavery, North and South of the Mason Dixie line.

    The contemparaneous documents written prior to and during the war put slavery as the reason for war.

    States rights in and of its self is not a causis belli. "States Rights" was an 1850s spin doctor's way of renaming the issue to make it more palatable.
     
  15. gafinfan

    gafinfan gunner Club Member

    You have the right to believe that which you will but the slavery issue "causis belli" is THE 1865's+ spin doctor's way of making 630,000 military and 30,000+ southern civilian deaths and the coming Military overlord reconstrution's legality not only palatable but defensable. Which is the most dishonorable thing done, not only to the South, but the Country as a whole. Only IMHO of course.
     
  16. cnc66

    cnc66 wiley veteran, bad spelur Luxury Box

    31,582
    17,137
    0
    Nov 23, 2007
    cmon now, he was making a point.. you have now embellished it with things he did not say... I do not see his comments as defending deaths, simply countering your point. I'm to lazy this a.m. to go back through them, but it seems to me that slavery was mentioned in many of the articles of seccession. My memory could be failing, but I think he has a valid point. The feds said no slaves, the southern states said yes slaves.. so it was a matter of states rights... over slavery....
     
  17. gafinfan

    gafinfan gunner Club Member

    Marty he has a valid point because its true in and of itself that most of the States Articles of secession do in fact point to slavery as one of the issues that were the cause of the states to leave the Union. If that is as far as one takes it then it is a good and morally right cause for the North to act as it did. But I ask you this, forget what is written for just a moment, if you are accused of breaking the law yet you know its legal do you run away and hide or do you go to court and and prove the other party wrong? Why would you go and run away knowing that you had the law of the land on your side? Do you think that those who owned slaves, remember they are only 3% of the population, held sway over the other 97 %? and that they were ignorant of the laws of the land, also? Plus taking into account that, at that time, there was not a white man in all the land, North, South, East, or West who did not believe himself to be better than the black man. Yet in the South of that day even the Black slave looked down upon the poor white person. Also if that is the major cause just why did it take Lincoln 2+ years to declare it so?

    Of course the slavery issue was used to inflame the masses by raising the fear that freeing them all at once would put every life into question, it was the white's worse fear. Yet when you see what really happened during the war the Black people of the South both free and slave, for whatever reason, did not "raise hell" but became even more a part of Southern effort. 1863 thru 1865 prove that beyond any doubt when all of the ablebodied men were fighting and the women were left alone to raise the crops with their slaves and they did just that; for the most part. There is no way the South could have fought as long as it did without the very real help of the Southern black, both free and slave and I'm sure that their reasons were as varied as there are reasons that today people join up into our military, don't you think?

    You are right, in that I did enbellish, but I did so not to make light of his comments, which are right in and of themselves if you don't want to take it any farther or better see the whole picture. But I ask you this what better way to embellish the loss of over 310,000 Northern boys to their mothers than to give their deaths a cloak of moral good and righteousness by saying that they died to free others making the ending justify the means. To put those numbers into some sort of prospective the invasion of Europe cost some 6000 allied dead on the first day. Grants repulse at Vicksburg cost 5000 in less than two hours. Good lord Marty in the several months leading up to that day Grant lost 17,000 troops to sickness/death in trying other ways to try and just get to Vicksburg to be able to fight. Would the American public stand for such losses today without the head of that general on a silver platter? The 630,000 dead total in that four years is more American blood shed than in all other wars combined fought by us Marty, in how many years? The numbers are so very great that today they seem to become just numbers because of the very real fact that the mind can't get a handle on them yet to those living during that time, both North and South, those same numbers were very real and had to be lived with and there is no way that the words Tariff or States rights will ever override the Righteousness of "making men free" thus Slavery and saving the Union had to become the only true reasons for the war or the people would have demanded their right to have the Governments head.

    I give you two links to read and ponder:

    http://www.etymonline.com/cw/economics.htm

    http://www.tagate.com/wars/page/american.shtml

    While doing so let me state here and now I'm glad we are who we are A united states, I would want it no other way, yet it is and always has been my feeling that the pat answer to the whole history of slavery in our country and the question of righteousness and use of racism to give one part of the country a leg up over another part, North or South/Black or White, does a disservice to us all and only causes a division which I feel should not be. As one who has lived in the South all of my life and have been around, worked with, and socialized with African Americans and count many as my closest friends I am saddened by it. It is MHO that unless or until we understand and know the complete history, and embrace it that division will remain.

    Pauly if I slighted you in any way you have my utmost apology, I hope you will forgive me. That was not my intent.

    Marty I hope this explains my actions and I also hope you enjoy the two links.

    Ron
     
  18. sking29

    sking29 What it takes to be cool

    7,053
    2,181
    113
    Dec 9, 2007
    East Tennessee
    You know I just want to add that there was no real good guy in the Civil War because both sides had their own motives and those motives resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans. Clearly we all favor different sides because we think they were more right than the other, but I think we can all agree that had both sides been more willing to work together rather than to fight, lives could have been saved (although clearly I think one side should have gave in more than the other but oh well). :shifty:

    However there will always be a division over the north and south's views on slavery because there was a difference that can't be ignored. The north may have not treated African Americans well but there still wasn't the trade of slavery. The north's hands weren't free of the blood from that trade and for whatever reason (I say economic more than moral) the north moved away from slavery while the south kept it. That is a fact no matter what the spin and a division will always exist. That division does not mean that there will forever be a cultural division of race created by treating the Confederacy as the "slave trade supporting nation" because that is not true because as we have seen in the last year blacks and whites are closer than anyone ever thought (we elected an African American as president). The south being treated as a place that favored slavery does not stop the advancement of no racial division but rather it is more a statement of fact. Slavery was not the cause of the Civil War but clearly it was a factor and there was a clear division between slavery and abolition in the US in 1861.
     
    gafinfan and Ducken like this.
  19. Ducken

    Ducken Luxury Box Luxury Box

    8,465
    2,216
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    Lower Delaware
    Some interesting talk going on here. Ga I agree with what you are saying, but after reading some of the links I may have to change my mind. It is great when you can learn something new.

    For those interested in reading the Ordinances of Secession here is a link.

    http://americancivilwar.com/documents/ordinance_secession.html

    South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia and Texas Declaration's of Causes

    http://americancivilwar.com/documents/causes_south_carolina.html
    http://americancivilwar.com/documents/causes_mississippi.html
    http://americancivilwar.com/documents/causes_georgia.html
    http://americancivilwar.com/documents/causes_texas.html

    Well just when you are ready to change your mind you read South Carolina's Address to the slave holding states.

    http://americancivilwar.com/documents/south_carolina_address.html


    Some really good links to other documents on the war.

    http://americancivilwar.com/documents/

    One Thing is for sure, the War was a complex result of some complex issues. It is a shame the winner gets to write the history, I have read some good books made up from letters home. From those letters you really do not get the impression those boys were fighting to keep/free slaves. The impression you get was one of wanting to fight for their state, or to keep our country intact.
     
  20. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,378
    3,376
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    gafinfan,

    Just to give a bit of my background. I'm an aussie so I've never been indoctrinated with the schoolbooks that seem to offend you, and my reading on the ACW is based on my interest in the subject coming to it as an adult and wanting to know more about the single most important defining episode in the world's most important nation.

    I was shocked at the emphasis placed on Slavery in Burns' "Civil War" so I've looked further into that aspect.

    I have legal training, although not a lawyer, but I have always found that the best evidence is what people wrote down at the time, so I have looked back into and read the documents created at the time by the people involved in the events. I really don't care what post war historians have said about the issue.

    To say that slavery was not THE major driving force behind the Civil War is to deny what the actors in the events were saying themselves. Non-slave owning southerners still wanted slavery to be kept because of their denial of blacks as having the full rights of man, and exactly that same attitude can still be found today in the remnants of the KKK.
     
    Boik14 likes this.
  21. gafinfan

    gafinfan gunner Club Member

    We shall agree to disagree.:up: As for being offended, you misread me my friend, saddened yes offended no.:wink2: I was not there to take part so there could be no offense given or recieved. I love my country, with all of its warts, and I'm here; that being the case I wish to make it better.:up:
     
    Themole likes this.
  22. gafinfan

    gafinfan gunner Club Member

    Ducken, two more links you might enjoy::up:

    http://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/topics.html

    And from down under:

    http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/4404/The-Blue-and-Grey_Links.html

    I had to come back and add this from Northern Newspapers of 1861.

    http://www.geocities.com/confederate_cause/Quotes.htm

    Read below the reasoned thought of the time...

    From a story entitled: "What shall be done for a revenue?"

     
    Ducken and Boik14 like this.
  23. KB21

    KB21 Almost Never Wrong Club Member

    24,029
    40,478
    113
    Dec 6, 2007
    I had to bump this thread up and add my two cents. The War of Northern Aggression is something I've always been interested in. In fact, I live less than 20 miles from Brices Crossroads here in Mississippi where Nathan Bedford Forrest lead his Confederate troops against the Union in Baldwyn, MS.

    This war was not fought over slavery. It was fought over money and states rights. The southern states seceeded from the union because the federal government was overreaching their limitations and infringing upon states rights. The kicker to seccession was the Morrill Tariff, and it is quoted by Abraham Lincoln that if the Southern States would pay the 40% tarriff the federal government wanted, the federal government would allow the Southern States to keep their slaves.

    Slavery would have eventually ended anyway with the invention of the reaper. The north has put out so much misinformation though that people have a skewed view of what really happened.

    The thing is, can you see this coming full circle. Today, we are once again faced with a federal government that has gone far beyond their limitations as they are written into the constitution, and I think people are finally waking up an realizing what this centralized body of government has been gradually doing ever since April of 1865.

    History is repeating itself.

    Deo Vindice!
     
  24. gafinfan

    gafinfan gunner Club Member

    Deo Vindice!


    Indeed Sir, :hi5:
     
  25. KB21

    KB21 Almost Never Wrong Club Member

    24,029
    40,478
    113
    Dec 6, 2007
    You know, the more I learn as I grow older, the more pissed off I become at the rubish I was taught in school.
     
  26. Ducken

    Ducken Luxury Box Luxury Box

    8,465
    2,216
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    Lower Delaware
    Aint that the truth brother. I am glad you bumped this and added to it. I had forgotten I had started this thread. I have gotten so busy between working full time as an EMT/FF and painting on my off days I don't have the time to spend here as I did. But I will make an effort to visit the history section a little more.
     
    gafinfan likes this.
  27. KB21

    KB21 Almost Never Wrong Club Member

    24,029
    40,478
    113
    Dec 6, 2007
    You are an EMT? I was working the ER this evening, and I had a guy that tried to blow his face off with a 12 guage pump shotgun. He blew his anterior mandible completely off. The skin of his chin was over on the right side of his face. He had to be tubed through his trachea, and they did it in the field when they saw some bubbles in the mess. Fortunately, he's probably going to live. He didn't have any head injury, and his carotids were OK.

    Well, I guess that isn't for this forum.
     
  28. Ducken

    Ducken Luxury Box Luxury Box

    8,465
    2,216
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    Lower Delaware
    LOL that's cool a little diversion every so often never hurts. :up:

    I am a NREMT-B that advanced airway stuff is reserved for the NREMT-P (or paramedic). I just got my cards a couple years ago and that was the hardest thing I have ever done in my 27 years in the fire service. Have you done any time in the field? If not I would suggest you do, just to see what the guys in the field have to do. I have yet have a nurse or a doc ride with me, but from the guys that have, said it was an eye opening experience for the nurse/doc. The one comment that seems to be on every ride along is "I never knew".
     
  29. KB21

    KB21 Almost Never Wrong Club Member

    24,029
    40,478
    113
    Dec 6, 2007
    We get to do some ride alongs in one of our rotation months called potpourri. I'm hoping to get to do a fly along as well.
     
    gafinfan, Ducken and cnc66 like this.
  30. gafinfan

    gafinfan gunner Club Member

    I may have posted a few of these before, if so forgive my duplication, I thought y'all just might be interested in these links I've used from time to time.

    http://www.37thtexas.org/

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/young8.html

    http://www.plpow.com/index.htm

    http://www.southernheritage411.com/truehistory.php?th=053

    http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm

    http://www.civilwar.com/

    http://blueandgraytrail.com/event/Compromise_of_1850

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/927614/posts

    http://dixierising.com/Holidays/davis/Davis_dec6.phtml

    There is no way anyone can understand the true meaning of the Southern cause
    without a study of the History of our Constitution and its meanings.

    http://www.constitution.org/cmt/mclaughlin/chus.htm

    http://www.slavenorth.com/index.html

    And last but surely not least:

    http://www.etymonline.com/cw/economics.htm

     
    charlestonphan and Ducken like this.
  31. jetssuck

    jetssuck I hear Mandich's voice...

    16,657
    5,163
    0
    Aug 4, 2009
    Perfectville
    I think one important bit of information is that of all those that fought for the C.S.A......less than ten percent of them owned slaves.

    If you were just a small time farmer, which most of them were, why would you be motivated to fight and die for the bigger enterprises that you had to compete against to feed your family?

    I understand that the "little guy" had pretty much no say in the matter, but most did seem motivated to go fight. From what I've read, it appears the seeds of division were planted long before slavery ever became a real issue between them.
     
    Ducken likes this.
  32. sking29

    sking29 What it takes to be cool

    7,053
    2,181
    113
    Dec 9, 2007
    East Tennessee
    Sometimes I feel like I am one of few born southerners who doesn't support the Confederacy. :lol:

    Which is why I love this topic so much for how it still divides people along lines. :yes:
     
    gafinfan likes this.
  33. gafinfan

    gafinfan gunner Club Member

    Trust me you're not alone one of my ancesters, on my mom's side, owned a hardware store and was against the war. The GA government took everything he owned for the war effort. He was, as they say, not a happy camper!:wink2::shifty:
     
  34. Ducken

    Ducken Luxury Box Luxury Box

    8,465
    2,216
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    Lower Delaware
    I believe that is one of the biggest misconceptions of that era, that all the land owners in the South had slaves. Heck most could not afford slaves, and is one of the big reasons you had larger families and extended families living in the same house or on the same property. For the most part these were not some fat southern plantation owner sitting on his front porch sipping sweet tea watching the slaves work the fields. These guys were hard working families that made ends meet.
     
    jetssuck likes this.
  35. sking29

    sking29 What it takes to be cool

    7,053
    2,181
    113
    Dec 9, 2007
    East Tennessee
    But see how far you have to go back to find someone. :wink2:

    I remember being younger watching Civil War vids and documentaries on the History Channel etc. and rooting for the South and for the South to win the war even though I knew they wouldn't. :lol:

    It was like a rooting for the home team thing for me, but as I got older and the more I read and saw in addition to my beliefs starting to change and take shape I started drifted towards being a Union supporter. Of course when you think about it the Civil War is an embodiment of political ideology really. :up:



    In the end though supporting either side isn't something I am particularly proud of because neither side was free of blood on their hands. I just support the side that was the least wrong in my eyes. :wink2:
     
    gafinfan likes this.
  36. Dannyg28

    Dannyg28 Say hi to the rings

    1,688
    617
    0
    Jan 4, 2008
    While slavery definitely wasn't THE factor that led to civil war, i think to deny it as being a major factor is incorrect. yes, the vast majority of southern farmers did not own slaves, however, these were the small time farmers that grew food for themselves and sold what little they had left over, they weren't the big time plantation owners who were the ones that grew most of the crops, most particularly cotton, that were being exported. The people who owned slaves, tended to own a massive amount of them, and they used them to create that massive amount of exportation that the South had at the time. You can think of them as akin to the farming corporations of today, minus the more equal distribution of wealth in our current state as oppossed to the 19th century when very few people held all the wealth for the most part.

    You cannot have millions of people being slaves and working as free labor, and claim that they didnt serve a huge economic role for those that had slaves, those people being the extremely wealthy. Just like now how wealthy corporations tend to influence congress and local governments, wouldn't you think large plantation owners would try to do the same to southern governments? Their wealth and the economy of the south would have taken a tremendous hit if slavery was outlawed, and as history has proven time and time again, money and the economy are what make the world go round and is what starts wars, however you dont exactly see governments claiming that its the reason they go to war, even when it obviously is. They cite things like bringing or preserving liberty or the rights of the people, not, hey, we are gonna lose money, we dont like that.

    and as for why would the 90% of the population that didnt own slaves fight for the confederacy to ensure that slavery would exist, its the same reason as why people now do not want th government to limit how much CEO's make on their salary(im not comparing the 2 acts or the legitimacy of this feeling at all, just the reasoning behind the defense of the feelings), chances are the vast majority of us will never become the CEO of people are never gonna become the CEO of a major corporation, however people hope that perhaps one day they or their children could perhaps make it to that level some day and they feel that to impose such a limit encroaches on what they feel is their rights.
    and also, once again, the people fighting the war probably didnt feel like they were fighting for slavery, much like the soilders of the British Empire didnt think they were subjugating and practically enslaving the populous of their various colonies, rather they felt they were spreading civility and the English way of life.
     
  37. KB21

    KB21 Almost Never Wrong Club Member

    24,029
    40,478
    113
    Dec 6, 2007
    It may have been a factor, however, I do not even think it was a major factor. The South didn't want a war. The South just wanted to be able to be their own nation without the overreaching federal government that the US was quickly becoming at the time. Plus, the South and the North had two completely different cultures. They didn't get along before the war, and the two sides really don't get along today. Rather than trying to force the South's views onto the North, the South just wanted to be left alone.

    Most of the plantation owners in the south were getting tired of being exploited by the federal government in an attempt to aid the industries in the north. Basically, it was the first instance of wealth redistribution in the US. The government was taking money from the wealthy in the south and giving it to their special interest groups in the north. That's basically what is happening today. The government is taking money from the tax payers, which they claim is on the wealthy, and giving it to their special interest groups. This money does not benefit the poor. What it does is ensure that the poor stay poor. It also diminishes the middle class, but that's another topic for another forum.

    Had the South won, slavery would have still fazed out with the advent of mechanical farming equipment. Jefferson Davis, a true hero unlike Abraham Lincoln, even spoke of this before and during the time he was the President of the Confederate States of America.

    Had the South won, I feel this would have been a vibrant country with a largely agricultural economy base, but the economy would have received a big boost from the natural resources that are in the south, such as coal, oil, and iron. I feel race relations would have been much better because we wouldn't have gone through the bogus civil rights act in the 1960s that was nothing more than the government getting more involved in the lives of the people of this nation. I do not feel we would have had unsustainable entitlement programs either.
     
    FinFan_Est.1984, Ducken and gafinfan like this.
  38. gafinfan

    gafinfan gunner Club Member

    When you say massive amount just what do you mean? I think people tend to forget that most (99.9%) slave owners were field hands too. The lady of the house was not left out either. Remember every one had to be clothed and fed and housed. There were no local Krogers, Walmarts, or Home Depot's to run to. If someone got sick you didn't pick up the cell and get the local Fire Dept. to run you to the Hospital. Life was hard even for the few very rich, it wasn't like Hollywood would like you to think it was. A working farm was just that and everyone worked including the Boss and his wife.

    In all of my reading the largest number of slaves owned by anyone was around 150 or so and that was considered very large.indeed. The Custis family owned 167 slaves at Mr. Custis death just before the war and it fell to Mary Custis Lee's husband RE Lee to oversee their release and freedom within the 5 year period called for in the will (Jan. '63). Having read some of Lee's letters of that time period about his feelings I get the impression that it was a task he did not relish or have much time for being that before the war he was in Texas and left that area only because of Virginia's secession and his involvment in the war. So I would hazard a guess that no more than 10 to 20 Families in all the South owned that many slaves.
     
    Ducken likes this.
  39. Dannyg28

    Dannyg28 Say hi to the rings

    1,688
    617
    0
    Jan 4, 2008
    how did 10% of the population manage to have 4 million slaves unless they owned a disproportionately large amount of them? especially in states in which the population of enslaved blacks nearly equaled the population of whites?

    and as for life being hard, i will say that for the small farmers it most definitely was, however some large plantation owners, which most definitely was a small minority, lived nearly like kings, constructing large estates and manors for them to live in. If the South contributed most of America's exports at the time, then these men are the ones who contributed most of the south's exports .
     
  40. Dannyg28

    Dannyg28 Say hi to the rings

    1,688
    617
    0
    Jan 4, 2008
    There is no way that any federal government would allow for a good half of their member states to just get up and leave without a fight, it just is not a realistic idea of what could have happened. The south knew it would end up as a war, they obviously didnt want to be the ones who fired the first shot however.To compare how the south and north not getting along then to how they dont get along now is not equatable, while each area obviously have different interests than the other, you dont see a threat of a massive succession coming anything soon, back then, every other month the South seemed to be threatening to succeed.
    wont deny this was a large factor, that was the feeling in the south.
    Jeffereson Davis said that slavery would be dissolved with the advent of future farming equipment he didnt know about? and how long would it have taken for slavery to have been dissolved? 10 more years?20?30?40?

    The U.S. hasnt have a successful economy with the North winning? If the South won the United States probably wouldnt exist, or atleast not how we know it today, the South's mission was never to invade the North and make them concede to the South's demands, and then the South would come back to the union. it was to gain independence and become its own country.

    what makes you think civil rights would have been better had the south won?slavery would have been abolished years, or decades later and even after a century after the abolishment of slavery blacks were still being mistreated in the middle 20th century

    Bogus 1960s civil rights act? blacks were being treated as 2nd class citizens and attempting to stop this is considered "interfering with the lives with eh people of this nation"?with whose lives does it interfere with? people who deny blacks the right to vote?
     

Share This Page