Was the Civil War state-sponsored revolution?

[brentspeak]

In the sense that only a violent war could have upended the South's established slavery status quo? The South were considered "rebels" (and considered themselves as "rebels") because they seceded from the Union; but by upending the South's status quo -- i.e., slavery, and the entire longstanding economic and political system surrounding it -- would it be correct to label the North as acting as "revolutionaries"?

[Vinnie From Indy]

1. It is important to remember that Lincoln did not emancipate the slaves

until many months after the war had started.

[brentspeak]

5. However, is it accurate to say that freeing the slaves was always a secret goal of Lincoln?

The war got underway under the main issue of secession, preceded by decades of debate about the expansion of slavery. But once the war was underway, it seemed like Lincoln was saying, "All right, now that we've started this, let's just upend the entire system they have there -- like getting rid of slavery."

[Frances]

2. Who started the war?

Who fired the first shots?

That's what I asked my mother when she was complaining about the damage the Yankees did to the South during the Civil War/the War Between the States.

The Emancipation Proclamation came AFTER the war started.

Of course, the Abolitionists were against slavery, but they were in the minority even in the North. The big argument was over whether slavery would be allowed in the territories that were being admitted as states.

At least that's the way I remember my history.

[brentspeak]

3. You and Vinnie make a good point I didn't consider

that the Emancipation Proclamation came after the war started, as well as your point about the issue being the expansion of slavery.

[el_bryanto]

4. Yes - that's key - the South dragged the North into a war the North didn't seek

I think "fuck the south" threads are stupid, but I am in favor of "fuck neo-confederists." When it comes to the Civil War I'm a Yankee and proud of it.

To the larger point - all societies evolve and the technological advances of the north and the influx of immigrants was going to doom slavery eventually anyway (although the history of civil rights shows that the South wasn't going to give it up in a hurry) - in that sense there was a revolution occuring.

Bryant

[Ozymanithrax]

6. The south fired the first official shot.

The first shot was fired on January 10, 1861. It was fired by the South Carolinians on Morris Island. They fired on the Union Ship "Star of the West" as it attempted to reinforce Major Anderson at Fort Sumter.

[Ozymanithrax]

7. Jefferson Withdrew from the Senate on January 21, 1861

On February 18, 1861, the provisional Congress of the Confederate States made him provisional president. He was elected to the office by popular vote the same year for a 6-year term and was inaugurated in Richmond, Virginia, the capital of the Confederacy, on February 22, 1862.

[Ozymanithrax]

8. On December 20, 1860, South Carolinians in Charleston voted to secede from the Union.

President James Buchanan declared the secession illegal but did not act to stop it for he also declared going to war to stop it was also illegal.

[EC]

9. I think it was a labor war...

The North couldn't compete with free labor and wanted even footing...

[Frances]

10. There's a famous essay by Bruce Catton comparing Lee and

Grant.

Catton argues that the white men in the Midwest fought so that they could earn a better place in society due to their own merit and hard work. You are right to note that it would be hard for a white man to get paid a decent wage if a slave was going to do the work for no wages. Of course, the slave owner did have to buy a slave, but then any children that slave had would also be a slave. IMO, the very cruelest thing that any slave owner ever did was to sell children that were born to him and his female slaves.

Catton argues that the "North" wanted the country to expand because the bigger and stronger the country was, the more opportunities there would be for free men hoping to work their way up the ladder of prosperity.

Southerners fought for the status quo; in the antebellum South a person's social status was determined at birth--a white person would never go to the very bottom of the social ladder because that place was occupied by slaves.

It seems to me that Republicans want to go back to the Southern idea where there was an aristocracy and wealth was passed down from father to son with no regard for merit. Somewhere I have a clipping that appeared in the Wall Street Journal back in 2000 arguing that an aristocracy is a good thing.

[nemo137]

11. This also ties into the support of the British working class for emancipation

during the early 19th century - it goes back to ideas about the proper value of labor, even more than any bonds of common humanity. Robin Blackburn is great on this.