Origin: Civil War

Core

Fascinating...
Joined
Aug 3, 2011
Messages
389
Likes
0
Points
16
#1
Slavery was the central source of escalating political tension in the 1850s until the defeat of the Southern cause in 1860 (with Lincoln's election) seemed to leave disunion the only option for many southern whites. While not all southerners saw themselves as fighting to preserve slavery, most of the officers and over a third of the rank and file in Lee's army had close family ties to slavery. To northerners, in contrast, the motivation was primarily to preserve the union, and to abolish the support system of the enemy, slavery. When Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, many Democrats rejected the new war goal.




What do you believe either side was truly fighting for?
 
Joined
Sep 26, 2011
Messages
218
Likes
8
Points
18
#2
Slavery was the central source of escalating political tension in the 1850s until the defeat of the Southern cause in 1860 (with Lincoln's election) seemed to leave disunion the only option for many southern whites. While not all southerners saw themselves as fighting to preserve slavery, most of the officers and over a third of the rank and file in Lee's army had close family ties to slavery. To northerners, in contrast, the motivation was primarily to preserve the union, and to abolish the support system of the enemy, slavery. When Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, many Democrats rejected the new war goal.




What do you believe either side was truly fighting for?
The south believed they were fighting for states rights. . . they felt a great deal of "siege" from the north, especially because the north restricted the number of southern states that could be admitted so that the north would retain a senatorial majority. Lincoln wasn't even on the ballot in most Southern states, but he won irregardless. So, the South felt powerless and tyrannized.

So even non slave-holders thought they were protecting their "way of life".

Also, you need to imagine how southern whites, even poor ones, would consider this sentiment: "The north wants us to free the darkies so they can live among us and date our daughters!"

This was not a sentiment that caused much joyful anticipation among the southern whites. And there was a lot of southern rabble-rousing to the affect of that. The slaveholding elite were also the gentry and cultural elite of the South. So, like all other cultural/financial elites, they had enormous influence over their communities.

The causes of war in the north were, as you said, preserving the Union, but also because the south had begun to attack and seize Federal property (not state property). . . forts like Sumter for example. So, in this way, it was the south that initiated hostilities.
 

Core

Fascinating...
Joined
Aug 3, 2011
Messages
389
Likes
0
Points
16
#3
Mind if I dissect? :D:D

The south believed they were fighting for states rights. . . they felt a great deal of "siege" from the north, especially because the north restricted the number of southern states that could be admitted so that the north would retain a senatorial majority. Lincoln wasn't even on the ballot in most Southern states, but he won irregardless. So, the South felt powerless and tyrannized.

So even non slave-holders thought they were protecting their "way of life".
So you're saying it started with Lincoln' becoming president?

Also, you need to imagine how southern whites, even poor ones, would consider this sentiment: "The north wants us to free the darkies so they can live among us and date our daughters!"

This was not a sentiment that caused much joyful anticipation among the southern whites. And there was a lot of southern rabble-rousing to the affect of that. The slaveholding elite were also the gentry and cultural elite of the South. So, like all other cultural/financial elites, they had enormous influence over their communities.
The first part sentence is conjecture: You cant assume all southerners thought of darkies as inferior. As stated not all southerners even agreed with slavery but when the north categorized the entire south both type of men were thrown into same pot.
Second part is right, Yes most of the slaveholders were also rich, often had a military background, and had great influence in their state.

The causes of war in the north were, as you said, preserving the Union, but also because the south had begun to attack and seize Federal property (not state property). . . forts like Sumter for example. So, in this way, it was the south that initiated hostilities.
Sumter was the first :p In fact the tension surrounding the attack on that place took DECADES to build up. So it its not as cut and dry as saying the Union just defended Federal Property.

I am not an advocate of Slave-ocracy but I am trying to see how many people actually thought about the civil war... It was the most pointless war of the last millennium 650 thousand people died... and for what?

Simply to fight over slavery and rights? Red(Gray they ran out of paint) vs Blue? Good vs evil?!

Sure sounds good on paper!
But thats not what really happened was it -.-
 
Joined
Sep 26, 2011
Messages
218
Likes
8
Points
18
#4
Mind if I dissect? :D:D

So you're saying it started with Lincoln' becoming president?
It'd probably be more accurate to say that the tension started from the militant abolitionist movement (Causing the south to sense as if it were under attack), tensions over black slaves escaping to the north, and the North's careful mapping of new states as to prevent the South from gaining senatorial votes.

The first part sentence is conjecture: You cant assume all southerners thought of darkies as inferior. As stated not all southerners even agreed with slavery but when the north categorized the entire south both type of men were thrown into same pot.
True. . . still the fears of slave revolts and the fear of the North's desire to incite slave revolts (John Brown, for example) was certainly a motivator.

Sumter was the first :p In fact the tension surrounding the attack on that place took DECADES to build up. So it its not as cut and dry as saying the Union just defended Federal Property.
I guess I could look into it more, but I don't see why it was so important for the CSA to seize the fort.

I am not an advocate of Slave-ocracy but I am trying to see how many people actually thought about the civil war... It was the most pointless war of the last millennium 650 thousand people died... and for what?

Simply to fight over slavery and rights? Red(Gray they ran out of paint) vs Blue? Good vs evil?!

Sure sounds good on paper!
But thats not what really happened was it -.-
No. It was a complicated mess of a thing, on that we agree. But it wasn't without cause. . . as stupid as the causes were, it did get sparked.
 

Zero Phoenix

The Second Coming of Hazama
Joined
May 2, 2011
Messages
908
Likes
6
Points
18
#5
[MENTION=1543]Core[/MENTION] and [MENTION=3035]Dienekes[/MENTION]: I want to point out that Dienekes is off to a good start but I also want us to keep in mind that the origin of the Civil War was very deeply layered. States rights, human rights, anti-Lincoln parties, money, all of it played a role in the Civil War.

The north was becoming more and more industrialized and with the creation of the cotton gin, the demand for slaves dropped dramatically. It was said that one cotton gin could do the work of 200 slaves. Slaves were expensive. You had to pay for them, feed them, clothe them, and if a slave got sick the master had to pay for a doctor. Now we've all seen special and read books about masters letting slaves die but that is, in part, a way dramatizing an already ugly part of world history (yes world history). Truth is it would cost a slaveowner more money to get a new slave than it would to "fix" an existing one, so slaveowners had nothing to gain by foregoing medical help for a fieldhand. But in any case owning slaves was expensive, the south knew that and it was their primary export. The southern economy was supported by both cotton and slaves who picked that cotton.

Once the cotton gin came out however, the north didn't need to buy slaves from the south and the south was rapidly losing their profits. The history books tell us that Lincoln freed the slaves but the fact is the economy freed the slaves. As the south increased the cost of slaves, the north was looking for more economical alternatives and so came the cotton gin. With the cotton gin in play many slave owners had no need for fieldhands. Even without the Civil War, the slaves would have been freed within a 50 year period because as Dennis Leary has taught us, "Money determines everything, everywhere, at all times."

Just thought I'd mention that. Carry on. :smart: