The real reason for the Civil War?

[deafsg1]

This is from another posting over at the TFL archives, regarding Texas' right to secede from the Union.

-------------------------------
Harvard Prof. William Gienapp uses Texas as why the CW wasn't about slavery.
A lot of the "educated" slavery argument goes that there weren't going to be any more slave states south of the Mason Dixon, so the south felt pinned in, as such, that caused the war.

Gienapp's argument is that it was all economical. Slavery could have expanded in 3 additional state(Texas splitting) or into Mexico, which many though would end up part of the US.
----------------------------

I would like to add some nitroglycerin to the fire, if it's indeed possible to do so. I read in my pol-sci class that the slavery issue was used as a front, an unpalatable reason to keep European countries from getting involved and taking advantage of the situation. I realize it was just one of several things involved, but that point of deception really stuck out after all these years...

 

[3/325]

The South had an economy built on free labor (slavery) and was able to survive on its own through independent trade with Europe. During the mid-1800s, the Federal government was considered a body politic for dealing with international affairs while everyday life for the average citizen was more connected to State government.

It's no surprise that citizens of the Southern States didn't like the Federal government barging in and dictating economic policy and demanding interdependence among all states.

When you're trying to whip up support for the Union, none of those things inspires a whole lot of emotion. Slavery, on the other hand, makes a much better rallying issue. The CW was a box full of Economy with the wrapping paper of Slavery.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Gun related?

 

[roscoe]

Lock er down!

 

[Titan6]

Gun related?

Not a chance.

 

[Mikebnice]

DOA

 

[El Tejon]

Has the good professor been to the Texas State Museum in Austin?

The Civil War exhibit up on one of the upper floors (just follow the timeline exhibits).

The state of Texas did not pretend what the Civil War was about as they stated proudly that it was about slavery. Maybe the good professor can tell us what Sam Houston said about the Civil War?

Oh, there are a few guns in the Texas State Museum to keep this gun-related.

 

[Autolycus]

IBTL.

This thread should be locked. Try www.armedpolitesociety.com

 

[cuchulainn]

False dichotomy. It's not about one or the other.

Fact: The Civil War was about the economic policies pushed by the North

Fact: The Civil War was about the South wanting to preserve slavery.

One fact does not negate the other. Rarely do wars have single causes.

It's kind of like you're saying, "I have a chair in my living room. Therefore, there could not be a coffee table."

Gun related: I had a cool toy gun when I was a kid. It supposedly was a replica Civil War era muzzle loader. It shot cork balls and used over-sized caps. Try finding something like that these days. Fat chance.

 

[Joe Demko]

I remember those replica muzzleloaders. True, you can't find anything like that today. OTOH, when I was a kid there was absolutely nothing like today's realistic full-auto airsofts.
The Civil War came from a complex set of factors. Those who say it wasn't about slavery are wrong. Those who say it was all about freeing slaves are wrong too.

 

[birdbustr]

The Civil War was about the South resisting to changing their way of life, which did mean slavery would have to end. There was legislature in place that gave had slavery on a timeline to end already. So slavery was a one part of many that caused the Civil War, but I wouldn't say the main reason. Most Southerners fought on the side of the South for one reason, and that was because the North basically "invaded" the South. Who would want someone from hundreds of miles away running around in your back yard with guns? The invasion and blockade of the South was the biggest cause of escalation of the war.

 

[junyo]

Georgia's Declaration of Seccession:

For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

Mississippi's Declaration of Seccession:

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun.

South Carolina's Declaration of Seccession:

But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution.

Texas's Declaration of Seccession:

She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time....That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.

I know this revisionist version of history is popular, unfortunately they wrote the reasons down.

Yeah, had nothing to do with slavery.

that said, not gun related, and probably won't end well.

 

[ilbob]

Lincoln was a big reason for the war. He never claimed slavery was at issue until it became expedient to do so late in the war. he was primarily interested in saving the union.

The CW was a complex thing. It was about economics, slavery, tariffs, state versus federal power, and who knows how many other issues.

Its also true that slavery was slowly going out of fashion in the south, largely because the economics of slavery were changing. Its almost certain that another generation or two would have seen its departure in any case.

At the time of the CW, most people considered themselves to be citizens of their own state first, and citizens of the nation second. Its not too far off from the way citizens of most nations today view the UN.

 

[hugh damright]

I think it was in 1800 when Jefferson warned that the people of New England want to consolidate the States into one sovereignty and then rule over that like a monarch. I'd say that is the cause of the conflict.

 

[Lichter]

Nice original sources juyno, I'm always amazed how my southern friends will list everything but slavery as a cause of the Civil War.

 

[mbt2001]

IBTL

The North and South had grown so culturally different that there 1.) economies functioned differently 2.) their cultural mores were different (et cetera).

Just like the revolutionary war, they had grown apart and South didn't like North telling it what to do and North didn't like not to be "minded". Just think of the terms we use. The North and the South... There isn't a lot of reconciling that can be done between opposites.

 

[Art Eatman]

Good topic for APS, but it went on there for at least three pages...

Art