Hi all: I am in the midst of putting together an honest piece on the civil war. I thought it would be a great idea to get your perspective as well. I have been educated on the war up east and now being down south "for a time" I am re-learning some things. What are your personal views of the war? I may use some comments in my blog...
Was the war only about states rights? slavery? Northern aggression? Southern Aggression? All of the above? Do you care at all?? Say whats on your mind about the topic.
I am going to write it from my perspective and wanted to hear what you have to say as well.
All comments will be posted.
You can tell me who you are, or post a comment below anonymously.
27 comments:
Slavery...PERIOD
Deep subject matter. I think the war was started out as a states rights issue, but politicians (up North) turned it into a slavery only issue.
I dont think you can write accurately about the civil war without attn paid to the economics of the time- the agri/industrial split played a role
Being able to buy your way out of having to fight was a total crock!
Being an avid war reader; my personal take on the Civil war was that there were significant social and economic differences between the North and South, the North, spurred on by President Lincoln wanted to unify the country, abolitionists were justifiably against slavery. No new news.
I agree with the above poster that the economics of the time played a major role in the beginning of the war. There are so many factors it is impossible to pinpoint one and say, "This--this reason above all others was the cause."
The south was too demanding and the north too selfish and unyielding. Would there have been a war if, when the south seceded they hadn't claimed all federal lands as theirs and Abraham Lincoln hadn't chosen his response to be a declaration of war? No other country has ever had to go to war with itself to abolish slavery, and neither did we. Although, that was a great outcome it certainly was not the primary cause.
I lived in the south as a kid and my parents are both southern. The south lives with the effects of a war from a century and a half ago much more so than the north does. The lack of old buildings from before then, a much closer cultural memory (at least, it seems that way), and more battlefields all around.
I didn't care much about it when I was younger, but as I've grown older when I hear people say that the Civil War was because of slavery I tend to write them off as not really knowing much about it and often anti-Southerner. If there hadn't been slavery in the south at the time there is still a good chance there would have been war. The idea that this was the only reason for the war, or even the primary one, seems to have emerged as a generic answer to a deep and convoluted problem.
A question I've heard asked in the past has been: would there have been a Civil War at all if Abraham Lincoln had been more of an understanding president? Of course, it's almost an untouchable topic, the fallibility of Lincoln, in light of the fact that he paid the ultimate price for his country.
The war for Southern Independence was not started over slavery. It was 20% of the people paying 80% of the taxes. Sound familiar? Gen. Grant was told 2 times to get rid of his slaves before the war started. Northerners did have slaves as well. Yes there were mean slave owners but the majority of them took care of their workers. Black slaves even fought for the Confederacy against the North to protect their homes and jobs.
Wow, okay so I wrote this long drawn our response and blogspot ate it. Not very nice. I'll try to rewrite what I wrote. *sigh*
I think, at the end of the day, it does come down to slavery. Not necessary that all Southerners were huge proponents of oppressing an entire race, but that the entire Southern economy, for good or bad, was tied up in cotton and tobacco and the backbone, so to speak of those industries was slavery.
I've done a lot of reading on the subject because frankly it fascinates me and if I remember correctly, states, starting with South Carolina began seceding from the Union almost immediately upon Lincoln's election to the presidency. How did a state secede, well their state legislature voted to do so and really, let's be honest, who was sitting in the seats of those state houses? The rich and well connected whose wealth was, you guessed it, dependent upon slavery and not only it's continuation, but its expansion.
Whenever people talk about states rights as the issue that caused the Civil War, they never get specific. They talk about a state's right to govern themselves as they see fit, small government versus large government (i.e. the same battles we're still fighting today), but they NEVER talk about the SPECIFIC issue in that states rights debate and the specific issue was self determination to enter the union as a slave state or free state. Period. There is no arguing over that, mostly because there were no other hot button states rights issues at the time. I defy someone to identify it if there were. The fact of the matter is people were dying daily in Kansas over slavery, over self determination and not over "small government" or electoral votes or even Abraham Lincoln.
Is it an oversimplification to call slavery the cause of the war, no I don't think so, but obviously the reasons states seceded and the reasons people fought are two very different things. The old south was an interesting place, full of lots of pride, European traditions on duty and honor. There was a reason men like Robert E. Lee and James Longstreet joined and led the army of Northern Virginia and it certainly wasn't slavery. There was a lot of foolishness and pigheadedness. You can get into the semantics of the southern states seizing federal lands and the nitty gritty details of the Constitution and the right of a government to abolish itself, but after this really long winded answer, it all comes down to the fact that foolish men in statehouses had their pride insulted and their pocketbooks threatened and didn't quite understand just what it would take to win a war with the highly industrialized North with a population that outnumbered them in a ridiculous ratio, whose rallying point would eventually become what the south couldn't defend, the right to oppress other men.
Wow, I rambled again and it's the second time I wrote this out. Okay, hopefully that was coherent and this time I'm going to copy it so even if it eats my post again, I'll still have it! ;-)
The Civil War was about slavery and many other issues as well. Anyone who says it was just slavery is ignoring all the other factors such as tariffs, taxes and the agrarian society in the south as opposed to the industrial north. Having said that, no state has the right to secede from the Union, nor should one man own another. Many people in the north owned slaves. Cherokee Indians owned slaves as did Seminole Indians in Florida. If no war had occurred slavery would have ended with in 10 years of when it did. The war hurried it along. The more industrialized the south became the less slaves were needed. It cost too much to take care of them.That is why most people in the south did not own slaves. I am 6th generation FLoridian and my relatives fought in the Confederate Army in the Civil War. They never owned slaves. Too expensive. Much easier to pay low wages and let the ex slaves fend for themselves which is what happened. States were much more important in people's lives than they are now. No one cared what the federals in Washington did. Everyone in Virginia cared what Richmond did. Lee fought for the South because he could not go against Virginia. He loved the state more than he loved the United States.
There will never been a consensus on the Civil War. Americans of all colors, creeds and national origin should thank God the south lost the war. The US would not be the same of there were two countries here. To speculate on that outcome would be another whole story.. :)
The bottom line to the cause of the Civil War: states rights, although slavery and other issues were involved. I had ancestors who fought on both sides. The U.S. is facing a similar situation now regarding states vs federal rights.
First of all, the American "Civil" War was started by the South, when they seized Fort Sumter. Though, initially, President Abraham Lincoln had proposed merely "containing" it in the states in which it existed legally, he had a change of heart, and, resolved to outlaw slavery throughout the United States (the included the *so-called* "Confederacy)."
One must view Lincoln and others who led the United States Government (i.e., North) during the Civil War according to the context of their era. They weren't perfect...In fact - by 21st Century standards - their social ideas seem grossly wrong. However, the good guys were **definitely** the "Blue Bellies."
Husband was born in Virginia raised as a Navy brat with high school years in New York. He says it was initially States' Rights but that other things probably got mixed in later.
I was raised mostly in the South. The little time I spent in the North, we were taught it was about slavery and the South's secession to preserve it. In the South, we were taught it was States' Rights, some northern aggression, and then later in high school other things mixed in. Best wishes.
I can't thank Y'all enough for spending the time to visit this blog and to write your passionate beliefs about this very troubled time. I will enjoy spending the next few months writing about the war and visiting civil War memorials throughout the South. I will keep an open mind and I hope y'all enjoy the trip and prose as well. Some of you have given me enough to think about on my journey. I can't thank you enough.
Nice blog. My first visit.
The Civil War era was a very troubled and trying time in our nation's history, indeed. I hope the sesquicentennial anniversary will bring a greater understanding and a real sense of peace to those on both sides of the Mason/Dixon Line.
I look forward to your journey and prose.
My first take - before reading all of the other comments are as follows.
The North wanted a whole nation without slavery.
The South wanted to keep it's free welfare and hand outs they were getting from slaves.
You can see today - that many in the south still fly a flag of a lost war - because they attempt to be defiant to the end.
Most who fly that flag ? You will get many stories from them - and it's based on evil and wickedness.
I am also a Yankee - from Syracuse, NY - I'm a half breed now - NORTH for 23 years and SOUTH for 23 years. I research, document and SPREAD THE WHOLE TRUTH about racism and other evils.
BE BLESSED.
The why of the Civil War will continue to be debated even long after I am dead. It is like pulling back the layers of a giant size onion (and I do mean giant - like ballfield size).
Even with 'states' rights' & 'slavery' having a part played, I still hold to 'conspiracy' theory that this war opened up the opportunity for people to gain more money & profiteer.
The bottom line is soldier death estimates are between 618,000 to 680,000 with over 1 million casualties. That's a lot of hurt, injured and dead humanity because differences could not be worked out. The lesson I learn is that 'war' especially 'civil war' where your own people are being killed...'war' should be the final option.
I think you should read about the DeWolf family of Bristol, RI. I have recently seen the film spoken of in this article. I grew up in the south, am currently living in CT & frankly- this shocked me...this whole family's wealth & the economy of that area was wrapped up in slave trade. Not what I was lead to believe earlier....
http://www.projo.com/ri/bristol/content/SLAVERY_FILM_11-08-07_PP7OUHU_v51.33e492d.html
I assume you saw this great article in TIME:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2063679,00.html
Seems to be saying we gloss over the slavery for some reason. So now I think slavery was the issue that divided the country, but the war was fought to keep us united.
As the child of one Southern and one Northern parent, who has lived mostly in the North, I've always noticed a lot of continuing prejudice in the North against the South. Sorry I don't know more about what the South is like.
Enjoyed your visit to Andersonville. After reading McKinlay Kantor's historical novel on the subject I always thought of it as an atrocity akin to Auschwitz but we do have a letter from a Southern ancestor to his uncle, written late in the Civil War. The soldier asks for a box of potatoes and turnips to be sent to him, if there are any to spare, as all the soldiers were hungry and on short rations.
If you can find it, try to get John S. Tilley's small booklet FACTS THE HISTORIANS LEAVE OUT. Also, Web Garrison's LINCOLN'S LITTLE WAR isn't too bad, either. They will give you a different perspective to possibly get you started on research you hadn't thought of before. I have swayed back and forth as far as which side I thought was responsible for the war. Now I just see it as our nation's most egregious tragedy.
The Civil War was one in which there were a lot of different factors that went into the cause of it. However, I do believe a main cause is money. The South knew they would be losing a lot of free labor if slavery was abolished. And since they felt they no longer had much control in the government they wanted to pull away to start their own country. I don't believe that there are many Southerners who are going to agree with that point of view though...
The war never started out having to deal with slavery. It was a state's rights and economics issue. Slavery was a political springboard the North used when France and England began entertaining thoughts on entering the war on the South's side. Granted, the South's economy was dependent on the slavery system and it makes it nice for the North to say they were fighting a war to free their brothers, a war of ideals, if you will. Slavery was a major part, but as others have said, not the only thing. I don't think this war would have been avoided even without the institution of slavery.
That's my take and granted I have not cited any of this information. I'm from Maryland, the confused state. We are south of the Mason Dixon (you'd be surprised how many people have no clue where that is) but we fought for the Union, with lots of divided households.
Read southernheritage411.com,black perspective.Find out how many slaves Grant had,Lee?Read about black southerners.What percentage of southerners had slaves compared to how many faught.Jeff Davis adopted a black child,did Lincoln?I surmise if I am paying over 70% of the taxes then i should get something for it,not the yankee railroads,shipping companys and industrialist,all of which Lincoln supported.Another thing,if it was about slavery,why was the war over more than 6 months before the northern slaves freed?Just askin
well...iam Kurdish from Iraq....i read all of comments and now i have some information about civil war....
i think in history and maybe now in some of the countries ..the president of countries looked forward to other neigbour countries ...and certainly against this the other try to keep its land...and be independent forever...sorry my English isn't very good..
well...iam Kurdish from Iraq....i read all of comments and now i have some information about civil war....
i think in history and maybe now in some of the countries ..the president of countries looked forward to other neigbour countries ...and certainly against this the other try to keep its land...and be independent forever...sorry my English isn't very good..
well...iam Kurdish from Iraq....i read all of comments and now i have some information about civil war....
i think in history and maybe now in some of the countries ..the president of countries looked forward to other neigbour countries ...and certainly against this the other try to keep its land...and be independent forever...sorry my English isn't very good..
The reason The South seceded was slavery. However, that doesn't mean that the reasons the people from the South fought for the Confederacy was slavery.
Post a Comment