Why did they fight?

[Roger Neilson II]

I really am glad I asked the question. I am learning so much from all this. Thank you to all who contributed....

There's no overall consensus, but a lot of common ground. In particular I realise I've been looking at this from a hindsight view which takes for granted the USA was the USA from 1776 when we graciously allowed you lot to take charge (big Big joke comment, do not TAKE Seriously) So I've been seeing this as very much a bunch of crazies trying to remove themselves from the USA - when in fact the USA wasn't that established an entity. After all it was only 70 odd years ago it had been created.

Roger

[Gil R.]

During my recent 2400-mile swing I was listening to the audiobook of David McCullough's biography of John Adams, and it reminded me how strong the sectional divisions were even before the country became a country. New England, the central colonies, and southern colonies all had distinct interests, and so the Continental Congress often had to find ways to balance these interests (e.g., a diplomatic mission to Europe would have to include someone from each). And even back then, the dependence of the southern colonies/states on slavery was an issue of paramount importance, and they feared the efforts of outsiders who would bring about an end to slavery. So the tensions that led to the Civil War were already there in the days of the Founding Fathers, and some of them, including Adams, were deeply concerned about these divisions and what they portended.

Great book, by the way. The unabridged audiobook is $100 new, but I got it used from Amazon for $50 and consider it money very well spent.

[Erik Rutins]

On a side note, if any of you have ever seen the musical 1776 (good light entertainment) it also is accurate in showing pretty clearly how challenging it was for the founding fathers and their peers to agree on things given the interests of each state.

[Valdemar]

Roger;

Let me first thank you for asking this question. It is refreshing to see a European taking an interest in America for something other than vilifying us as "a force for evil in the world" (Times of London). It is also nice that a game sparks this kind of desire to learn and know history.

Before I try to answer you question, I think it is important to note that most Americans, including some who've posted here, don't have a clue about the causes of the Civil War. Worse yet, those that do have a passing knowledge of it, tend to evaluate the history in terms of modern values and perspectives. As November has pointed out, you need to study the history of the times. One very important point, and one I cannot emphasize enough, is that the philosophy of politics and culture were on the minds of many common Americans during the decades preceding the Civil War. The issues were not strictly the prerogative of the social and political elites. That cynical portrayal is one modern people superimpose on the past because that is so much a part of our times. The average American is uninformed, inattentive, and uncaring about the issues today and the elites are the ones driving the issues. This was not true of Americans in previous centuries. The topics of abolition, state's rights, the nature of the relationship between government and its citizens were all hot topics that were as important to the average American then as Global Warming, African relief, and hating America is to you Europeans today.

Causes
Roughly, the major causes were:
- the moral debate over slavery and race.
- the failure of the political system to resolve the mounting crisis caused by the slavery issue.
- the massive cultural divide between north and south.

Some, particularly those who hold Marxist views of history, attribute economic issues as a major cause in the conflict. In a word, it is total crap. The only issue that even touches on economics was southern opposition to Homesteading. Since you may not be familiar, Homesteading was the act of creating small family farms on land given away by the Federal government to encourage settlement and economic development of the lands to the west. While it is true that the North, West, and South had very different economic structures, they weren't in competition with each other. In fact, they each benefited enormously by trading for goods with the others that they did not produce themselves. As an example of economic interests taking a backseat to moral concerns, take New England, a hotbed of Abolitionism, was completely dependent on southern cotton to fuel it's prosperous textile mills.

I'll give a brief timeline of significant events that will highlight the moral, political, and cultural divide that existed between North and South right from the founding of this nation.

1787 - US Constitution is ratified. Establishes the USA as a Republic, not a Democracy.
- only white men who owned property were allowed to vote or hold office.
- 9th Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights, says that the Bill of Rights is not comprehensive and other rights not specifically mentioned are retained by the people.
- 10th Amendment, Bill of Rights, says that all powers not delegated to the Federal government or specifically denied to the States are retained by the States.

The last two were important as the basis for the "States' Rights" argument and right of Americans to self-determination, even if that meant rebellion.

1787 - The Northwest Ordinance outlawed slavery in the area that would later become the States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota.

1798 - The Kentucky and Virginian Resolutions. Introduce the Doctrine of Nullification. The acts said the States don't have to abide by a Federal law if they don't want to. It was based on southern interpretation of the Preamble to the Constitution. Southern states believed the Federal government drew its power only from the States and therefore the States could nullify its laws. The Federal Government claimed its power was derived from the people also, not just the States. The laws being challenged were the Alien and Sedition Acts.One of the best pieces of legislation in American history and recently revived with the Patriot Act.

1808 - The USA outlaws the slave trade and sends most of the US Navy to assist the RN in patrolling the West Coast of Africa to enforce the ban.

1816 - The American Colonization Society was formed to send freed slaves back to Africa. The nation of Liberia was formed and drew its name from the word "liberty" and its capital's name Monrovia from President James Monroe. Also famous for the Monroe Doctrine.

1820 - The Missouri Compromise. It admits Maine to the Union as a free State in exchange for admitting Missouri to the Union as a slave State.

1828 - The Nullification Crisis. John C. Calhoun, Vice President of the United States, writes the South Carolina Exposition and Protest in which he advances the Nullification Doctrine (see above) and he advocates secession for southern States in response the Tariff Act of 1828.

1830 - Daniel Webster, then Senator and later Secretary of State, delivers one of the greatest speeches of the era on the floor of the Senate rebutting the Nullification Doctrine.

1832 - President Andrew Jackson, the guy on the twenty-dollar bill, threatened to use force to end secession of South Carolina brought about by the Nullification Crisis.

1833 - American Anti-Slavery Society is founded by William Lloyd Garrison and includes noted black intellectual Frederick Douglas.

1834 - Lane Theological Seminary scandal. A staunch abolitionist student named Weld held anti-slavery rallies at the school and came into opposition with the more moderate religious thinkers of the day. This was an important event in forcing religious people to reconcile their beliefs with the ugliness of slavery.

1836 - The Gag Rule. In response to a flood of petitions to end slavery inspired by Abolitionist groups and religious leaders, The US House adopts a rule stating that all anti-slavery petitions received are to be tabled immediately without debate, thus killing them. President John Q. Adams campaigns bitterly for the length of his term to end the gag as a threat to the Constitution.

1837-1845 - several anti-slavery activists are murdered. The Methodist and Southern Baptist Convention break their affiliations over the slavery issue.

1848 - Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The treaty signed by Mexico and the United States after the end of the Mexican-American War. The debate over slavery in the newly acquired territories flares.

1850 - The Compromise of 1850. California is admitted to the Union as a free State while Texas is admitted as a slave State. The compromise also included passage of the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 which levied a fine of $1,000 dollars on any law enforcement official who did not arrest for return any suspected runaway slave. This law was supported by northern Democrats and opposed by southern Unionists of the Border States.

1851 - Southern Unionists elected. In the State and gubernatorial elections of 1850-1, southern Unionists win many seats, thus defeating another swell of secessionist anger sweeping through the South.

1854 - The Kansas-Nebraska Act. Opens new territories to homesteading and allows for local plebicites to determine whether the new territories will become free State or slave State upon entering the Union. This effectively guts the Missouri Compromise of 1820. Northern Abolitionists are appalled that States could potentially be added as slave states where it had previously been forbidden by the Missouri Compromise. The Republican Party forms as a result of the disintegration of the Whig Party over the issue.

1855-1861 - Too many events to cover. Suffice to say that violence erupts in Kansas, Missouri, and elsewhere. John Brown, an anti-slavery partisan takes over Harper's Ferry. The Supreme Court hands down a ruling in the Dred Scott case that will lead directly to the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments after the War. The election of Lincoln as President is the final straw that causes secession and open war, even though low-level civil war had been going on in isolated areas for sometime before the formal commencement of hostilities.

Just as an aside, you will read and hear that Abraham Lincoln was not an Abolitionist and that he cynically employed emancipation as a tool to garner support for the war and so on. In essence, that he didn't believe in Abolition and only used slavery as a political means to an end. At best, that portrayal is cynical ignorance, and at worst, malicious lies. Lincoln openly and formally declared his Abolitionist views in the 1858 Lincoln-Douglas debates. His personal correspondence reveals his deep hatred of slavery going back decades before he became President. I could go on, but there is clear and compelling evidence that Lincoln was a genuine Abolitionist and was inspired by his deeply held Christian beliefs. And it was his publicly declared support for Abolition that precipitated the secession of southern States once he was elected President.

I hope this is helpful and inspires you to read and learn more about this fascinating time in American history.

Regards,
Valdemar

[PaulWRoberts]

Valdemer,

A very good post! Thanks.

ORIGINAL: Valdemar
Before I try to answer you question, I think it is important to note that most Americans, including some who've posted here, don't have a clue about the causes of the Civil War. Worse yet, those that do have a passing knowledge of it, tend to evaluate the history in terms of modern values and perspectives. As November has pointed out, you need to study the history of the times. One very important point, and one I cannot emphasize enough, is that the philosophy of politics and culture were on the minds of many common Americans during the decades preceding the Civil War. The issues were not strictly the prerogative of the social and political elites. That cynical portrayal is one modern people superimpose on the past because that is so much a part of our times. The average American is uninformed, inattentive, and uncaring about the issues today and the elites are the ones driving the issues. This was not true of Americans in previous centuries. The topics of abolition, state's rights, the nature of the relationship between government and its citizens were all hot topics that were as important to the average American then as Global Warming, African relief, and hating America is to you Europeans today.

But the issue is not whether these topics were on people's minds; the issue is whether the average American had any say in what was going to happen. Do remember that 19th-century elections and political representation were an even dirtier and less transparent business than those we have today. The average Southern politician was delighted to stake his honor on his idea of liberty and nation, but this does not mean that the average Southern private really thought of States' Rights as worth the dysentery or a Minie Ball to the face. Most of them, especially after first seeing the elephant, would have been happier at home tending crops or sleeping with his wife.

If this makes me a Marxist, so be it, but I don't believe so. (I'm a Southerner with CSA ancestors, FWIW.)

[Drex]

A very impressive over-view of the history of the slavery question. Frankly I hadn't heard of some of the issues since my high school history(never took history in college). I think Roger Neilson has a real good perspective now. And although the southerner-on-the-street was probably more polictically concerned than todays' American, that still doesn't mean he would fight in the fields for slavery. to keep the Yankee out, yes.

[Valdemar]

ORIGINAL: Paul Roberts


Valdemer,

A very good post! Thanks.

ORIGINAL: Valdemar
Before I try to answer you question, I think it is important to note that most Americans, including some who've posted here, don't have a clue about the causes of the Civil War. Worse yet, those that do have a passing knowledge of it, tend to evaluate the history in terms of modern values and perspectives. As November has pointed out, you need to study the history of the times. One very important point, and one I cannot emphasize enough, is that the philosophy of politics and culture were on the minds of many common Americans during the decades preceding the Civil War. The issues were not strictly the prerogative of the social and political elites. That cynical portrayal is one modern people superimpose on the past because that is so much a part of our times. The average American is uninformed, inattentive, and uncaring about the issues today and the elites are the ones driving the issues. This was not true of Americans in previous centuries. The topics of abolition, state's rights, the nature of the relationship between government and its citizens were all hot topics that were as important to the average American then as Global Warming, African relief, and hating America is to you Europeans today.

But the issue is not whether these topics were on people's minds; the issue is whether the average American had any say in what was going to happen. Do remember that 19th-century elections and political representation were an even dirtier and less transparent business than those we have today. The average Southern politician was delighted to stake his honor on his idea of liberty and nation, but this does not mean that the average Southern private really thought of States' Rights as worth the dysentery or a Minie Ball to the face. Most of them, especially after first seeing the elephant, would have been happier at home tending crops or sleeping with his wife.

If this makes me a Marxist, so be it, but I don't believe so. (I'm a Southerner with CSA ancestors, FWIW.)

Paul,

I'm glad you raised the issue of how southern commoners viewed the war. It's an important point. Generally speaking, and I emphasize that I am speaking to characterize the attitudes of most southerners, not all of them, the reason they went to war so eagerly and bitterly against the north was the perception that northern Abolitionists were a self-righteous lot trying to dictate a hostile philosophy. Moreover, many felt that northerners had been unfair in characterizing the South and southern values. And finally, some held that northern politicians had deliberately tried to keep the South from industrializing in order to prevent any competition, thus preserving northern prosperity at the expense of the South. And lets be honest, many southern whites, poor and rich, held racist views that simply would not allow them to embrace a world where blacks were entitled to the same rights as whites. Finally, for men of conscience like R. E. Lee and Longstreet, a Republican, their motive was simply patriotism. Southerners viewed the South as a captive nation and when odious philosophies threatened what they perceived to be the natural order, they reacted accordingly. Why did truly decent men like von Stauffenberg fight for the likes of Hitler? Because he felt duty-bound as a German patriot to help his country. I think that same attitude explains many Confederate soldiers.

However, I think your last sentence was completely unnecessary. The only people I've called Marxist were those authors who've promulgated the notion that the chief cause of the War was this sort of mass class struggle brought about by economic injustice, where evil industrial Capitalists from the North conspire with slave-owning Capitalists from the South to cause mutual destruction of the innocent and unsuspecting proletarians, North and South. You know, that same old Marxist crap about class struggle and evil oppressors, and blah, blah, blah and everything being about "economic injustice". Nowhere did I imply or infer that a differing view from mine makes you a Marxist.

What makes your last sentence ironic on top of being unfortunate, is that I agree with you that southern elites were the instigators of much unhappiness.

Regards,
Valdemar

[jkBluesman]

It is interesting that most of the posts deal with the Southerners. But Northerners fought for different reasons as well. Some wanted to keep the Union, others wanted to put an end to slavery and to Southern overproportional influence on US-politics.
And we should not forget that on both sides a lot of people did not want to fight at all. Look at the poorer whihtes in the South and the immigrants (espacially the Germans) who arrived at New York and were drafted although one reason why they had fled their country was to avoid military service.

[PaulWRoberts]

Valdemar,

Thanks for the reply--I thought the Marxist tag was meant for me, or partially.  No rancour intended here!

I think anyone wanting to study the question in more depth could do a lot worse than go to McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom, a book that tackles the question of Why They Fought from all angles. 

[SittingDuck]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

On a side note, if any of you have ever seen the musical 1776 (good light entertainment) it also is accurate in showing pretty clearly how challenging it was for the founding fathers and their peers to agree on things given the interests of each state.

I saw that as a kid (around the Bicentennial, I think), and I have to say it was truly awesome. It really was like being there watching everything. If people haven't seen it, if it ever comes around, I would absolutely see it. But as a kid, you don't just see actors - you see Philadelphia and Jefferson and all of them, like it was almost real.

Good memory, and yeah - the play does a good job of underscoring the tension over slavery and the tenets of the Constitution.

[Erik Rutins]

SittingDuck,

Glad to hear someone else has seen it. "Molasses to Rum to Slaves..." for anyone who's interested, you can get a film version of 1776 here, I've seen it and it's pretty good. I do seriously recommend this for those with an interest in early America, it's that rare combination of historical entertainment that actually captures the spirit of a period well and I know a lot of folks who don't like musicals, but like this one.

http://www.amazon.com/1776-Restored-Dir ... 611&sr=8-1

[Yogi the Great]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

On a side note, if any of you have ever seen the musical 1776 (good light entertainment) it also is accurate in showing pretty clearly how challenging it was for the founding fathers and their peers to agree on things given the interests of each state.

One of my favorite movies - I also have the DVD version and learned that it adds in an extra song which was in the Broadway show but cut from the movie. About "always to the right" (politically speaking at the time) and supposedly it was cut out of the release movie after a high level request that it was offending.

But again, one of the best shows around, once you get use to Franklin, Adams, Jefferson and the rest singing and dancing of course. Just like West Side story one of the best musicals of all time as well, getting use to those gang members dancing.

[Twotribes]

ORIGINAL: Valdemar

Roger;

Let me first thank you for asking this question. It is refreshing to see a European taking an interest in America for something other than vilifying us as "a force for evil in the world" (Times of London). It is also nice that a game sparks this kind of desire to learn and know history.

Before I try to answer you question, I think it is important to note that most Americans, including some who've posted here, don't have a clue about the causes of the Civil War. Worse yet, those that do have a passing knowledge of it, tend to evaluate the history in terms of modern values and perspectives. As November has pointed out, you need to study the history of the times. One very important point, and one I cannot emphasize enough, is that the philosophy of politics and culture were on the minds of many common Americans during the decades preceding the Civil War. The issues were not strictly the prerogative of the social and political elites. That cynical portrayal is one modern people superimpose on the past because that is so much a part of our times. The average American is uninformed, inattentive, and uncaring about the issues today and the elites are the ones driving the issues. This was not true of Americans in previous centuries. The topics of abolition, state's rights, the nature of the relationship between government and its citizens were all hot topics that were as important to the average American then as Global Warming, African relief, and hating America is to you Europeans today.

Causes
Roughly, the major causes were:
- the moral debate over slavery and race.
- the failure of the political system to resolve the mounting crisis caused by the slavery issue.
- the massive cultural divide between north and south.

Some, particularly those who hold Marxist views of history, attribute economic issues as a major cause in the conflict. In a word, it is total crap. The only issue that even touches on economics was southern opposition to Homesteading. Since you may not be familiar, Homesteading was the act of creating small family farms on land given away by the Federal government to encourage settlement and economic development of the lands to the west. While it is true that the North, West, and South had very different economic structures, they weren't in competition with each other. In fact, they each benefited enormously by trading for goods with the others that they did not produce themselves. As an example of economic interests taking a backseat to moral concerns, take New England, a hotbed of Abolitionism, was completely dependent on southern cotton to fuel it's prosperous textile mills.

I'll give a brief timeline of significant events that will highlight the moral, political, and cultural divide that existed between North and South right from the founding of this nation.

1787 - US Constitution is ratified. Establishes the USA as a Republic, not a Democracy.
- only white men who owned property were allowed to vote or hold office.
- 9th Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights, says that the Bill of Rights is not comprehensive and other rights not specifically mentioned are retained by the people.
- 10th Amendment, Bill of Rights, says that all powers not delegated to the Federal government or specifically denied to the States are retained by the States.

The last two were important as the basis for the "States' Rights" argument and right of Americans to self-determination, even if that meant rebellion.

1787 - The Northwest Ordinance outlawed slavery in the area that would later become the States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota.

1798 - The Kentucky and Virginian Resolutions. Introduce the Doctrine of Nullification. The acts said the States don't have to abide by a Federal law if they don't want to. It was based on southern interpretation of the Preamble to the Constitution. Southern states believed the Federal government drew its power only from the States and therefore the States could nullify its laws. The Federal Government claimed its power was derived from the people also, not just the States. The laws being challenged were the Alien and Sedition Acts.One of the best pieces of legislation in American history and recently revived with the Patriot Act.

1808 - The USA outlaws the slave trade and sends most of the US Navy to assist the RN in patrolling the West Coast of Africa to enforce the ban.

1816 - The American Colonization Society was formed to send freed slaves back to Africa. The nation of Liberia was formed and drew its name from the word "liberty" and its capital's name Monrovia from President James Monroe. Also famous for the Monroe Doctrine.

1820 - The Missouri Compromise. It admits Maine to the Union as a free State in exchange for admitting Missouri to the Union as a slave State.

1828 - The Nullification Crisis. John C. Calhoun, Vice President of the United States, writes the South Carolina Exposition and Protest in which he advances the Nullification Doctrine (see above) and he advocates secession for southern States in response the Tariff Act of 1828.

1830 - Daniel Webster, then Senator and later Secretary of State, delivers one of the greatest speeches of the era on the floor of the Senate rebutting the Nullification Doctrine.

1832 - President Andrew Jackson, the guy on the twenty-dollar bill, threatened to use force to end secession of South Carolina brought about by the Nullification Crisis.

1833 - American Anti-Slavery Society is founded by William Lloyd Garrison and includes noted black intellectual Frederick Douglas.

1834 - Lane Theological Seminary scandal. A staunch abolitionist student named Weld held anti-slavery rallies at the school and came into opposition with the more moderate religious thinkers of the day. This was an important event in forcing religious people to reconcile their beliefs with the ugliness of slavery.

1836 - The Gag Rule. In response to a flood of petitions to end slavery inspired by Abolitionist groups and religious leaders, The US House adopts a rule stating that all anti-slavery petitions received are to be tabled immediately without debate, thus killing them. President John Q. Adams campaigns bitterly for the length of his term to end the gag as a threat to the Constitution.

1837-1845 - several anti-slavery activists are murdered. The Methodist and Southern Baptist Convention break their affiliations over the slavery issue.

1848 - Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The treaty signed by Mexico and the United States after the end of the Mexican-American War. The debate over slavery in the newly acquired territories flares.

1850 - The Compromise of 1850. California is admitted to the Union as a free State while Texas is admitted as a slave State. The compromise also included passage of the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 which levied a fine of $1,000 dollars on any law enforcement official who did not arrest for return any suspected runaway slave. This law was supported by northern Democrats and opposed by southern Unionists of the Border States.

1851 - Southern Unionists elected. In the State and gubernatorial elections of 1850-1, southern Unionists win many seats, thus defeating another swell of secessionist anger sweeping through the South.

1854 - The Kansas-Nebraska Act. Opens new territories to homesteading and allows for local plebicites to determine whether the new territories will become free State or slave State upon entering the Union. This effectively guts the Missouri Compromise of 1820. Northern Abolitionists are appalled that States could potentially be added as slave states where it had previously been forbidden by the Missouri Compromise. The Republican Party forms as a result of the disintegration of the Whig Party over the issue.

1855-1861 - Too many events to cover. Suffice to say that violence erupts in Kansas, Missouri, and elsewhere. John Brown, an anti-slavery partisan takes over Harper's Ferry. The Supreme Court hands down a ruling in the Dred Scott case that will lead directly to the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments after the War. The election of Lincoln as President is the final straw that causes secession and open war, even though low-level civil war had been going on in isolated areas for sometime before the formal commencement of hostilities.

Just as an aside, you will read and hear that Abraham Lincoln was not an Abolitionist and that he cynically employed emancipation as a tool to garner support for the war and so on. In essence, that he didn't believe in Abolition and only used slavery as a political means to an end. At best, that portrayal is cynical ignorance, and at worst, malicious lies. Lincoln openly and formally declared his Abolitionist views in the 1858 Lincoln-Douglas debates. His personal correspondence reveals his deep hatred of slavery going back decades before he became President. I could go on, but there is clear and compelling evidence that Lincoln was a genuine Abolitionist and was inspired by his deeply held Christian beliefs. And it was his publicly declared support for Abolition that precipitated the secession of southern States once he was elected President.

I hope this is helpful and inspires you to read and learn more about this fascinating time in American history.

Regards,
Valdemar

You make the claim that tariffs had nothing to do with the Civil war... then list as one of the root causes and an early attempt to leave the Union, the tariff act of 1828.

Further you claim that Lincoln's abolitionist views were a cause for leaving the Union, while I agree , the man MADE repeated STATEMENTS that he would take NO ACTION in regards Slavery as President INCLUDING his State of the Union Address. Further any knowledgeable Politician would have known he had no chance at all to have passed any act against slavery anyway. Lincoln was simply a convenient excuse.

I do agree that Homesteading was a sore point, but the real power of it was passed after the South left the Congress. Again they had more political clout then they lead their own people to believe.

Thanks though for doing what most won't do, admit that the war was ALL about Slavery.

[dude]

[font="times new roman"]The problem with discussing the root causes of the Civil War is that if you ask twelve people that question you’ll get twelve different answers.  A lot of people like to try and sum it up to one key point for one side or the other.  But that’s just not possible.  Both sides had a myriad of reasons for going to war.  (Though my personal favorite I heard from a friend once ,who was from the north, who got into a heated discussion with another friend from the south… “You started it….we just finished it.” At the time they were both in their thirties but were acting like a couple of ten year olds.)[/font]
[font="times new roman"][/font] 
[font="times new roman"]Dude[/font]

[MengCiao]

However, I think your last sentence was completely unnecessary. The only people I've called Marxist were those authors who've promulgated the notion that the chief cause of the War was this sort of mass class struggle brought about by economic injustice, where evil industrial Capitalists from the North conspire with slave-owning Capitalists from the South to cause mutual destruction of the innocent and unsuspecting proletarians, North and South. You know, that same old Marxist crap about class struggle and evil oppressors, and blah, blah, blah and everything being about "economic injustice". Nowhere did I imply or infer that a differing view from mine makes you a Marxist.

What makes your last sentence ironic on top of being unfortunate, is that I agree with you that southern elites were the instigators of much unhappiness.

Regards,
Valdemar

Actually Karl Marx was a very perceptive commentator on the Civil war. In his very first remarks he said:

The question of the principle of the American Civil War is answered by the battle slogan with which the South broke the peace. Stephens, the Vice-President of the Southern Confederacy, declared in the Secession Congress that what essentially distinguished the Constitution newly hatched at Montgomery from the Constitution of Washington and Jefferson was that now for the first time slavery was recognised as an institution good in itself, and as the foundation of the whole state edifice, whereas the revolutionary fathers, men steeped in the prejudices of the eighteenth century, had treated slavery as an evil imported from England and to be eliminated in the course of time. Another matador of the South, Mr. Spratt, cried out: "For us it is a question of founding a great slave republic." If, therefore, it was indeed only in defence of the Union that the North drew the sword, had not the South already declared that the continuance of slavery was no longer compatible with the continuance of the Union?

see: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... /10/25.htm

[MengCiao]

ORIGINAL: Valdemar


Some, particularly those who hold Marxist views of history, attribute economic issues as a major cause in the conflict. In a word, it is total crap.

Marx knew perfectly well what the war was about. Here's what he wrote right after Antiedam and the Emancipation Proclaimation:

Lincoln’s proclamation is even more important than the Maryland campaign. Lincoln is a sui generis figure in the annals of history. He has no initiative, no idealistic impetus, cothurnus, no historical trappings. He gives his most important actions always the most commonplace form. Other people claim to be “fighting for an idea”, when it is for them a matter of square feet of land. Lincoln, even when he is motivated by, an idea, talks about “square feet”. He sings the bravura aria of his part hesitatively, reluctantly and unwillingly, as though apologising for being compelled by circumstances “to act the lion”. The most redoubtable decrees — which will always remain remarkable historical documents-flung by him at the enemy all look like, and are intended to look like, routine summonses sent by a lawyer to the lawyer of the opposing party, legal chicaneries, involved, hidebound actiones juris. His latest proclamation, which is drafted in the same style, the manifesto abolishing slavery, is the most important document in American history since the establishment of the Union, tantamount to the tearing up of the old American Constitution.

see: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... /index.htm

[Valdemar]

ORIGINAL: MengCiao

However, I think your last sentence was completely unnecessary. The only people I've called Marxist were those authors who've promulgated the notion that the chief cause of the War was this sort of mass class struggle brought about by economic injustice, where evil industrial Capitalists from the North conspire with slave-owning Capitalists from the South to cause mutual destruction of the innocent and unsuspecting proletarians, North and South. You know, that same old Marxist crap about class struggle and evil oppressors, and blah, blah, blah and everything being about "economic injustice". Nowhere did I imply or infer that a differing view from mine makes you a Marxist.

What makes your last sentence ironic on top of being unfortunate, is that I agree with you that southern elites were the instigators of much unhappiness.

Regards,
Valdemar

Actually Karl Marx was a very perceptive commentator on the Civil war. In his very first remarks he said:

The question of the principle of the American Civil War is answered by the battle slogan with which the South broke the peace. Stephens, the Vice-President of the Southern Confederacy, declared in the Secession Congress that what essentially distinguished the Constitution newly hatched at Montgomery from the Constitution of Washington and Jefferson was that now for the first time slavery was recognised as an institution good in itself, and as the foundation of the whole state edifice, whereas the revolutionary fathers, men steeped in the prejudices of the eighteenth century, had treated slavery as an evil imported from England and to be eliminated in the course of time. Another matador of the South, Mr. Spratt, cried out: "For us it is a question of founding a great slave republic." If, therefore, it was indeed only in defence of the Union that the North drew the sword, had not the South already declared that the continuance of slavery was no longer compatible with the continuance of the Union?

see: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... /10/25.htm

I knew my ridiculing mockery of Marxist thought would get one of his disciples out of the woodwork.

First, in the paragraph you cite, Marx is only stating the obvious. It's not "very perceptive" at all. Nothing in that paragraph is analytical, particularly insightful, and says nothing that informed people at the time didn't already know. Second, you conveniently leave out telling commentary from the rest of the article where he ridicules and accuses both North and South as oppressors by different means and motives, but still evil states that oppress.

Further, nothing you cite, either in the paragraph or in the body of the article, refutes what you quoted me saying. I stand by and reassert my original comment that many who claim economic factors, which they conflate out of all proportion and infuse with sinister motive and action, are the main cause of the war, do so in order to promulgated Marxist views of history.

Valdemar

[Valdemar]

ORIGINAL: MengCiao

ORIGINAL: Valdemar


Some, particularly those who hold Marxist views of history, attribute economic issues as a major cause in the conflict. In a word, it is total crap.

Marx knew perfectly well what the war was about. Here's what he wrote right after Antiedam and the Emancipation Proclaimation:

Lincoln’s proclamation is even more important than the Maryland campaign. Lincoln is a sui generis figure in the annals of history. He has no initiative, no idealistic impetus, cothurnus, no historical trappings. He gives his most important actions always the most commonplace form. Other people claim to be “fighting for an idea”, when it is for them a matter of square feet of land. Lincoln, even when he is motivated by, an idea, talks about “square feet”. He sings the bravura aria of his part hesitatively, reluctantly and unwillingly, as though apologising for being compelled by circumstances “to act the lion”. The most redoubtable decrees — which will always remain remarkable historical documents-flung by him at the enemy all look like, and are intended to look like, routine summonses sent by a lawyer to the lawyer of the opposing party, legal chicaneries, involved, hidebound actiones juris. His latest proclamation, which is drafted in the same style, the manifesto abolishing slavery, is the most important document in American history since the establishment of the Union, tantamount to the tearing up of the old American Constitution.

see: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... /index.htm

I love it. First Marx derisively denounces Lincoln as a dull bureaucrat who has no moral interest in emanicaption, only a selfish (Capitalist) one, and then turns around and credits him (Lincoln) with making the greatest speech in American history.

Again, the rest of the article is a scathing indictment of America, North and South, written with Marx's characteristic self-righteous, sanctimonious know-it-all sytle, where he states nothing that isn't already known. Yet he twists the facts in order to make everyone in power, North and South, appear as evil and selfish men eager to exploit the masses. Total crap.

Now, you can save answering me because I won't reply for two reasons. One, I'm not gonna let this thread get hijacked into a debate about Marxism. And secondly, because I am an ardent anti-Communist, so you'll be wasting your breath trying to convert me. In short, Marx was wrong about everything he advanced. He was nothing but an elitist intellectual who never worked a day in his life, preaching about the misery of the masses that he himself held in contemppt.

Valdemar

[Valdemar]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

You make the claim that tariffs had nothing to do with the Civil war... then list as one of the root causes and an early attempt to leave the Union, the tariff act of 1828.

Further you claim that Lincoln's abolitionist views were a cause for leaving the Union, while I agree , the man MADE repeated STATEMENTS that he would take NO ACTION in regards Slavery as President INCLUDING his State of the Union Address. Further any knowledgeable Politician would have known he had no chance at all to have passed any act against slavery anyway. Lincoln was simply a convenient excuse.

I do agree that Homesteading was a sore point, but the real power of it was passed after the South left the Congress. Again they had more political clout then they lead their own people to believe.

Thanks though for doing what most won't do, admit that the war was ALL about Slavery.

Man, this is so tedious. I wrote my piece for Roger, a Britisher, who may not be familiar with the intricacies of American history. My list was not meant to be an exhaustive explanation of every single aspect of the causes for the War. My list was really intended to emphasize the moral debate over slavery, the failure of politicians to deal with the mounting crisis, and the cultural divide. I wasn't looking to write a new history just so someone wouldn't nit-pick me over something I didn't include.

And I never said tariffs had nothing to do with the war. I said economic factors had nothing to do with the war. I also didn't say that the 1828 Tariff was "root cause" of the war. I included that to emphasize that the debate over slavery was often couched in other issues by southern hotheads to divert the debate away from the indefensible moral side and to inflame southern public opinion. Theres no contradiction in what I said or what I listed as causes. Besides that, I'm really gonna lower the fact boom on you about the 1828 Tariff just to illustrate that the Southern uproar over it had very little to do with economics.

The Tariff was imposed to protect American (mainly Northern) industry from price competition from Europe, not to punish the South. Europe had had a recession, and because the currencies of Europe had fallen relative to the Dollar, European manufacturers were able to offer their goods (mainly imported by the South) at prices lower than American (Northern) manufacturers could offer. The tariff hurt southern consumers of those goods because they had to pay the tariff to import them. Now, the reason this wasn't at all about economics was that southern consumers of manufactured goods could still buy them from northern manufacturers at a reasonable price, which was the whole purpose of the tariff. The furor was largely driven by one man, John C. Calhoun, who was using the tariff as an excuse to raise the idea of State sovereignty so the South could later challenge anti-slavery measures. That was the real motive. In fact, Calhoun's opening salvo invoked the Virginia-Kentucky Resolutions as the legal basis for the Nullification Doctrine. Now, just to drive the point home that Southern militants weren't reacting to an economic threat, here's a quote by Calhoun concerning the 1828 Tariff.

"It is our duty to force the issue (of slavery) on the North. Had the South, or even my own State (of South Carolina) backed me, I would have forced the issue (of slavery) on the North in 1835."

Calhoun, 1840. That quote is taken from Famous Americans of Recent Times, by John Parton.

You're wrong about homesteading also. You are obviously referring to the Homestead Act of 1862, which was indeed passed after southerns left the Congress, but the USA had a long history of homesteading laws and it was those previous laws that southern militants objected to and were the sore point. Here's a list:

1) Land Act of 1804
2) Military Tract Law of 1812
3) Preemption Act of 1841
4) Donation Land Claim Act of 1850

My purpose in telling Roger that economics played no role is because didn't. I wanted to inoculate him against all the popular mythology surrounding that point and that's why I put in such strong terms.

Likewise, the reason I made such a strong point about Lincoln being an Abolitionist was firstly, that its true, and secondly to inoculate him against those who try to portray Lincoln as a shrewd manipulator of events rather than the idealist that he was. However, I may have overstated and I believe that Lincoln's actions and words that appear ambivalent to Abolitionism, was really his pragmatism tempering his idealism.

Oh, and thanks for mentioning that I "admit" the War was about slavery. I'm not admitting anything. I've been arguing for years that the War was about slavery first, last, in the middle, up the side, and around the back. Indeed, I seem to be making that point with you, as well. The War was all about slavery.

Valdemar

[Gray_Lensman]

Valdemar:
 
I am amazed by the people I know who don't want to believe the Civil War was primarily about slavery. It's like they all read Lincoln just wanted to hold the Union together, and they refuse to acknowledge any of the previous 80+ years of American History that lead up to the great conflict.