Thoughts on the Civil War by Race

[SemiCharmedQuark]

Poll question: Thoughts on the Civil War by Race

It is of course far more complicated than this, but please just go with what you feel is more accurate.

Of course no side is completely right and no side is completely wrong. But I had to do the best I could with only a few choices possible.

I guess just take "correct" to mean "more within the right"

[orpupilofnature57]

1. other, of course the north was right, also about money, I'm French Canadian

[Iris]

4. Yes. You need to include something about money.

The North's motives were not all pure. They depended on the South for agricultural products.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

6. I added in "economic"...

I hope that will cover it. I don't have that much space to play with.

[achtung_circus]

2. No.

Initially, the North was "right" (whatever that means) the South was not correct about secession being a good idea, but it was not (to the North) initailly about slavery.

Slavery became an issue to "the North" after hostilites had been underway for quite a while.

On the other hand: 14

[Spangle]

3. Not enough choices

The choices right now is:
1) because of slavery
2) because they wanted to and felt they could

The poll is automaticly going to be staked towards the slavery issue. It grabs the mind like Hitler/Nazi/etc. Most people can not go past that and study the how/why/etc. Which is why such things can repeat it's self. No one studys the issues. What is remembered is "Hitler = Bad Mad. Don't allow that again." And how do we KNOW someone is a bad man? Why, they start killing people by race, mainly Jews. Another words, they will not know until it's way to late to stop him/her. Cause they never studied the how/why.

An example for this poll would be
Persons/business were concerned with competing with persons/busines who could possibly keep their cost down do to slavery

In such a worry, the concern over the PERSONS in slavery isn't the issue. Economic, or $$$$ is. Still, the issue would be slavery. But not the "nice" picture that is assumed. But a selfish reason.

I think what would be intresting to know is how many of the "personal type" reasons could be figured out dealing with WHY persons joined either the North or the South on this issue. WE don't all go to to war for the same reason. Persons in the past didn't either. What might make me grab a gun and join up might be totaly different then what would make you do it. Even if we both showed up for the same army. Live and humans are weird like that.

[Jawja]

5. I know that my family

were farmers who did not own slaves; they joined the Civil War over States' rights and to protect their property.

I sometimes think now that it would have been better to let the South go - we are still a country divided over idealogical lines and it appears to be a line drawn between RED (Southern-MidWestern) and BLUE (North-Northeastern). The Slavery issue was used as a reason to rally the troops, just as the religion and abortion and Gay Rights issues are used today to win at the voting booth.

There were more factors leading to the Civil War besides Slavery, as economic issues and States' Rights. But the end result of the bloodshed was a "unified" nation and the abolition of Slavery, and that was a good thing.

AS I am Southern born and bred, I am frustrated with so much of the South's ignorance and religiousity; but we all aren't uneducated redneck racist Bible-thumping hicks.

[qazplm]

7. no offense

but there were no OTHER "State's Rights" that led to the South seceeding besides slavery.

What other "state's rights" were they protesting?
Tarrifs? No way.

MOST Southerners didnt own slaves, owning slaves was not something the masses could afford. But the whole "state's rights" and "property rights" was the pretty window dressing.

Check out the Declaration of Causes of Secession for Georgia, Texas, South Carolina and I believe Mississippi for example. They all were point blank and very clear that the entire reason they were seceeding was the threat of Lincoln's election to the slaveholding way of life.

If slavery didnt exist in 1860, there would NOT have been a civil war.

Of course, it is true the North didn't fight the war to stop slavery, they fought it to preserve the union, but the South DID fight the war because of slavery, and thus the war was "about" slavery.

[txaslftist]

10. Gee...how about the right to secede?

Is that a "state's right"?

When the people of a given territorial unit decide that a central government elsewhere is abusing their rights and treating them unfairly, do they have the right to take up arms and break away from that central government and form their own nation?

Read the Declaration of Independence before you answer.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

16. Is it?

Article 1, Section 10 in the Constitution of the United States reads,"No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation

Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution states "No state shall, without the consent of Congress, enter into any agreement or compact with any other state.

[txaslftist]

19. King George III might very well have said the same thing...

And I'm sure he could have quoted something equally persuasive, perhaps even the bible.

Do a person's parents have the right to bind him to a contract against his will? Does a treaty entered into before I was born by people I never knew obviate my right to fight for my liberty?

Whether justly or unjustly, the leaders of the southern rebellion felt oppressed by the concentration of power, both economic and political, in the northern states. The people of the southern states held elections and agreed that they were, in fact, oppressed, and should secede. That was the basis of the rebellion.

The northern response was that the southern states and the people in them did not have the right to secede. This was what the war was about. You can talk about slavery being a hotbed issue, you can talk about the tariffs, you can talk about economic inequities all you want.

The bottom line is that the southern states, acting in accordance with the principles explicit in the Declaration of Independence, similarly attempted to declare themselves independent of the Union. They lost the war, which is probably to the good of all of us, and certainly was a good thing for the slaves who were freed.

The victors get to write the histories, and I understand that, too. But to lump all southerners into the "pro-slavery" camp and all northerners into the "abolitionist" camp is simplistic spin. In light of the recent election and the geographic way red states and blue states came out, it is also divisive spin, and does nothing to promote the democratic party in southern states.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

21. Legally?

One has the right to fight for liberty, but they should not expect to go unchallenged, especially if their fight directly goes against the CONSTITUTION.

I never lumped ALL Northerners in one camp and ALL Southerners in another. But the leadership determined the course of events. And as the Cause of Secession written by the states who were seceding states states (snippet below in another post), Slavery was an important issue.

[ProfessorGAC]

27. Nobody From The South Signed King George's Agreement

That was sort of the point of the Constitution. We told the king to go bye-bye because we didn't agree to that form of rule. The south agreed to the Constitution, in full. That included the two clauses mentioned by another poster.

So, your flippant dismissal of same by referencing King George is a nonsequitur. The whole point of the constitution and the formation of this government was that people had a basic framework they were VOLUNTARILY agreeing to uphold. Deciding after the fact to secede would not be consisent with upholding that legal and binding agreement.
The Professor

[izzybeans]

24. They should have

read the Bill of Rights before they chose to align themselves with slaveholders. That was THE issue. That would legitimate the right of any state to undermine constitutional protections. That is not the right of the state.

[Charon]

44. how about the right to secede

That is a question that would have been better answered by the Taney Supreme Court. That court gave the South a very pro slavery answer in the Dred Scott Case. It may have well voted to allow sucession as a "State Right"

[cattleman22]

15. You list reasons for only some of the rebel states

If it was only about slavery, why did some of the states such as VA not vote to secede until later?

I think that the Civil War was more complicated that the simple reasons listed in a high school history book. Don't get me wrong though, I am very glad that the North won and that it was worth the price to rid the US of slavery.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

18. I have listed, combined,

slavery, the right of secession, and economic reasons. Since it is just a poll on the internet, I really can't go into too much detail. Further, these reasons are all entwined.

If I were conducting a gallup poll, I would do a better job of distinguishing.

[Spangle]

26. No Offense

But one of the stated reasons for bombing Afgan was for WOMEN'S RIGHTS. Aghm. Of course, since then no one seems to give a hoot about the Woman there.

As stated before, people have different reasons for jumping on a band wagon. Throw enough reasons out there and you might be able to gather an army and get public support for the war you want to have.

In your posts you lumped RICH people with the POOR people. What will cause a rich person to go to war is different then a POOR person. As we know, it's the POOR people that actualy have to fight/die and loose ALL because of war.

What would cause a POOR person who doesn't own slaves to fight to KEEP slavery? Keep in mind that those people would have a better economic advantage to ending slavery. It's kinda hard to get a job if the persons doing the job are slaves.... The lack of wages would turn anyone away.

"State's Rights" was an issue because it was a MAJOR issue of the Rev War. Once broke from England, people wanted "home rule." The people of the time of the Civil War, they grew up on storys from those who fought in the Rev War. Who were the people of the South? Rember the Irish, Scottish, etc? These people came from countrys that were "ruled from afar". Their "people" lost the right to own land, etc.. THe KING owned the land and decided who ruled for him/her. The people was monetarly raped and the money was sent afar. These decendent/new immegrents who were "then" experiencing what we call the "American Dream" had a different take on things then we do at this time.

Because of lack of education and monetary means, these people are less likely to be the ones doing the actual writing of "Declaration of Causes of Secession" for any state. Your talking about the landed rich there. The South was highly settled by persons given land grants for serving in the Rev War. And other wars that followed. That gave them the land. But that didn't automaicly give them slaves to work the land.

In our minds today, there really is no such thing as "states rights." But it was something "they" were proud of. Their grand father, father, etc.. fought for it. They had family members who died for it. Many familys gained land because their family member fought for it. It was a reminder, something to be proud of. Totaly different now. Because no one really FEELS personaly connected to the Rev War. It is just something that happened in our history. Now, if you want to talk about WWI or WWII, that is a different story. ;)

Bringing the whole issue forward to todays time. Consider the Eurpean Union. That is a Union of Countrys/States. Each of those Countrys are independent. But they are part of a Union. Before the Civil War, that is how the people of the United States felt/Believed. That is the way the idea was sold to them.

Think the 2 are different? Not at all. Can the countrys in the Eurpean Union drop out? Depends on how the Union is preceived by the people at that momment. Who knows how people will see/understand it 50 or 100 years from now. If that country that is wanting to leave will put a monetary hurt on the other countrys by leaving.. then those that "be" will not want them to leave.. no matter what. Look at Russia. When the Soviet UNION ended, several countrys were allowed to leave. But one who really, really wants to.. NOPE! Sorry, but they have OIL and Russia needs alot of cheap oil. So Russia will not let go.

So, when you say there is no states rights. You would be correct TODAY. But not if you were talking about over 100 years ago. It was what the people BELIEVED at that time. Now we send money to the KING to do as he wish. Before? Money was raised for war, but it wasn't a perment flux of money going into the federal coffers. Big difference.

Before, the federal Goverment dealt with interstate matters and intrastate matters. Now, aghm.. I can't list all that they do. NOT complaining. I like the equality. Or the attempt at it. Even if the red states don't admit that the Blue sends them money...

Now, you said:
"If slavery didnt exist in 1860, there would NOT have been a civil war."

Slavery exists TODAY. Aghm.. But that is another topic

Dude, you don't know much about the Southern States, do you?

The south is mainly "crops". And that is an issue that IS at play in this topic. Let me explain. Again, it depends on the person for what their reasons were, etc.

North was mainly settled first. Which ment their factorys were built first. Such persons who made money this way isn't going to risk their life or their familys life moving off into the "Unknown" and dangrous "Indian" areas. So THERE they stayed. As people came to the "new world", they were encouraged to move East and South. These were mainly POOR people.

The south mainly grew food stuff and COTTEN. They had a ready made market in the Northern factorys. Remember the pictures of children working in textle factrys? Where did they get the cotten for those factorys? Hmmmm

From there, you have 2 sepreate situations. Then Northern Factory owners and the Southern COTTEN Farmers/Plantation owners. Each has issues that is monetary.

For the North they had 2 worrys. One being that factorys would be built in the south and worked by slaves. Equaling to "free labor" and as such not be able to compete. Never mind that such a factory owner would have to be one rich MoFo to build a factory, buy the machines and then buy slaves. Lot of out of pocket expense before even opening the doors.

The second would be ensuring they get the materals that their factory uses at the cheapest price possible. "COTTEN for the textle factorys."

For the Southern Farmers/Plantation owners, it's getting the best price for their goods. Overseas markets was willing to pay a much higher price then the Northern states were.

The Northern states took this issue to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. This was an intrastate matter. It was decided that products had to be sold to the "states" first, then overseas.. with GOVERNMENT approval. (real short version here)

Don't think this was a major issue? Remember Russia and OIL? Who is deciding where that oil is going and for how much? Hmmm....

For the Southerners, for both the small farmer and the plantation owner, this was a major issue. It's a pocket book issue. It hit both poor and rich alike. They were NOT happy campers over this.

How much impact that had on the civil war... Depends on who that person was and how they made their living.

I believe in 2 posts I pointed out several reasons for both the north and south. And there are a whole lot more. Again, it depends on the person, etc. I didn't cover the "for slavery" issue. Because it's for granted that it was an issue. On both sides.

[Charon]

46. No Offense

Could you please cite the laws passed or the governmental regulations which required the south to sell their agricultural products in the U.S. first and then get permission to export the balance.

[ProfessorGAC]

25. Protecting Property? Could You Explain?

What property were they protecting, if they weren't slave owners?

The union was appropriating farmland from anybody. There were millions of landowners in the north, and nobody's property was taken away.

So, why would protecting property be anything BUT a reference to slavery?
The Professor

[Jawja]

28. They were protecting their Farmland!

You misunderstand my use of the word "property." By property, I meant their LAND and HOME and their COWS and CHICKENS.

I know for a fact that my direct ancestors owned farmland in South Georgia and did not get involved in fighting until they had to protect their property when the South fell and the Union Army marched to Savannah. They were burning homes as they went.

They did not own slaves. Not ALL Southerners owned slaves. They were poor farmers.

If you had read my post without being so blinded by the "Civil War was About Slavery" viewpoint, you would have understood I wasn't talking about SLAVES as the property of my family.

[ProfessorGAC]

29. Protecting It From What?

Nobody was appropriating land, livestock, or homes. So what were they protecting it from?

Property rights was code for slaves.
The Professor

[Jawja]

30. Dear Professor,

Why do you want to argue with me over the facts I've given you? My family in South Georgia did not own slaves. This is a fact. I am the person using the word "property." In my use, it is not a code word for "slaves." It means their house, their livestock, their crops.

So since you insist that property=slaves, even though I have said plainly it did not, let me rephrase:

my direct ancestors joined the fight to protect their HOUSE, their LIVESTOCK, and their CROPS from being burned and looted. This was a fact of the war.

[ProfessorGAC]

34. I'm Arguing Nothing! I'm Asking A Question

You keep saying they were protecting property (land, home, livestock). I asked 3 times (now) "Protecting it from whom?"

The gov't wasn't appropriating any of these properties. So, they were protecting property, but for what reason. There doesn't appear to be anything to protect it from. You keep repeating the same answer, so i have to repeat the same question, because you're not addressing the question. From what or whom were they protecting this property?
The Professor

[Jawja]

36. Protect it

from the Union Army marching South to Savannah. The war came into the state when Sherman marched through it to the sea, burning whole towns.

I did not clarify that in my first post. Sorry.

[ProfessorGAC]

37. All After The Fact

Sherman wasn't down there until well into the 4th year of the war. What was the South's motivation for the first 45 months? That couldn't be about protecting property of the type you mentioned.

You're talking about long into the conflict. Who would have been protecting proerty before that and from whom? Hence, the states' rights and property protection claims are rooted in the only property taht was really at risk.
The Professor

[Jawja]

38. Professor,

I was talking about a portion of my family in South Georgia only.

Of course the war was not about protecting land and chickens and cows; it was about protecting an economic system. An economic system based on the ownership of slaves, of course. The South was on the wrong side of this issue. You are absolutely correct that the war was about States Rights to the Property of Slaves.

And I was trying to say in my original post that we are still in a "civil war" because the South pretty much holds the same kind of bigotry and ignorance on other issues that they did over owning slaves. That is evident in the way that religious issues and Gay Rights are used by the GOP to keep a solid lock on the vote here.

You are obviously a knowledgable and passionate person who I would enjoy having a discussion and a beer or two with.

[Ladyhawk]

53. I agree: the North never really "won" the Civil War.

The slaves were "freed" but poor and disenfranchised and in some ways no better off than they were before the war. I wonder what would have happened if the North had let the South go?

Any historians want to make a guess? Would racism be worse or better than it is today?

(My family is from the south--very bigoted--but one of my ancestors died from a wound received when he was fighting as a Union soldier. I wonder why he decided to fight for the North? I wonder if he was less bigoted than his descendants or if he had other motivations like loyalty to the nation? Damn, I wish I hadn't grown up around bigotry...it's ugly and hard to purge from the system...pisses me off. :( )

[carolinayellowdog]

59. Why Southerners fought for the Union

Dear Ladyhawk,

The majority of my NC ancestors who fought in the Civil War were in the 1st NC Infantry (Federal), and I have been studying the reasons for their allegiance to the Union. It would be pleasant to believe that they opposed slaveowners and supported the Union, and those elements played some part. But self interest had more to do with it.

Trade with northern cities was more economically significant to coastal northeastern NC than their dealings with the rest of the state. Roads were bad and railroads were limited to the Piedmont, so shipping was more important for trade. In the referendum about secession, 81% of voters in my ancestral county voted NO, while the percentage was reversed in some Piedmont counties.

In that county, 46% of the Civil War soldiers fought for the Union and 54% for the Confederacy, with plenty who started out Confederate and switched sides. Over half of the Union soldiers and sailors were black, and their allegiance is self-explanatory. As for the whites, the part of the county with the most Unionists was furthest from navigable waterways, with the poorest swampiest land and the fewest slaves. "Rich man's war, poor man's fight" was clearly their perception of the plantation aristocracy dragging the South into a catastrophic confrontation with superior forces.

Like anywhere else, peer pressure and local considerations had much to do with allegiance. Although "brother against brother" sometimes did occur, by and large families and neighborhoods were either Unionist or Confederate. People followed the lead of their relatives and neighbors in choosing sides.

CYD

[txaslftist]

8. You left out a major choice...

"The North was correct. It was about preserving the union."

That was Lincoln's justification for the war. That was what he sold it on. Freeing the slaves was not his justification, or he would have said so.

The Emancipation Proclamation was issued so that it only freed the slaves in the "States in Rebellion". If the war was about freeing the slaves, shouldn't the slaves in the Union have been freed first?

but...but... there weren't any slaves in the union! There sure as shit were. Mostly in the border states that went union and Lincoln couldn't afford to piss off in the middle of a war. There were also freed blacks who fought on the southern side, as well as many mixed race troops.

Your poll isn't too simplistic. It's just plain innaccurate.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

11. Well, since I wrote down that the south wished to secede...

I think it is fairly obvious that the North did NOT want that.

[txaslftist]

12. Each choice with the north being correct referenced slavery...

That is the error. It assumes a fact that is not true. The civil war was fought over the south's attempt to secede, not over their owning slaves.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

17. Slavery has consequences beyond the actual slaves,

especially economic consequences. Since economic issues, the Tariff of Abomination, and the loss of slaves precipitated the drive to secede, it does come back to Slavery.

Here is a point from the cause of secession of Georgia:

A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state.

[Pithy Cherub]

33. reference materials:

Henry Mayer, "All on Fire"
Stephen B. Oates, "The Approaching Fury"
Fredrick Dougalss, "The Life and Times of Fredrick Douglass"
William Lee Miller, "Arguing About Slavery"

The South wanted to secede because their way of life was threatened - slavery provided income to the southern aristocracy which populated the Congress...

[SemiCharmedQuark]

20. Patrick Cleburne was castigated for suggesting that black soldiers fight

with whites.

When Gen. William Walker sent it directly to President Davis, Davis sent a message to Johnston immediately stating, in part "Deeming it to be injurious to the public service that such a subject should be mooted, or even known to be entertained by persons possessed of the confidence ...,"

The incident was kept quiet.

[Mr.Green93]

9. Why did you leave out

sexual orientation?

[txaslftist]

13. I'm pretty sure sexual orientation didn't cause the civil war.

[cattleman22]

14. How about Other

I think the answer is that the North was right, however it was about a variety of isses, including but not limited to slavery.

[MsTryska]

22. mm...i think there's two separate issues here:

1 - the moral issues surrounding slavery and man as property.

2 - the constitutional issues in the form of states rights.


if the moral issue was in favor of slavery, then yes, the south had every right to secede.

that wasn't the case tho.

[izzybeans]

23. I find this poll redundant.

Isn't slavery about economics since the essence of it is unpaid and forced labor? So all of the above seems correct. The difference between the north and south was purely racial and that difference is directly reflected in the organization of the labor force-slaves and their masters vs. indentured industrial servants and the emerging industrial class. So if the issue is over slavery its simulataneously about race and money because slave labor was part of the economy. Right? Of course they wanted to escape paying their workforce because they justified their exploitation with racism. Regardless of the justification at the time it was inevitably about race and money because the workforce was completely divided along those lines. I see all this as inseperable. The south only masks one of the darkest histories of colonial america (perhaps tied with or second to the colonialist genocide of natives) by claiming it was about economics and so let's celebrate "our heritage". It's mystification of the racial prejudices that still exist and still structure the economy.

[wishlist]

31. Slavery was integral to Southern economy so you can't separate the two-

You are right. Since slaves were a huge percentage of the population and responsible for the prosperity of labor intensive farming and other businesses, the powerful Southerners who decided to secede certainly considered protecting their economic interests and property to be inseparable from protecting slavery.

I don't quite understand the pervasive efforts to justify and defend the 'honor' and bravery of the Confederates while downplaying the racism underpinning their cause. Many Americans have been quick to label war protestors as unpatriotic and disloyal for opposing U.S. policy and military actions in Vietnam and Iraq. But there seems to be a mystifying reluctance to label Confederates as unpatriotic disloyal traitors even though they fought against the United States of America in defense of their economic system and way of life that included tyrannical oppression.

[izzybeans]

32. Despite there

being a number of poor agriculturists scattered around the south who did not hold slaves. Many still chose sides with the elite land holding class who did-supposedly on the issue of states rights if you believe all of the above thread and some of the earliest histories of the CW. That is something that needs to be explained. It seems a similar alignment is occurring in the south.

the traitorous aspect of the confederacy is one check mark on a long list of hypocracy.

[cattleman22]

35. RE: Why Confederate soldiers fought

I thought that something like 99% of all confederate soldiers did not own slaves and many of these people were actually hurt by a slave based economy.

I think most confederate soldiers fought to defend their state. The troops were organized based on what state they were from. People had a much greater sense of being Virginians or Tenneseans than they did Americans.

I am from VA and I get the sense that many of the soldiers from VA who fought were not any more racist than the average Northern soldiers. If southern soldiers only fought for slavery, why would they put up with the conditions they did. Under the best of circumstances, 1/3 of the Army of Northern VA had no shoes. At one time the Army of Northern VA marched for 5 days without rations. I doubt anyone would do that if they were simply fighting for slavery, when that economic system did not benefit them personally.


This whole subject it very touchy. There are many who will quickly label me a racist because I think the reasons for the Civil War are more complex than just saying slavery.

[WoodrowFan]

41. 99% is WAY off.

The 99% figure is way off. Here are some numbers from a University site about Slavery...

Statistics
10% worked in industry
15% worked as domestic servants or non-agricultural, non-industrial labor
75 % worked in agriculture: 55% raising cotton, 10 % raising tobacco; 10 percent raising sugar

In 1830--36 percent of southern families owned at least one slave; by 1860 only 24 percent of southern families owned slaves

49 percent of slaveholders owned fewer than 5 slaves

51 percent of slaveholders owned more than 5 slaves

In 1860, 73.4 percent of slaveholders held fewer than 10 slaves;

In 1860, 73.4 percent of slaves lived in communities with more than 10 slaves


===============
from http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=653
===============
The white South’s social structure was much more complex than the popular stereotype of proud aristocrats disdainful of honest work and ignorant, vicious, exploited poor whites. The old South’s intricate social structure included many small slaveowners and relatively few large ones.

Large slaveholders were extremely rare. In 1860 only 11,000 Southerners—three-quarters of one percent of the white population—owned more than 50 slaves; a mere 2358 owned as many as 100 slaves. However, although large slaveholders were few in number, they owned most of the South’s slaves. Over half of all slaves lived on plantations with 20 or more slaves and a quarter lived on plantations with more than 50 slaves.

Slave ownership was relatively widespread. In the first half of the nineteenth century, one-third of all southern white families owned slaves, and a majority of white southern families either owned slaves, had owned them, or expected to own them. These slaveowners were a diverse lot. A few were African American, mulatto, or Native American; one-tenth were women; and more than one in ten worked as artisans, businesspeople, or merchants rather than as farmers or planters. Few led lives of leisure or refinement.

The average slaveowner lived in a log cabin rather than a mansion and was a farmer rather than a planter. The average holding varied between four and six slaves, and most slaveholders possessed no more than five.

White women in the South, despite the image of the hoop-skirted southern belle, suffered under heavier burdens than their northern counterparts. They married earlier, bore more children, and were more likely to die young. They lived in greater isolation, had less access to the company of other women, and lacked the satisfactions of voluntary associations and reform movements. Their education was briefer and much less likely to result in opportunities for independent careers.

The plantation legend was misleading in still other respects. Slavery was neither dying nor unprofitable. In 1860 the South was richer than any country in Europe except England, and it had achieved a level of wealth unmatched by Italy or Spain until the eve of World War II.

The southern economy generated enormous wealth and was critical to the economic growth of the entire United States. Well over half of the richest 1 percent of Americans in 1860 lived in the South.

[sealed]

39. Lincoln said

"If I could preserve the Union by freeing all the slaves
I would do so; if I could preserve it by freeing
none I would do so; if I could preserve it by
freeing some and not others I would do so."

[SemiCharmedQuark]

42. Please finish the rest of that quote

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."

The Autocrat of all the Russias will resign his crown, and proclaim his subjects free republicans sooner than will our American masters voluntarily give up their slaves."
--From the August 15, 1855 Letter to George Robertson
"You know I dislike slavery; and you fully admit the abstract wrong of it."
--From the August 24, 1855 Letter to Joshua Speed

"The slave-breeders and slave-traders, are a small, odious and detested class, among you; and yet in politics, they dictate the course of all of you, and are as completely your masters, as you are the master of your own negroes."
--From the August 24, 1855 Letter to Joshua Speed

"I believe this Government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free."
--From the June 16, 1858 House Divided Speech

"This is a world of compensations; and he who would be no slave, must consent to have no slave."
--From the April 6, 1859 Letter to Henry Pierce

"One section of our country believes slavery is right, and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong, and ought not to be extended."
--From the March 4, 1861 Inaugural Address

"I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel. And yet I have never understood that the Presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right to act officially upon this judgment and feeling."
--From the April 4, 1864 Letter to Albert Hodges

"One eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war."
--From the March 4, 1865 Inaugural Address

[WoodrowFan]

40. Hell, the South said it was about Slavery

Hell, the South said it was about Slavery until they lost. All of the sudden it wasn't!

From the “Cornerstone Speech” delivered by CSA Vice President Alexander H. Stephens, March 21, 1861.

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/corner.html
African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.{emphasis added}

[WI Independent]

43. Other - a rush to war

You asked the cause of the WAR. Most of what's been discussed are reasons leading to the secession. The cause of the WAR (arguably) was Lincoln's lack of patience in reaching a diplomatic solution to bring them back into the union. The south didn't invade the north. The attack on Fort Sumnter resulting in no deaths (possibly one, I've read both) was a stretch to use as a reason to invade.

Here we sit 140+ years later and Lincoln is remembered as "the President that freed the slaves and preserved the union". We forget the 2%+/- of our population that were killed... we forget the "freed" slaves who were only marginally better off for the next 100 years... Anyone wondering why Bush thinks he can pull off what he's doing in Iraq might want to dig a little deeper into the beginning of a war 140+ years ago.

And here I was worried I would not be liberal/progressive enough to fit in here. :)

[SemiCharmedQuark]

45. The reason the slaves were only "marginally better" as you say

has a lot to do with the failure of reconstruction. This is the fault of Johnson, not Lincoln.

Further, how long was Lincoln to wait before he declared war?

[WI Independent]

51. Reconstruction would most likely

gone a lot better if Lincoln had lived.

How long would you wait before declaring a war that would have brothers killing each other?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

56. Well...

the longer the South had to organize and form its own confederacy, the more difficult it would be to reform the union.

[Yupster]

47. There was quite a move, especially in the senate

to avoid the secessions after South Carolina left.

It was called the Crittenden Committee and the best known senators served on it including Seward for the Republicans and Davis for the Democrats. I give Lincoln much blame that he did not embrace that effort and instead killed it by his refusal to get involved with it.

Bush certainly blundered us into Iraq, but Lincoln's handling of the secession crisis is even worsier, or maybe even worsiest.

[WI Independent]

52. I think Lincoln

seriously underestimated how hard the southerners would fight hostile troops on their home turf. I believe he thought it was going to be a quick victory with little bloodshed... I seriously doubt he EVER envisioned 4 years of war and 600,000+ dead. To put it in perspective, as a percentage of population that would be about 6 million today.

And yep... Bush seriously underestimated Iraq in much the same manner.

[kwassa]

48. what complete nonsense

WI Independent
"You asked the cause of the WAR. Most of what's been discussed are reasons leading to the secession. The cause of the WAR (arguably) was Lincoln's lack of patience in reaching a diplomatic solution to bring them back into the union. The south didn't invade the north. The attack on Fort Sumnter resulting in no deaths (possibly one, I've read both) was a stretch to use as a reason to invade."

South Carolina seceeded AND attacked Federal troops!

Oh, I'm sorry, that was a misunderstood plea for peace and understanding and reconciliation. Lincoln should have seen what the artillery attack and the demolishing the fort really meant!

and those Japanese really didn't intend to attack Pearl Harbor, did they? They were really just looking for a place to vacation, and somehow their bombs fell off their planes!

[WI Independent]

50. I'll admit

to playing a bit of a devil's advocate. My real point was the Civil War (as most wars) was not as simple as a "right" and "wrong" side.

No US soldiers were killed by Confederates at Fort Sumter. They weren't even captured, they were taken to US Navy ships.

An account by the Confederate General...
http://americancivilwar.com/statepic/sc/sc001.html

Note the letter from Lincoln to the Govenor of SC he cites as his reason for not waiting it out. Personally I think Lincoln manuevered the south into firing the first shot.

[Ladyhawk]

55. Some think FDR maneuvered the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor.

Maybe he did. :shrug:

The older I get, the more stupid war looks to me. It seems it never really accomplishes much.

[kwassa]

57. Sounds like a baseless conspiracy theory to me.

The lack of death toll at Sumter reflects only that Anderson realized he had no way of holding out as the Confederates could easliy starve him to death, as well as destroy his undermanned command. He surrendered accordingly.

I think your thesis has no merit, quite honestly.

[Woody Wood]

49. Neither.

[Spider Jerusalem]

54. Slavery AND economics...

The question of extending slavery into the territories was a major casus belli, as was Southern opposition to tariffs imposed by a Northern-dominated Congress. The tariffs were put in place to encourage US industry, which was concentrated in the North; the agrarian South at the time imported most of its industrial goods from Britain, and so was hurt by the tariffs. The causes of the war are complex and not easily reducible to a single issue.

And whatever the reasons behind secession were, most Confederates weren't fighting to uphold slavery. The majority of them were poor dirt farmers who wanted to defend their homes (like my 4th great-grandfather, who joined the Georgia militia when Sherman's troops were on the march).

[kwassa]

58. Slavery was the only real issue

"The causes of the war are complex and not easily reducible to a single issue."

The cause is very simple and reducible to a single issue. Slavery was the proximate cause of the war. The Southern economy depended on slave labor. Both state's rights and economic issues refer back to the slavery issue, so it all comes down to slavery.

The war was initiated by Southerners, both through secesssion and aggression against Federal troops. Loyalty to one's state and region brought many Southerners into the conflict once the war started who were not slave owners, but the issue that precipitated all the conflict was slavery, and more specifically, the extension of slavery into new territories in the west.

This tension between the slave-holding agrarian South and the more industrial North has been with the country since the beginning, and was an issue in the forming of the Constitution. This was not solved in the Constitution, and various congressional initiatives to limit or end slavery took place in Congress in the forty years before the Civil War. The Southern planters basically overreacted to a false perception of threat from Northern abolitionists, and precipitated the conflict.