RE: Why did they fight?

RE: Why did they fight? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865

Message

Erik Rutins -> RE: Why did they fight? (7/13/2007 1:55:08 AM)
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-Directors-William-Daniels/dp/B000067D1R/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-5085827-8403668?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1184280611&sr=8-1

Yogi the Great -> RE: Why did they fight? (7/13/2007 4:01:50 PM)
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. 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 -> RE: Why did they fight? (7/13/2007 4:53:22 PM)
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 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 -> RE: Why did they fight? (7/13/2007 6:11:04 PM)
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.) Dude

MengCiao -> RE: Why did they fight? (7/13/2007 7:56:59 PM)
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

MengCiao -> RE: Why did they fight? (7/13/2007 8:10:59 PM)
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

Valdemar -> RE: Why did they fight? (7/14/2007 1:21:45 AM)
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 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 -> RE: Why did they fight? (7/14/2007 1:37:08 AM)
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 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 -> RE: Why did they fight? (7/14/2007 2:35:06 AM)
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. 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 -> RE: Why did they fight? (7/14/2007 3:31:10 AM)
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.

Valdemar -> RE: Why did they fight? (7/14/2007 5:04:27 AM)
Gray; Most people are just parroting what they've heard someone else say. It's sad but true that the average American is not well educated, terribly uninformed, not paying attention, and generally doesn't care about events now, or in the past. But to your point... The reason that the distortions and untruths about Lincoln are so prevalent is that the modern history of the Civil War is being written by Liberal intellectuals. Now you might be wondering why Liberals would want to rewrite the history when they claim to be the modern champions of "oppressed" minorities? Well, the answer is that Abolition, as a cause, was overwhelmingly driven by what today would be known as "the Christian Right". Thats a fact. And a Liberal admitting, much less crediting, Christians with awakening America's conscience over the slavery issue is dangerous for them. First, they just despise everything Christians believe in, but more importantly, that same cry for decency that Christians raised about slavery then, is the same cry being raised to oppose the sexualization of children, homosexuality, divorce, the Welfare State, and generally all the other Post-Modernist Nihilistic tripe that Liberals believe in and want to force on the rest of us. Thats why they want to rewrite history. Allowing Americans to learn that Christian values can be good for America threatens their agenda. 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. However, as I said at the beginning, I think most of it is pure ignorance. They've heard some Ph.D. say it and therefore it MUST be true, cause by God, he's got a Ph.D. and that's as far as they think about it. It never occurs that the guy with the Ph.D. might have an agenda that is something other than the truth. Nothing is more dangerous to your freedom than a sanctimonious, self-righteous Liberal with a "cause". Regards and thanks. Valdemar

Rexor -> RE: Why did they fight? (7/14/2007 5:31:36 AM)
Hmmm. Incandescent, are we? And here you are wondering why those Europeans you mention earlier might be a wee bit wary of Americans. I can't imagine why.

Twotribes -> RE: Why did they fight? (7/14/2007 2:36:53 PM)
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.

Twotribes -> RE: Why did they fight? (7/14/2007 2:40:59 PM)
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.

Erik Rutins -> RE: Why did they fight? (7/14/2007 5:44:44 PM)
Valdemar, 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. 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.

Valdemar -> RE: Why did they fight? (7/14/2007 10:14:19 PM)
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. Erik; Several people have commented and wondered aloud why there is so much misinformation and erroneous views about the Civil War's origins. It's impossible to offer an explanation for that without addressing modern revisionism and the political motives behind it. However, I think its important to abide by the rules and I respect the intent behind them. Regards, Valdemar

Valdemar -> RE: Why did they fight? (7/14/2007 11:32:54 PM)
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. Tribes; I've already explained that the southern reaction to the 1828 Tariffs were politically motivated. I encourage you to read both Calhoun's remarks and those of Daniel Webster and you'll see for yourself that the crisis wasn't about the economic effects of the Tariff at all. Let me give you an example, Europe was in recession and their currencies devalued. That made European imports more expensive than Northern competitors. Right, so we got that already. In addition, the low European currencies also made southern exports, namely cotton, more expensive. As a consequence, Europeans bought less cotton, because it was more expensive and because their economies had shrunk some and they needed to buy less. Now, this secondary economic issue had nothing to do with the Tariff at all. Even if there had been no tariff, Europe would've bought less cotton. However, that was blamed on the Tariff to add fuel to the fire. I am forced to take issue with two things that you've mischaracterized about the circumstances. The South did have representation in Congress when the Act was passed. They were simply out-voted. And the other thing is that the South was not being forced to buy from the North. They were free to continue buying from whomever they wished, they would just have to pay the tax. Northern goods were not sold to the south at outrageous prices. Northern manufacturers were eager for the southern markets and competition was intense, which was good for southern consumers. Let me ask you a couple of questions. If there had been no tension between North and South over the slavery issue, do you think there would have been a Nullification Crisis and threats from South Carolina to secede over the Tariff? Now you know why I say that things like the Tariff were not economic issues for the War because any person acquainted with the history would realize that there would have been some griping by those segments of the southern economy made less profitable, but it would've never gotten to the brink of war. You make a very good point about Slavery. Indeed, slavery is all about economics. And I understand that you're saying that southerners went to war to protect their economic interests. Well, that would be true if the whole of the South benefited from plantation agriculture manned by slaves. But most southerns didn't benefit at all and had no stake in seeing slavery continued. So why then, did southerners go to war? Again, now you see why I say that economics had no part. Cotton plantations would still have been profitable without slave labor, just not as profitable. The proof of that is the resurgence of cotton as a cash crop in the South after the War when the great plantations had been sold off to smaller holders and growers had to pay to laborers to bring in the crop, and they still made money. It just wasn't the fabulous sums that large plantation owners had enjoyed. But again, don't take my word for it. Look it up and you'll see for yourself. You also make a good point about homesteading. Unfortunately, the objection to homesteading was about the threat it presented to slavery, not economics. Here's my proof: 1) Homesteaders were limited to 160 acres (by all the laws, not just 1862). There is no way family run farms of 160 acres were going to threaten much less compete with plantation agriculture economically. Cotton and tobacco were high-value cash crops. Homesteaders were truck farmers (veggies, fruits, livestock). 2) The principle philosophy behind homesteading was self-sufficiency. The tradition of the American yeoman farmer, if you will. This was hand-in-hand with the northern view on labor as embodied by the Republicans, and the Free-Soilers movement. This was a threat the political assumptions underlying slavery. You can't espouse a free labor market, a free market for goods, and allow people to be economically independent and at the same time practice slavery. Sources: Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men by Eric Foner Antebellum Agricultural Reform by Susan T. Phillips You'll have to explain how the plantation system depended on poor whites. I don't understand the connection. Now let me ask, if there had been no tension at all over slavery, do you think that the South would've used homesteading as a cassus belli (cause for war)? If not, then you'll have to agree with me that it was not a factor in the origins of the War. The point I'm trying to drive home is that I don't make statements about the War not having economic causes because that makes me happy or I like the sound of it or because I have some ax to grind. I come to that conclusion because that's what the facts support. OK? Valdemar

Valdemar -> RE: Why did they fight? (7/15/2007 12:24:27 AM)
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. Tribes; Man, this like the 3rd or fourth time you've misquoted and mischaracterized what I've said. Go back and look at what I said about those who support the economic theory. I said that MOST/MANY people who suggest that economic factors were the MAIN/ONLY reason for the War, do so because they have a Marxist view of history. I can think of only one author who is a proponent of economics being the cause of the War who is not a revisionist. There may be others, but of the half dozen or so books that make that argument, all but one are written from a Marxist world view and seek to revise the history. Again, I make statements like this because thats what the facts are. I don't have an agenda to discredit the economic theory. I discredit it only because the facts don't support it, not because of a few revisionists. OK? I did NOT say that anyone who suggests that some economics played a part in the war are Marxists. You said that. I never said that, nor does what I said even imply that. Nor do I believe that if you think there were economic factors that you are therefore a Marxist. Nothing I've said implies that I did believe that. Now, I DID read what you said and I saw that you credited slavery as the prime cause, so what makes you think I was talking about you? I wasn't talking about you, I wasn't thinking anything negative about you, and it never even occurred to me that because you took a point with me that therefore you're a Marxist. That never even entered my head. For the record, my attempt at an explanation to Gray's comment had absolutely NOTHING to do with you or what you'd said. I don't even know how you could get that notion from what I wrote, unless you're a Marxist/Liberal and were just offended? I'm mystified. I called you a uneducated simpleton? Where? I challenge you to find anywhere in this thread where I said that or even implied that. Again, that thought never entered my head. I'll repeat, my comments to Gray were GENERALIZED and I had no one specific in mind, nor was I aiming those comments at anyone. Even then, I was trying to relate my opinion of the situation in as matter-of-fact a tone as possible. For the record, I do not think that you are an uneducated simpleton. Further, my first response to you was not a tirade. I was stating facts. I was respectful in my tone - there was no condescension, no put downs, no personal attacks. I just engaged you in a frank discussion like an adult. Adults are supposed to be able to speak bluntly with each other without getting their feelings hurt. You obviously read a lot more into my tone than my words reveal and I challenge you to quote a line that was in anyway disrespectful or constituted a tirade. The reason I was terse with you at the end is that you were putting words in my mouth (which you've done again) and that irritates me. Wouldn't you be irritated if I misquoted you, misrepresented what you said, and put words in your mouth? Wouldn't that irritate you? I suggest that if you want to continue this part of the discussion, send me a PM. Valdemar

Leegen -> RE: Why did they fight? (7/15/2007 3:55:09 AM)
[So why did the South fight? And having begun why did they fight so fiercely and for so long when it was obvious they could not win.] I think we�re mixing and matching two very different questions in trying to address Roger�s query here. #1) Why did the political entities of the Southern states secede from the Union and go to war? And #2) Why did the average southern soldier fight in that war? The politicians who led the southern states represented the landholders (more land = more political power) and to them, without question, slavery was the overriding issue. As someone pointed out above, the plantation owners were making a killing by using slave labor, and they did not want to give up that huge money-maker without a fight. Even though, as someone noted, the average voter was more aware of what was going on in the 19th century, there were much fewer of them. In the 2004 election about 42% of the American population (that�s men, women, and children) cast a vote, compared to about 8.4% in 1860 (excluding slaves). Politicians primarily represented the landowners, not the vast majority of the population. They led the south to war because, as has been noted above, their livelihood would have been greatly threatened by the abolition of slavery and they increasingly saw the non-slave parts of the U.S. as threatening to the slave system. Yes, the south as a whole could still have had a viable economy without slavery, but the contemporary political elite would have had a much smaller slice of it. The average civil war soldier did not have the money or land to influence the politicians. I am sure there were some that thought slavery to be what the war was about, but certainly that was not what the average soldier was fighting for. As has been pointed out several times above, many people of that era had a greater loyalty to their state than to the United States. I�m not sure that much of an army could have been raised to go conquer the North, but many hundreds of thousands were willing to fight and die to protect their native lands from invasion. Many believed that it wasn�t any outsider�s business, if they wanted to form their own government and rule themselves. They fought so fiercely and so long because they were defending their homes and I think we all would fight the fiercest for that. I too am an anti-communist, but economics is pretty important to us capitalists also. I think it would be really difficult to divorce any war completely from economics. There are certainly other issues such as geography, history, self-defense, and belief systems that may well be more important in causing a conflict. But how one fares monetarily will almost always be a factor both individually and collectively.

Twotribes -> RE: Why did they fight? (7/15/2007 4:19:25 AM)
We are at cross points. To claim the war had nothing to do with economics is at best Nieve ( crap cant spell that word). Slavery WAS the primary cause of the war and the souths poor whites fought mostly because they were lead to beleive the North was intent on subjegating them. How? By Tariffs and taxes that were primarily designed to PROTECT the industrial North. How were whites leaving the south dangerous for the south? You can not be serious? Who was gonna provide all the services , the maintenance of skilled labor ( even an agrarian society has skills and skilled labor) AND the number of people for representation in Congress? Prior to the 14th Amendment it did not matter that people were excluded from voting, they still counted for numbers of representatives in Congress. Free land and land that did not require slaves to run were a direct economic and political threat to the Slave owners in the South. I too am being general in nature. But in the end economics WAS the reason for the war, Slavery being the direct economic factor followed by an Industrialized larger North passing legislation that impacted a non Industrialized South harder.

Roger Neilson II -> RE: Why did they fight? (7/15/2007 8:22:56 AM)
I'm reading all these with interest. I am really getting a much greater appreciation of the whole background - and developing a lot of sympathy for the majority of the Southerners - which I never thought I'd have. In some ways the picture I'm getting is more like a stereotypical South American Banana Republic - most of those countries have been about keeping a small political elite in power rather than doing what's best for the country. Roger

kapnkirk -> RE: Why did they fight? (7/15/2007 10:39:45 AM)
Leegen brings up an interesting point, and one that seems to be getting overlooked ("Many believed that it wasn�t any outsider�s business, if they wanted to form their own government and rule themselves."). The "State's Rights" issue. Many of the Southern states resented Federal attempts to abolish slavery. They considered it a right guaranteed under the Constitution as stated in the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Southern politicians played this issue up quite a bit with the common southern man. Twotribes sums things up quite nicely for this whole discussion when he says he (and everyone else btw) was being too general. The civil war was a long time in the making, and the seeds were sown during colonization. The complexities of its causes are the very reason why it is so fascinating to study.

Bombsight -> RE: Why did they fight? (7/15/2007 10:04:45 PM)
Twotribes is very close to an easy answer for "why they fought". As the prospect of territories becoming organized and becoming free states to the point that the political equation of Southern power was threatened, the monolithic power block in the South was forced to act. In 1854 with the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the south could no longer ensure a 50-50 deadlock in the senate (and the electoral college). The old formula that guaranteed Southern bargaining power was no longer valid. Hence, the violence referred to as "Bloody Kansas" and the Jayhawk war waged by Southern interests against free soilers. At the same time, a political conflict was being waged in California to exclude slave labor from the gold mines. Another side show involved the routing of the proposed trans-contenental railroad. The South lost each of these contests and their perceived ability to dictate polotics was in question. As long as a slave state state was admitted with every free state, the Southern power bloc could dictate US economic policy. If slaves were admitted to the gold fields, the ecomic advantage would shift to slave intereests. If the transcontental railroad was through the southern route (origen for the term "Southern Pacific"), the economic benefits go to the side where the rails run. When these decisions were not decided in the South's favor, it became obvious that a sectional conflict was coming. With the loss of the voting strangle hold in the Senate, the North would dictate economic policy and slavery was doomed. The people dictating policy in the South were threatened because the economic basis of their power was doomed. The interests controlling the South began looking for an exit strategy from the Union and the election of Abraham Lincoln sufficed.

dude -> RE: Why did they fight? (7/16/2007 7:07:01 AM)
Just thought I'd provide this view from a participant of the war.... (I'm just providing it... not making a case one way or another...) "The cause of the great War of the Rebellion against the United States will have to be attributed to slavery.� For some years before the war began it was a trite saying among some politicians that 'A state half slave and half free cannot exist.'� All must become slave or all free, or the state will go down.� I took no part myself in any such view of the case at the time, but since the war is over, reviewing the whole question, I have come to the conclusion that the saying is quite true." Ulysses S. Grant

dude -> RE: Why did they fight? (7/16/2007 7:43:09 AM)
Now for my two cents�(at least as it pertains to the CSA) Was the war over slavery, economics, or states rights? You can make a case for any one of these� but in a sense it�s the same case and they are all strongly related� you can�t have one without the other. You can�t claim it was just about slavery without admitting the economic impact the loss of slavery would have (or at least perceived to have by the slave owners). You can�t claim it was just about states rights without admitting what they wanted (the slave owners) was the right to have slaves. As I said earlier ask twelve people and you�ll get twelve answers� the causes of the war were many� but they were all tied together. There was not ONE cause that Everyone fought for or against. Every time I read something about the Civil War I always seem to find some new reason someone went to war. Sure the rich landowners had slaves and wanted to keep them due to the economic benefits. So why did the poor dirt farmer go to war? Some held out the hope that someday they too might be a rich plantation owner� some didn�t like the idea of their state being told what it could or couldn�t do by some far off government� keep in mind too who controlled the press coverage back then� the rich plantation owners� so what do you think the poorer people would hear about? What I�m trying to point out is that there was no ONE reason but that they were all tied together. In 1860 all the reasons finally fell together. Up until then (see earlier timelines posted by others) you might have one or two of these reasons crop up but they were never enough alone to start a civil war (although it was very close at times). However with all that being said� Slavery was still the underpinning major reason, without that one issue there most likely would not have been a civil war. But slavery itself was about economics. And being allowed to keep slaves was about States Rights. Making the masses scared of the federal government over states rights ensured that the rest of the population would fight if need be for the slave owners. So pick your reason� without States Rights I doubt the masses would have fought for the slave owners. If slavery wasn�t so profitable I doubt the slave owners would have gone to war over it. So when you try to make a claim for any ONE of these reasons please be aware how interlocking they really are and that they each require the others. Dude ps... my answer was... D) All of the above [while most everyone else I know picks A, B, or C and will argue each to death.] [;)]

gabriel night -> RE: Why did they fight? (7/16/2007 4:17:06 PM)
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.

MengCiao -> RE: Why did they fight? (7/16/2007 4:38:52 PM)
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 Sorry to have set off your Marxist alarm bells by going so far as to quote something that Marx wrote during the Civil War rather than making up something and ascribing it to Marxists in the Woodwork. It seemed relevent especially since the fictive world that the game seems to simulate is not the real world that Marx was observing at the time (which should not be surprising or "sinister" since one of the two is a game and the other is the world of the past). For example, in the game, the British Empire has a good chance of allying with the Confederacy, an event that, in Marx's view, was extremely unlikely. Marx seems to have been right about that as well as about the importance of the Emancipation Proclaimation. The game in fact seems to suggest that the War wasn't caused by anything in particular, especially since the Confederacy can be given the option of emancipating its own slaves. I think the game exaggerates the rationality or prudence of the Confederate scheme, but as so often in games that simulate unequal conflicts, the losing side has to be given better grounds for hope than it actually had, otherwise it would be a pointless game since I doubt many players would want to fight for the South in hopes of winning by surrendering even a few days later than happened historically.

dude -> RE: Why did they fight? (7/16/2007 4:51:40 PM)
The quote from Grant is from his book "Personal Memoirs of U.S. Grant".� It's in the last chapter (XXI), in the section titled "Conclusion".� It's an interesting read on his take if you get a chance to read that whole section. Here's another piece from that section... "�...Hence the people of the South were dependent upon keeping control of the general government to secure the perpetuation of their favorite institution.� They were enabled to maintain this control long after the States where slavery existed had ceased to have the controlling power, through the assistance they received from odd men here and there throughout the Northern States.� They saw their power waning, and this led them to encroach upon the prerogatives and independence of the Northern States by enacting such laws as the Fugitive Slave Law.� By this law every Northern man was obliged, when properly summoned, to turn out and help apprehend the runaway slave of a southern man.� Nothern marshals became slave-catchers, and Northern courts had to contribute to the suppor and protection of the institution. This was a degradation wich the North would not permit any longer than until they could get the power to expunge such laws from the statute books.� Prior to the time of these encroachments the great majority of the people of the North had no particular quarrel with slavery, so long as they were not forced to have it themselves.� But they were not willing to play the role of police for the South in the protection of this particular institution. In the early days of the country, before we had railroads, telegraphs and steamboats -- in a word, rapid transit of any sort -- the States were each almost a separate nationality.� At that time the subject of slavery caused but little or no disturbance to the public mind.� But the country grew, rapid transit was established, and trade and commerce between the States got to be so much greater than before, that the power of the National government became more felt and recognized and, therefore, had to be enlisted in the cause of this institution. It is probably well that we had the war when we did.� We are better off now than we would have been without it, and have made more rapid progress than we otherwise should have made. ..." U.S. Grant Grant goes on to even give a harsh reivew of the European powers of the time too.� It's an interesting read on his views of the war's cause and affects...� Dude

jkBluesman -> RE: Why did they fight? (7/16/2007 5:26:44 PM)
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. If you are looking for good primary sources, you should check out "Fighting for the Confederacy" by Edward Porter Alexander. Although it focusses on his life in the Army of Northern Virginia, the reflectionary depth makes it a valuable read.

dude -> RE: Why did they fight? (7/16/2007 6:44:33 PM)
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. I highly recommend Grant's Memoirs. Most historians that I've read agree that his book is perhaps one of the best written of the period. It's a very good read and not dry like most texts.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.3125