Why did they fight?

[Roger Neilson II]

Ok, that may seem like a daft question. I have been interested in the ACW for almost 50 years, but my interest has been almost exclusively the military side of it. I have therefore almost disregarded the reasons why they fought and fought so determinedly for so long. Please remember that I'm English, so American history is not really ever looked at in schools here unless their small contribution (joke) to the two world wars.

Now I can clearly see why the Union fought, though I can also see it almost gave up the fight at times. Its about preserving a nation and denying a sub group within the nation the choice of whether or not it stays. Now in some 'wars of liberation' where there is a clear difference in background e. the Scots, Welsh, Irish, or in colonial wars I can see why it would occur. However no nation can allow any group to suddenly decide to leave... that's a political fact.

However my reading of the period (such as it is) suggests that the people in charge of the two sides had far more in common than the issues that separated them. So why did the South fight? And having begun why did they fight so fiercely and for so long when it was obvious they could not win.

I am often struck (no offense meant to anyone) with the similarity between the uneven struggle of the two sides and that between the Allies and Japan in WW". However there there was a racial, cultural difference that added to the ferocity.

I'd just like some opinions.... its intriguing me.

Roger

[MengCiao]

First let me say all my ancestors were southerners and one of them was at Gettysburg...but from there he went home wounded and embittered and not just against the Northerners. I think many southerners still feel a residual bitterness passed on from their ancestors about getting sucked into an ill-judged and badly-managed war that gained them nothing but utter defeat and total disaster.

Second...there had been fighting for years by the time the actual war broke out.

In the South, the election of Lincoln brought the perception that a solution to the violence and to the problem of slavery (absolutely the central issue leading up to the conflict) was about to be imposed. The emotional logic of the south was that since the legal system of the Union was about to unfairly impose a solution, they would themselves pre-empt the legal system in such a way that a show of force would enable them to either "preserve their rights" or to be a legally sovereign nation. IE ultimately the South went to war to avoid trouble, and that proved to be far more trouble than it was worth.

The emotional logic of the North was a much more complex and potent brew that included the nearly apocalyptic religious vision glorified in the Battle Hymn of the Republic....which is perhaps the key text in understanding the Civil War.

Anyway...that's my embittered southern view.

[Gray_Lensman]

Basically it boils down to the definition of liberty as interpreted by both sides from the time of the Declaration of Independence up to the late 1850s. The issue of slavery was the subject of much of the disagreement over what "liberty" really meant and several compromise agreements were implemented during those approx. 80 years. Each compromise further infuriated the radicals of both sides to the point that when Abraham Lincoln was elected the South felt it had no more political power anymore to stop the anti-slavery momentum and since their economy was so dependant upon the cheap labor that slaves provided, they ignored the liberty issue of the slaves themselves and redefined their liberty to mean that they should be able to continue to exist as a separate nation at "liberty" to continue their own way of life.
 
The North on the other hand felt at first that maintaining the Union was the overriding concern. During the course of the war Lincoln finally shifted some of the fight reason to the freedom of the slaves, but at first it was just a political ploy designed to keep the more progressive European governments from intervening by positioning them to look like they would be supporting slavery if they took the side of the CSA. Both sides, after 80 years of argument about this issue had a hell of a lot of fighting to resolve before peace would be obtained and in the end, it took the complete total defeat of the South to make the fighting issues go away, though Black freedom would still remain a festering issue itself for another 100 years more. I don't think I could sum it up any shorter than that.
 
Regards

[Roger Neilson II]

Thanks those start to offer me some ideas. I am currently reading Shelby Foote's trilogy and recall, but cannot put my finger on it, a comment that seemed to indicate a view the South held that they were the true Americans and that the north was becoming more and more a polyglot of immigrants that had no real sense of true identity with the original US..... also listening to him being interviewed on Ken Burns' documentary he seems to indicate a level of 'blind faith' in both sides that meant people tended to believe what they were told back then compared to now?

Roger

[DrewGator]

Allow me to recommend James McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom. It does an excellent job of identifying and describing a lot of issues that were contributing factors to the American Civil War. I learned a lot of things that surprised me when I read it. For instance, the South was actively trying to extend slavery into other states and territories. They also tried to "acquire" Guatamala (by coup d'tat) and Cuba (by purchase) as slave states.

While McPherson does not completely blame the war on slavery in the South his primary position (I believe) is that the South wanted to preserve its agrarian economy that was dependent on slave labor. A pretty realistic and balanced analysis in my opinion.

DrewGator

[Drex]

When he says South he must mean the affluent south because the common southerner did not own slaves and hardly fought for the right of the rich to own slaves. What made the middle and lower class southerner want to fight? I believe it was to be free of Yankee domination and the right of self-determination.

[Leegen]

Southern politicians made the decision to secede from the Union primarily because they felt their slave-based agrarian economy was greatly threatened by the election of anti-slavery Lincoln.  Lincoln decided that he would not allow the South to voluntarily leave this Union of American States (an interesting contrast to the 20th century U.S. geopolitical stand on self-determination of peoples.)  Most soldiers who fought for the south were too poor to own slaves but saw the conflict as a 2nd American Revolution - resisting those who wished to impose on them a government and nation they did not wish to be a part of.  As to why they fought so hard and so long, they were primarily defending their own homes and states against an outside enemy as they saw it. 
 
Shelby Foote in Ken Burns' documentary "The Civil War" summed it up very eloquently by reciting a conversation between a confederate POW and his captor -  "Why are you fighting?" the soldier in blue asked his counterpart in gray. 
 
To which came the simple reply, "because you're here".

[rockmedic109]

At the time, people identified with their state more than the nation.  You can get a sense of this in some of the writings of various people of the time.  You were Virginian before you were American.  Growing up as I have, I always felt more towards the nation than I do my state {California}. 
 
The difference between my upbringing and what I have read is striking.  I do not know if that is a western {for U.S. anyway} thinking or if it is something that grew out of the civil war. 

[Leegen]

Another take on the conflict can be gained by reading Alvin Toffler's "The Third Wave".  The Civil War was primarily a conflict between an agrarian "1st wave" society and an industrial  "2nd wave" society.  In the south, cotton was king and the 1st wave way of living meant society was genteel, the only important clock was the sun, and the individual was still important. Notice the way brigades, divisions, and corps  were named for the commander (Dole's Brigade, Pender's Division, Jackson's Corps). 

 After the Industrial Revolution swept through the North everthing becomes an assembly line.  Punctuality to work is essential, bigger is better and everyone and everthing is just a number ( 3rd brigade, 2nd Division, V Corps).  Ultimately the assembly line approach produced more of everthing and, being more efficient, displaced the 1st wave society that was the Old South. 

Now we are beginning to see 3rd wave technologies  (brought about by the Information Revolution) begin to displace and replace the old 2nd wave elements of our societies. 

[freeboy]

Adding if I may to Rockmedic109, Think about the Germany prior to the rise of the nation state of Germany, a similar poeple and culture with "states" that often where at odds with teach other and at times coming to open conflict. In the US we had, prior to the Civil war, still called the war between the states by some, a nation of individual states. States where much more important than today, with great identety of the masses and ploitical will located in them as oposed to the national identaty we see today.
 
Polarizing opinions on the growth of the slaveary issue in the expansion to the west and the election of Lincoln and you have two "sides" of one "nation" whose leaders instead of being willing to take the difficult road towards mediation and a non violent solution instead chose the the open violent conflict.
Great ? btw!
Perhaps an add on game.. "The pre war years"

[Twotribes]

ORIGINAL: freeboy

Adding if I may to Rockmedic109, Think about the Germany prior to the rise of the nation state of Germany, a similar poeple and culture with "states" that often where at odds with teach other and at times coming to open conflict. In the US we had, prior to the Civil war, still called the war between the states by some, a nation of individual states. States where much more important than today, with great identety of the masses and ploitical will located in them as oposed to the national identaty we see today.

Polarizing opinions on the growth of the slaveary issue in the expansion to the west and the election of Lincoln and you have two "sides" of one "nation" whose leaders instead of being willing to take the difficult road towards mediation and a non violent solution instead chose the the open violent conflict.
Great ? btw!
Perhaps an add on game.. "The pre war years"

Well except for the "both" sides not willing to negotiate. Lincoln made it CLEAR he had NO interest in doing anything about Slavery in the Slave States. Further he couldn't have if he wanted to. He didn't have the votes in Congress to do anything. Well until the south was no longer IN congress anyway.

Further when the States left the Union, Lincoln did nothing to provoke them except refuse to abandon Federal Forts and Arsenals. He did not even raise an Army until Sumnter was fired on. He wanted to resolve the issues with dialogue.

Further, the Southern States had no reason to fear a Lincoln Presidency. The courts and Congress had steadfastly made every decision in FAVOR of the Slave States.

The Irony of the war is that somehow rich slave holders managed to drag the entire south into a war to protect their interests and labeled it a "war of Independence".

There were issues besides slavery. The big ones being taxation and expecting an Agrarian society to pay at the same rate as an Industrial society. Tariffs imposed by the Federal Government had the potential to damage the Southern Economy.

Back then the Federal Government did not tax individuals, they got their money from tariffs on goods and such and requiring States ( as I recall) to provide certain enumerations to the Federal Government. The Northern States were better off financially and the mood was to make the South pay more through higher tariffs and such. Remember being mostly non Industrial all their major equipment came either from the North or overseas.

This then was how the south was whipped into fighting basicly for slavery. Taxation in any form from the Federal Government was a hot item, there were rebellions for years after the US was established over taxation.

So you had people loyal to their State, not the federal Government and you had the Industrial North appearing to unfairly tax the Agrarian South.

[november]

If you read what the Southern leaders wrote, the war’s cause is perfectly clear: slavery, slavery, slavery. The years leading to the war were mired in this issue, namely slavery’s expansion. While it might be true that the South did not believe that Lincoln would abolish slavery outright, they knew that his election signaled the end of slavery’s expansion into the territories. This, of course, meant the end of slavery.

With all the information and interest about the war, it’s surprising that the war’s causes appear obscure. One explanation is that Southerners have (or used to have) more interest in the war than Northerners and they confined their interest to its military and cultural aspects while ignoring the political.

Shelby Foote, a Southerner, filled numerous volumes about the war yet paid almost no attention to its cause.

Foote is a really wonderful writer but if you are interested in a balanced presentation, read McPherson.

[freeboy]

slavery’s expansion into the territories. This, of course, meant the end of slavery

Not sure on that one.. want to explain?
Anyway.. bottum line Roger is , when there is a fundimental differrence in the attidudes of leadership that POLARIZES and creates a partisen atmosphere, war can happen. Look at England and its civil war? Cromwell and all that... not the same by any means but truly an avoidable conflict. I am no dove, simply stating that all measures to aviod war where not taken in the months after the election.

I find the current partisan politics in the US very similar, if you are "anti conservative or anti bush" it is in fasion to say and promate hatefull speach towards conservatives and there beliefs, including the president. On the other hand conservative hate-mongers have been throwing mud, not a good perspective but also not for these forums. This is simply an observation how the situations of POLARIZATION are fragmenting america, those who do not see the possibility for a 2nd civil war might be ignoring the "red " "blue" devide in the states.[&o][X(][&o]

[november]

@freeboy

Instead of me blowing hot air, you’re better off reading the history for yourself. Read about the political issues leading up to the war: the Kansas-Nebraska Act, Bleeding Kansas, etc. Only by becoming familiar with the political dynamics will you be able to understand why the South reacted to Lincoln’s election as they did.

[jkBluesman]

Slavery and the expansion of slavery to new territories were the reason behind the more outspoken reason of states-rights. However, as Northern and Southern society were divided on the question of secession, the war was a limited war until the Emancipation Declaration after the Battle of Antietam (September 17, 1862). Then it turned openly into a war on slavery.

[Leegen]

[ those who do not see the possibility for a 2nd civil war might be ignoring the "red " "blue" devide in the states.]

Actually, there is not so much of a political divide between regions of the country as there is between urban / suburban America as this county by county map at USA Today shows very graphically .

2004 Election Returns by County

[PaulWRoberts]

Just to add something:  most discussions of this issue talk about "Southerners" and "Northerners" as if these were homogeneous groups, but we should remember that we're mainly discussing the political and economic elites who controlled their respective legislatures, especially in the Southern states.  The interests of Piedmont planters were not the interests of Tennessee hill-country workers, for instance.  You can see this most of all when you realize how the term "Southerners" always excludes one large--in some areas (Mississippi, for instance) the largest--demographic group:  the slaves themselves, who were just as human as the legal citizens but whose interests were of course ignored completely.

[shangrila]

Hey Rog,
(I'm obviously by my name from the WitP community as well LOL. I enjoy your posts very much there as well. This one is fun b/c you're dabbling in something , as you said, isn't learned about as much over there. I think it's very cool you have an interest.)
I think actually states rights versus federal mandate was more the issue at hand than slavery itself. While slavery was used across the board in the south it was really only required in rice farming where there was nothing available technologically or through pack/draft animal that could help in the harvest. In other areas of agriculture it offered the ability obviously to increase production dramatically on the cheap...but it was brought to this country specifically for Rice Farming in South Carolina. (Not cotton as many would generically believe)

In the south, as already noted, people held more loyalty to their own state than to the federal government. (Kind of like the way you chaps across the pond are more loyal to your football team than your country <joke> but with that kind of ferver. ) Furthermore you see many regiments in the south very upset about being used outside of their state and for reasons other than the protection of their own state. Many tried leaving based on the fact that they believed , as in 1812 etc in Virginia, especially those in the South Western part of the state, that they were signing up to protect their local region/state. They believed they were being used outside of their agreement with the militia when they were put in to regiments and marched from state to state. (26 members of my family served in the 63rd Virginia infantry (Kelly's Division at Chickamauga)...they saw battle in Virginia, Tenn, NC, SC, GA,FL,AL...one of very few groups to be from Virginia but serve in the Army of Tennessee under the unfortunate "leadership" of Bragg LOL.)Anyway culturally this tie to one's state over a nation is easily understood when you look at the people from the area...they were mostly Farmers from Germany, Ireland, Scotland...especially in the Mountains of VA/NC/TN...they settled the area because it looked like home. These are people used to fighting for their local turf against a bigger nation. They just wanted their own piece of rocky land to farm I guess . It also explains their ability to fight. They hunted...they protected their lands since their fathers and grandfathers moved"over the mountain". Our military today still has a large proportion of american southerners. Our Special Forces today I'd wager are mostly southerners, knowing a number myself. (Though I'm not from the south.) I don't know how it is there...I'd guess your Northern Blokes are known as being the rough-housers.


If you really look at Lincoln himself he used the slavery issue as any modern politician would today. He made it an important issue only in places it was politically important...in other areas where it was more important to the economy he did not make slavery a big political issue until after he'd secured his position. He was a political waffler.

The South favored a federal government that kept it's hands off for the most part, and that each state was soveriegn. A much more loose idea than the north had for the future of the country. To a much smaller degree it's still an issue today. Many counties within states are dry (no alcohol allowed even though it's federally allowed)...states like California have made medical marijuana legal even though it illegal federally. (Generally, 90% of the time, this country defers to which ever law is most strict.... local or federal.)


I think we see these types of wars more commonly than not in history whenever religion isn't the main catalyst. Even the American Revolution(is it called the English Civil War or something overthere?)saw a great deal of this. In doing my genealogy the first person in my surname's family line was from the Pfaltz area of Germany. He fought in the Americian Revolutionary War shortly after arriving here. His name was Frederick Leonard.He fought in the Pennsylvania Line and there is a recorded account of him bayonetting 2 Hessian soldiers. (Germany wasn't a single state then, but these men fighting for the British were people that spoke his native language, more like him then the majority of Anglo peoples he was fighting with and for(Though his area was mostly Pennsylvania Dutch and others from the Palatinate) He later moved to Southwest Virginia near Abingdon and participated at the battle of King's Mountain (his name is on the monument there) against Col. Patrick Ferguson. (He was a Scot, his forces were entirely made up of American Loyalist supporting the British...he also wore a Fox hunting Jacket while in command believing American revolutionaries were no more than game...colorful fellow...he took no less than 7 musket balls by the end of the day)...anyway...Frederick's group charged a loyalist group that his own brother-in-law was in. This was a battle where both sides had about 1000 men each. So you know they ran in to each other. So I think we see this common thread of brother vs brother quite often in war where the goals are political.

So I think if you really look at it both sides in the American Civil War actually had very valid reasons to fight. The South wanted its own states rights and wished to be their own loose union if the United States Federal government wasn't supportive of their needs. Furthermore the North couldn't have that because the South was the American bread basket. Slavery was one of the issues because the South didn't see that they could sustain their output with out it.
Anyway I've gone on long enough...in short...I think States Right vs Federal Rights were the real issue. Lincoln was a modern politician and wasn't as constant on slavery as most people think...we see people that have more in common than not fighting each other in most of history's wars, and I think if you dig in to the reasons a little more you'll see both the Federalist and CSA had very valid reasons.

Have a great one...see you on the Witp Boards.

[MengCiao]

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson II

Thanks those start to offer me some ideas. I am currently reading Shelby Foote's trilogy and recall, but cannot put my finger on it, a comment that seemed to indicate a view the South held that they were the true Americans and that the north was becoming more and more a polyglot of immigrants that had no real sense of true identity with the original US..... also listening to him being interviewed on Ken Burns' documentary he seems to indicate a level of 'blind faith' in both sides that meant people tended to believe what they were told back then compared to now?

Roger

My impression is that essentially the successionists were bluffing and their warlike passions were given free rein in hopes that they would not have to fight much. Hence the odd notion at the time that men in the north were in some sense not real...ie the south had to convince itself that there really would not be a fight. When I read the letters of my ancestors and their associates, they are full of the most grotesquely self-congradulatory bravado imaginable...though, rather mysteriously the inane bravado is never that of the writer but of some imaginary community "everyone here is impatient to" (have a big battle etc.)...It is the language of pure delusion. How eager was the average southerner to participate in the actual war as a war and not as shared delusion? For example, as soon as Lee crossed into Maryland in 1862, about half of his army simply took an extended leave of absense. You could say this showed that the south was so virtuous that only wanted to defend its homes (ie and not have an actual war) or that about half of even the most highly motivated southerners could tell when reality was about to show how deluded they were about having a safe, trouble-free, war of bluff and bravado rather than the murderous, virtually religious crusade the Northerners were being pushed into.

[november]

The only way to understand why the war occurred is to go back and study the politics of the time for yourself. You’ll find that the expansion of slavery was the overarching topic of the day. The years before the war were particularly bitter and—like the war itself—incomprehensible without understanding the politics of the time.

Briefly, the South believed that if slavery was not allowed in the new territories, the number of free states would grow to an insurmountable majority and eventually banish the institution. This struggle dominated US politics during the years before the war when the inevitability of westward expansion became obvious.

The slavery expansion issue destroyed the Whig party during the first part of the 1850’s and led to the creation of the Republican Party. Then it destroyed Democratic party unity during the latter part of the decade (when Doughlas broke with President Buchannan and the Southern Democrats over the issue). The splintering of the Democratic party led to Lincoln’s election. Lincoln was the first Republican ever elected president (and only the second to run).