Why they fought the Civil War.

"KB21 wrote:

You know, the more I learn as I grow older, the more pissed off I become at the rubish I was taught in school.

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.

"Ducken wrote:

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.

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.

"KB21 wrote:

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.

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".

"Ducken wrote:

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".

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.

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

historian Clyde N. Wilson (in his section of "Slavery, Secession, and Southern History"). "But the plain truth is that Calhoun was entirely correct in his opposition to the tariff. Debates about the actual macro- and micro-economic effects of antebellum protection are beside the point. The South, providing the bulk of the Union's exports, sold in an unprotected world market, while all American consumers bought in a highly protected one. And this was to the benefit of one class, no matter how plausibly disguised as a public boon.

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.

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:

"sking29 wrote:

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:

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:

"jetssuck wrote:

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.

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.

"gafinfan wrote:

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:

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:

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.

"Dannyg28 wrote:

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.

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.

Dannyg28 wrote:

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.

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.

"gafinfan wrote:

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.

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 .

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.

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.

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.

wont deny this was a large factor, that was the feeling in the south.

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.

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?

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.

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?

"Dannyg28 wrote:

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 .

Because there were many more holdings that were run with say 40 -100 and you also had house servants of people who lived in the cities that amounted to no more than 1-4. You surely are welcome to not believe me but I tell you in all honesty that I've never in all my research run across any one owning more than the numbers I've said. You are welcome to prove me wrong but to make a statement without the facts to back it up is IMHO part of the problem when debating this time period.

As for the "BIG" house theory, without going into a long drawn out affair. Most of the house was used to 1. Make the clothes for everyone (remember you have to make every stitch for 150 slaves plus all family members this work force comprised the Owners wife and 14 to 20 women and older children - both slave and the owners kids) 2. All living quarters had to be built by the male work force on hand free and slave **A side note of some interest here-One of the main reasons africans were ask for in the begining was because of their ability to build - they were very good craftsmen.** 3. A main kitchen was built behind the Big house to supply all the food to the Owners family and the main meal to everyone as cooking wasn't done in any of the living quarters because of the fear of fire. 4. Another part of the Big house was set aside for the very sick and birthing and this was overseen by the owners wife. All in all it was much more convenient and smarter to build one large house to do all these different things than to build several smaller ones. Which would have taken much more time and effort away from the job of growing the main crop as well as all the food to feed everyone.

Don't get me wrong as I'm not excusing anything or not saying that some didn't live very well and make alot of money but when you say massive you seem to be saying to me that you are thinking in hundreds and thousands and that just isn't so. The amount of land set aside just to grow food for that number would be more than any man had the fortune to be able to own let alone the problems that overseeing such an operation. There were no machines to do anything so the bigger you got the more you had to own just to make it work at all and what if bad weather kills the crop? I'm sorry but imho you're wrong about the numbers my friend.

Dannyg28 wrote:

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 Soviet Union broke up without a war. Most of the British Empire broke away without war. In point of fact most all civil wars are fought because of a sense of opression by the masses from the leaders of that country.

The truth of the matter is that if a war over slavery were to be fought one would automatically think of an uprising by the slaves as the fuse to light such a war. As you rightly pointed out there were several states in the deep South that had as almost many slaves as non slaves. And although there was a fear of an uprising I would be willing to bet it was more a fear of the government's of said states and those who mistreated their slaves than the vast majority who did not. Remember you are talking of a family of say 6 to 10 living and working with upwards of 40 to 160 slaves. The ease of killing in such a situation only points to the reality of the fact that most blacks and whites lived a world of cooperation that was caused by many things. Was there bad and harsh treatment of slaves by some, of course there was, but I would be of the opinion that that was only a very small minority. Why? Because it was counter productive to getting a crop grown and to market. To pay upwards of $1000 or more for someone and then mistreat them is not only counter productive but stupid.

They should call it the Uncivil war as civility has very little to do with wars.:wink2:

Wow...just found this forum..and this discussion. I love Civil War history, and have read quite a bit about it.

Im not going to dig up any statistics but moreso rely on my own interpretation of what I have read and seen in documentary film.

I voted States Rights with Slavery as a major issue...but it wasnt so much all of the reasons one would expect when it comes to the slavery issue.

The South was largely an agricultural based economy. Many of the cash crops raised in the South during this time required an immense labor force. These crops, mainly Cotton, Tobacco, Indego, and Rice. It was also very rural, with according to an article in Mississippi Quarterly in 1995, roughly 13 people per square mile.

The South relied HEAVILY on slaves to work on these large plantations. Think how much todays large farms rely on migrant workers....well in the mid 1800's it wasnt like you had the ability to find that many migrant workers....the South was economically vested in Slavery. Without slavery....many Southerners were afraid their economy would collapse. So...now you have an already outspoken critic of slavery elected Pres of the United States.

And it wasn't just the Lincoln had won, it was more the large magnitude of his victory that would strike fear in the original 7 secessionist states....

"To southerners the election’s most ominous feature was the magnitude of Republican victory north of the 41st parallel. Lincoln won more than 60 percent of the vote in that region, losing scarcely two dozen counties. Three-quarters of the Republican congressmen and senators in the next Congress would represent this “Yankee” and antislavery portion of the free states. The New Orleans Crescent saw these facts as “full of portentous significance”. “The idle canvas prattle about Northern conservatism may now be dismissed,” agreed the Richmond Examiner. “A party founded on the single sentiment... of hatred of African slavery, is now the controlling power.” No one could any longer “be deluded... that the Black Republican party is a moderate” party, pronounced the New Orleans Delta. “It is in fact, essentially, a revolutionary party.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America

I believe first and foremost it was the threat to economic stability that truly threatened the South. The North had the population centers and the manufacturing factories. The South enjoyed a slower lifestyle, one I feel many Southerner's not only enjoyed, but felt quite proud about.

So...you had 7 states secede even before Abraham Lincoln takes office. I don't believe the North so much hated slavery, and there's some anecdotal evidence that suggests the North would have agreed to keep Slavery as long as it was kept in the South. But, what many in the North didn't like, was the fact that 7 states committed treason against the United States in America that less than 100 years earlier had fought for Independence from the tyranny of England. Great Northern Generals like Sherman in fact had no problem with Slavery and believed that blacks were not the equal of whites.

So..I guess you could say the South had no choice in their minds but to secede or face economic ruin and the end of the Southern Way of life. The North may not have liked slavery, but seemed as though it would have tolerated it for quite awhile, had the seven states in the South not seceded.

In no way do I believe any of this really had to do with the moral argument as to whether any human being had the right to OWN another.

"vt_dolfan wrote:

Wow...just found this forum..and this discussion. I love Civil War history, and have read quite a bit about it.

Im not going to dig up any statistics but moreso rely on my own interpretation of what I have read and seen in documentary film.

I voted States Rights with Slavery as a major issue...but it wasnt so much all of the reasons one would expect when it comes to the slavery issue.

The South was largely an agricultural based economy. Many of the cash crops raised in the South during this time required an immense labor force. These crops, mainly Cotton, Tobacco, Indego, and Rice. It was also very rural, with according to an article in Mississippi Quarterly in 1995, roughly 13 people per square mile.

The South relied HEAVILY on slaves to work on these large plantations. Think how much todays large farms rely on migrant workers....well in the mid 1800's it wasnt like you had the ability to find that many migrant workers....the South was economically vested in Slavery. Without slavery....many Southerners were afraid their economy would collapse. So...now you have an already outspoken critic of slavery elected Pres of the United States.

And it wasn't just the Lincoln had won, it was more the large magnitude of his victory that would strike fear in the original 7 secessionist states....

"To southerners the election’s most ominous feature was the magnitude of Republican victory north of the 41st parallel. Lincoln won more than 60 percent of the vote in that region, losing scarcely two dozen counties. Three-quarters of the Republican congressmen and senators in the next Congress would represent this “Yankee” and antislavery portion of the free states. The New Orleans Crescent saw these facts as “full of portentous significance”. “The idle canvas prattle about Northern conservatism may now be dismissed,” agreed the Richmond Examiner. “A party founded on the single sentiment... of hatred of African slavery, is now the controlling power.” No one could any longer “be deluded... that the Black Republican party is a moderate” party, pronounced the New Orleans Delta. “It is in fact, essentially, a revolutionary party.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America

I believe first and foremost it was the threat to economic stability that truly threatened the South. The North had the population centers and the manufacturing factories. The South enjoyed a slower lifestyle, one I feel many Southerner's not only enjoyed, but felt quite proud about.

So...you had 7 states secede even before Abraham Lincoln takes office. I don't believe the North so much hated slavery, and there's some anecdotal evidence that suggests the North would have agreed to keep Slavery as long as it was kept in the South. But, what many in the North didn't like, was the fact that 7 states committed treason against the United States in America that less than 100 years earlier had fought for Independence from the tyranny of England. Great Northern Generals like Sherman in fact had no problem with Slavery and believed that blacks were not the equal of whites.

So..I guess you could say the South had no choice in their minds but to secede or face economic ruin and the end of the Southern Way of life. The North may not have liked slavery, but seemed as though it would have tolerated it for quite awhile, had the seven states in the South not seceded.

In no way do I believe any of this really had to do with the moral argument as to whether any human being had the right to OWN another.

Welcome, while a pretty good write up I really must disagree with your use of the word Treason as those states in question never, not once, tried to overthrow or disrupt the Government of the United States. They only declared their God given right to leave and I would further point out to you that the same Government that they tried to leave was quite sucessful in maintaining its viability even though publicly Lincoln and his newspaper friends would have you believe that said Union was headed to hell in a handbasket.:wink2:

Further more Slavery was legal within the framework of our Constitution at that time with little real fear that Lincoln or anyone else could mount an amendment challege to change it. The whole ploy was to upset the apple cart while also taking away a Southern strong hold on said Government by playing on the fears of White Southerners and Northern immigrants. That the South would lose its way of life and the North would lose its tax base from which it was using to build this nation. Slavery was the kindling that drove the wedge between the North and South and it was driven by Northern Abolitionist in Congress whose main interest was to tear down the Southern leadership that had, up to that point in our history, held the reins of the Government.

While one can use the high moral ground of Slavery, and there is truth in it I will admit, the real reasons for a WAR was nothing more than POWER and money.:wink2:

I just had to come back and add:
It is amazing and telling, if you really think about it by 1863 Lincoln's screaming about "saving the Union" was not enough and he had to switch horses "in mid stream" to make slavery and its demise the focal point of the war from that point forward. Adding it to the change in strategy of attacking civilians and not exchanging POWs and we have the very reason why, I feel, this part of our history draws such venom even 150 years later.

The reasons were not simple then and they can not be labeled so now IMHO.

"gafinfan wrote:

Welcome, while a pretty good write up I really must disagree with your use of the word Treason as those states in question never, not once, tried to overthrow or disrupt the Government of the United States. They only declared their God given right to leave and I would further point out to you that the same Government that they tried to leave was quite sucessful in maintaining its viability even though publicly Lincoln and his newspaper friends would have you believe that said Union was headed to hell in a handbasket.:wink2:

Further more Slavery was legal within the framework of our Constitution at that time with little real fear that Lincoln or anyone else could mount an amendment challege to change it. The whole ploy was to upset the apple cart while also taking away a Southern strong hold on said Government by playing on the fears of White Southerners and Northern immigrants. That the South would lose its way of life and the North would lose its tax base from which it was using to build this nation. Slavery was the kindling that drove the wedge between the North and South and it was driven by Northern Abolitionist in Congress whose main interest was to tear down the Southern leadership that had, up to that point in our history, held the reins of the Government.

While one can use the high moral ground of Slavery, and there is truth in it I will admit, the real reasons for a WAR was nothing more than POWER and money.:wink2:

I just had to come back and add:
It is amazing and telling, if you really think about it by 1863 Lincoln's screaming about "saving the Union" was not enough and he had to switch horses "in mid stream" to make slavery and its demise the focal point of the war from that point forward. Adding it to the change in strategy of attacking civilians and not exchanging POWs and we have the very reason why, I feel, this part of our history draws such venom even 150 years later.

The reasons were not simple then and they can not be labeled so now IMHO.

Yep.

The real reason for the war was money and power. At that time, the south was paying around 87% of all the taxes that were coming into the US and also had a high percentage of cotton exports leaving from their ports. The US Federal Government had been using southern tax dollars to fund northern industrialism. In the north, textiles was becoming a big industry, but the north couldn't supply the cotton they needed for the textiles. They were relying on southern cotton for their industrial purposes. The federal government saw an opportunity to slow down southern exportation of cotton as well as an opportunity to take the cotton made in the south, give it to northern industrialists, and force the exportation to be out of northern ports only (New York) and keep that money in the north. For years upon years, the federal government tried to raise tariffs on exports, knowing full well that the raised tariffs would likely dry up southern exportation. These tariffs are what really drove a wedge between the north and the south, and this started many, many years before the War of Northern Agression.

I think one thing that always gets left out in the history of the north and the south is the fact that there have been tensions between the two regions from the very beginning. The two regions have completely different cultures and did so from the very first settlement.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo180.html

This is just more evidence that shows the War of Northern Aggression was not over slavery.

"gafinfan wrote:

Welcome, while a pretty good write up I really must disagree with your use of the word Treason as those states in question never, not once, tried to overthrow or disrupt the Government of the United States. They only declared their God given right to leave and I would further point out to you that the same Government that they tried to leave was quite sucessful in maintaining its viability even though publicly Lincoln and his newspaper friends would have you believe that said Union was headed to hell in a handbasket.:wink2:

Further more Slavery was legal within the framework of our Constitution at that time with little real fear that Lincoln or anyone else could mount an amendment challege to change it. The whole ploy was to upset the apple cart while also taking away a Southern strong hold on said Government by playing on the fears of White Southerners and Northern immigrants. That the South would lose its way of life and the North would lose its tax base from which it was using to build this nation. Slavery was the kindling that drove the wedge between the North and South and it was driven by Northern Abolitionist in Congress whose main interest was to tear down the Southern leadership that had, up to that point in our history, held the reins of the Government.

While one can use the high moral ground of Slavery, and there is truth in it I will admit, the real reasons for a WAR was nothing more than POWER and money.:wink2:

I just had to come back and add:
It is amazing and telling, if you really think about it by 1863 Lincoln's screaming about "saving the Union" was not enough and he had to switch horses "in mid stream" to make slavery and its demise the focal point of the war from that point forward. Adding it to the change in strategy of attacking civilians and not exchanging POWs and we have the very reason why, I feel, this part of our history draws such venom even 150 years later.

The reasons were not simple then and they can not be labeled so now IMHO.

Another big reason for the switch in gears was to hold off any help to the Confederacy from Europe. It had already been outlawed overseas in many countries, but there was real and strong support of the Confederacy but the slavery issue was a sticking point with the general public. And once the Emancipation Proclamation was done it would have been so hard for the Brits, French or Prussians to throw their hat in with the Confederacy for fear of public backlash.

This is the absolute most false belief about the Civil War that it was fought because of slavery.

The Union used Slavery as a last resort as a rallying tactic with the public to garner support and that "cause" factor and nothing more. It was a great outcome to end such a practice but the war was far from being caused by it.

I'm going to make a post here that isn't 100% on this topic, and I am going to try to keep it from being a political post.

The War for Southern Independence/War of Northern Aggression was fought over states rights and against a federal government that had gone far beyond its limitations as written in the Constitution of the United States.

Don't you find it interesting that everything is coming full circle? The federal government of the US has spent more than the last 155 years gradually destroying the constitution by ignoring it and ignoring the limitations placed upon it by said constitution.

The people of this country have been blinded and hoodwinked over this course of time, but I think they are finally waking up. Those of us in the south have known this all along. We have fought against unconstitutional government involvment in state issues such as the so called Civil Rights movement that did nothing more than make race relations worse in the south and helped keep blacks down on the social ladder. That is a different topic for a different post though.

Now, people are shaking off the blinders and are finally saying they have had enough. More and more talk about states rights is coming from the people of this country and not just people from the south. The federal government isnt listening though. They continue to push their unconstitutional programs in an attempt to gain more control over the lives of the people.