Slitherine

quote:

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.

quote:

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

quote:


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

quote:

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MengCiao

quote:


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/works/1861/10/25.htm

quote:

ORIGINAL: MengCiao

quote:

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/works/1861/us-civil-war/index.htm

quote:

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Valdemar
Additionally, Republicans were the ones leading the charge to emanicipate slaves. Modern Liberals want to keep blacks enslaved to the Welfare State and angry at middle-class Americans so they (the Liberals) will have a secure voting block and a wedge they can use to divide America along class and racial lines. Cause those Liberals just love a good class struggle. And allowing Americans to learn that Republicans were and are the champions of black emanicipation then and now, that again threatens their agenda and their political base.

Finally, Liberals believe America is an evil country. America is bad. Therefore, they write the history of the Civil War in the same light as Marx did (see the articles above). Again, this is to further a modern agenda. If they admit that America was a noble country in the past, then someone might get the dangerous notion that it still is a noble country and therefore a country worth defending and preserving. Liberals don't want that. So they write histories about the American Revolution and the Civil War that paint the leaders, the people, and the causes in a bad light, so that people will come to believe that America is bad from the root up.

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC



For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Valdemar,

You're new to the forum, so let me bring you up to speed on one of our most important rules. No politics - that means current politics. If you want to discuss the political situation during the Civil War, no problem. But when you start making comparisons to current politics you've crossed that line. Please keep the discussion to history, I'm certain given the intelligence you've shown that you make your point while avoiding modern comparisons if you want to.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

LOL, Slavery was indeed the main cause of the Civil War, I have already said that, and if you could bother to read whats written you would know that. Pretending though that economics had nothing to do with it is disengenuos at best. Your own tirade CLEARLY indicates the South was being FORCED to buy from the North by tariffs designed to make non northern goods to expensive.Tariffs specifically designed to protect a segment of the Country over another segment. That is a cause of revolt. Ever hear the " Taxation without representation" mantra? Tariffs are TAXES. Further slavery IS ALL ABOUT Economics. And then we have homesteading. Another matter that leads directly to Economics. The South not only depended on slaves it depended on poor whites unable to move and acquire land of their own. Home steading provided an out for those willing to risk the move and dangers in said move.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

AND whats truly funny is being branded a Marxist AND a Liberal. As well as an uneducated simpleton.

You may want to do some fact checking on my belief system.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Valdemar

quote:

ORIGINAL: MengCiao

quote:

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/works/1861/10/25.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

quote:

ORIGINAL: gabriel night

Dude,

What is the context of your U.S Grant quote, and where is it from? I have been meaning to do some reading from period authors. I am reading currently "Blue and Gray Navies; The Civil War Afloat", but it occurs to me I've never reading anything written by someone who actually fought in the conflict.

quote:

ORIGINAL: gabriel night

Dude,

What is the context of your U.S Grant quote, and where is it from? I have been meaning to do some reading from period authors. I am reading currently "Blue and Gray Navies; The Civil War Afloat", but it occurs to me I've never reading anything written by someone who actually fought in the conflict.