War of Northern Agression

[syscom3]

Sys, there were hotheads on both sides. Remember the abolitionists in mainly Massachusetts. In fact some of those abolitionists believed that if emancipation did not take place immediately then the union shoud be dissolved. Also the secessionists were merely using the same logic our ancestors used in dissolving the political ties from Great Britain. Just my opinion, but if Anderson at Sumter had surrendered like, for instance, the fellow at San Antonio(can'r remember his name) the fort would not have been fired upon. Actually the first shots were fired by Union soldiers on January 8, 1861 near what is now Pensacola. But when Sumter was fired on, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas were still in the Union. It was only when Lincoln called up 75000 militia that those states seceded.How tragic that we lost our spirit of compromise.

There wasnt going to be any spirit of compromise.

Ultimatly, this was a war over slavery. You can argue all day and night about the real issue was states rights. But it was the issue of slavery that was the under current in everything political for the previous 40 years.

The deep south states made the decision to succede because they wanted slavery.

The border states hung out longer due to the slavery issue not being not critical to their economies.

Any attempt to support the motives of the south to succede from the Union are tarnished for the economic relaities of slavery and the desire of the southern states ot maintain it.

This wasnt a war of Northern Aggression, it was a war to force the south to give up slaves.

 

[magnocain]

There wasnt going to be any spirit of compromise.

Ultimatly, this was a war over slavery. You can argue all day and night about the real issue was states rights. But it was the issue of slavery that was the under current in everything political for the previous 40 years.

The deep south states made the decision to succede because they wanted slavery.

The border states hung out longer due to the slavery issue not being not critical to their economies.

Any attempt to support the motives of the south to succede from the Union are tarnished for the economic relaities of slavery and the desire of the southern states ot maintain it.

This wasnt a war of Northern Aggression, it was a war to force the south to give up slaves.

If I have said it once I've said it a thousand times; the Civil War was not about slavery . That is like saying America declared war on Germany to rescue the Jews form the nazis.

 

[syscom3]

If I have said it once I've said it a thousand times; the Civil War was not about slavery . That is like saying America declared war on Germany to rescue the Jews form the nazis.

Perhaps you can explain why it wasnt?

Ever hear of the Mason-Dixon line?
Dred Scot decision?
Missouri compromise?
"Bloody Kansas"?

 

[magnocain]

Perhaps you can explain why it wasnt?

Slavery was not a major issue until later. The Night Of The Broken Glass?

 

[syscom3]

Slavery was not a major issue until later. The Night Of The Broken Glass?

Slavery was the issue, and the right of the federal govt to control it.

And stop it with your lame comparisons between the Holocaust and the Civil War.

 

[magnocain]

Slavery was the issue, and the right of the federal govt to control it.

The war was over State Rights, and one of those rights was slavery.

And stop it with your lame comparisons between the Holocaust and the Civil War.

They aren't lame.

 

[timshatz]

Sys, Mag is right about that point. Slavery was one of the points that the war was about but it was the central points only to the Abolitionist (Aka, the John Brown "Nutjob" types).

Lincoln's genius was using the Emancipation Proclaimation to make it a war about Slavery. By doing that, he thwarted any attempts at outside recognition of the South. The Europeans might've recognized the South if the war was about two different cultures and one culture wanted to start it's own country. But there was no way they would recognize a country who's main reason to exist was to continue slavery. Especially when they themselves had laws against and actively pursued the ending of the trade.

Lincoln producing the EP chopped the South off at the knees and virtually assured the war would be fought (in the open anyway) as a Civil War. Brilliant move.

 

[syscom3]

The single issue of the day that defined the upcoming conflict was slavery.

There is no indication that a majority of people in the North had any desire to control it in the South. But when it came to control of slavery in the territories, then yes, the federal govt had an obligation to not allow it to spread.

 

[renrich]

I think in order to understand the whys of the War Between the States, one has to go back and look at how the country was settled. It may be that most of us think that in 1860 the US was a homogeneous nation. It is true that the vast majority of the nation that wielded political power spoke English and was white but it is far from true that the nation was a big happy family, with common interests and a common culture and belief system. When the nation began to be settled the groups that settled here mostly came from Britain but they came from different parts of Britain and arrived at different times. They all spoke English but other than that they were remarkably different. The Puritans came from the east of England between 1629 and 1641 and settled in the Mass. area. The Royalists and their large numbers of indentured servants came from the south and west of England between 1642 and 1675 and settled in the Chesapeake region. Quakers from England's north midlands and Wales arrived in the Delaware valley between 1625 and 1725 and the last and most numerous group, arriving between 1717 to 1775, was the Borderers from Northern Ireland, parts of Scotland and the northern part of England, settling in Appalachia. These four groups carried with them different folkways that became the basis of regional cultures in the New World. From the beginning there was dislike and little trust between these four groups. They spoke the same language but in distinctive ways. They engaged in politics in different ways, they dressed in different ways, they cooked differently, they worshiped differently, they built shelter in different ways, they reacted with women and children in different ways and they regarded warfare in different ways. Even today these cultural differences are reflected in the different regions of the US. Many historians state that there would have been no American Revolution if the Scots-Irish, the Borderers, had not played a large role. All of the groups had fled Britain because of enmity toward England but the Scots-Irish had been depredated on and in turn done their share of depredating for centuries. As a result, they were a warlike people. It is no accident that a high proportion of volunteers during all our wars have come from men descended from the Scots-Irish. Given these many differences it was almost inevitable that disunion might threaten whether or not slavery had been an issue. During the period from the founding of our nation until 1860, which, after all was less than 100 years, the popular opinion of the people in the North regarding the South was that they were either slovenly, illiterate and indolent savages or high and mighty slave-owning aristocrats who still harbored close ties with England. The prevailing opinion in the South was that all Yankees were money grubbers and knew nothing about being a gentleman. Some of those attitudes still exist today. There were a number of political differences btween the two regions. The South was an agrarian, patriarchal and warlike society. The North gradually evolved into more of a tradesman and manufacturing society. There were slaves North and South but it was found that slavery did not fit well with the type of farming in the North. Actually slaves had not as much value as they eventually did in the South until after the cotton gin was invented. Some of the New England states threatened disunion during the War of 1812 because it decimated their trade. South Carolina threatened disunion during the Nullification argument about high tariffs. The North wanted high tariffs to protect their manufacturing base and tight money because most of the capital resided in the North. Both high tariffs and tight money were anathema to the South. The North kept the transcontinental railroad from going the southern route( the easiest route) because it would benefit the South. Not surprisingly these political disagreements caused much enmity between the regions. Much of the North (including Lincoln) disagreed with the Mexican War and disunion once again was talked about in New England. IMO the slavery issue in the territories was not so much an issue of actually having slaves in the west but was a symbol of political power. If a new state was allowed to have slaves then it would vote with the Old South states and the opposite would obtain if the new state was a non-slave state. The fact was that it was already known that slavery was not a paying proposition west of the 35 inch rainfall line and the Great Plains were thought of as The Great American Desert where no agriculture was possible. Only about 10 % of the white population in the South owned slaves but since there were something over 4 million slaves in the South with a total population of only about 9 million, a slave uprising like Brown and others had advocated and fomented was considered a serious problem by slave owners and non slave owners alike. When war eventually broke out, the Southern armies all spoke English, mostly could not read and write, were very independent and were mostly Protestant. The Northern armies spoke a number of different languages, were mostly literate, worshiped many different ways and were somewhat more amenable to discipline. I believe that the question of whether slavery was wrong( which of course it was) and should be abolished was not the central issue of the rebellion. Rather the States Rights argument with the attendant issue of slavery and it's extension with respect to the balance of political power and whether or not a state had the right to secede were the overarching issues. I believe that Lincoln said something to the effect that if he could free the slaves and preserve the Union he would so or if he could keep them all slaves and preserve the Union he would do so.

 

[magnocain]

Before the civil war people said the United States are.
After the civil war people said the United states is.

 

[timshatz]

Civil war changed a ton of things. Made the Federal Govt what it is now. Beforehand, the US was closer to Canada in that it was almost a confederation of states. After it, the Federal Govt had emerged as the central power of the country. Regional differences, though still pronounced, became secondary.