Trump: 'Why was there the Civil War?'

[Bigun]

The federal government has always has been and ever will be amoral, IMO. Its concern is money and power. Same goes for the government of the Confederacy.

The issue of slavery motivated the average citizen of the north, not its politicians. The issue of individual & state sovereignty motivated the average southerner. Because Americans by and large are a righteous people and require a righteous cause to go to war.

Every account I have read leads me to believe that if someone had told Union soldiers that they were fighting to free slaves they would have all went home that very day.

[Bigun]

While I like the tone of your post a lot (very substantive and not much vituperation) there are some factual inaccuracies in the post. There are some interesting points raised that I confess I am not well-studied enough in to comment.  That being said...

You wrote: "... focusing on why the Southern states left, (as they had the right to do for whatever reason)instead of why the Northern states thought they had a right to force them back in." 

The U.S. Constitution provides for secession only by due process. Since the Southern States did not follow that process, their attempt to secede was according to Constitutional provisions, illegal and the Federal government had a legal authority to regard the rebels as being in violation of the Constitution in the formation of the Confederacy and the subsequent secession.

You stated more than once that "slavery was not the reason" the Union states went to war with the Confederacy. That is not entirely true. It may be more correct to state that slavery was not the singular reason. But it very definitely was a reason, if for nothing else than the fact that the U.S. Constitution (ratified in 1787) provided for discontinuation of slavery as a legal institution in the USA after 50 years (which had passed). The slave states had already been granted a de facto extension on that, so there is no legal basis for the Confederacy to claim that the Constitutional requirement did not apply to them.

Would you be kind enough to point out those provisions of the Constitution?  I have been unable to locate them thus far. Perhaps they are in a penumbra or something.

[r9etb]

I think this has more truth than many of the claims here.  It's obvious that slavery couldn't be the entire issue, though, as slaveholding still occurred in the Union.  It was an invasion of the Confederacy, not an invasion of slaveholding areas.

It's very difficult to imagine the Civil War occurring without the issue of slavery, the problem of which had been explicitly threatening the integrity of Union since the Union itself began. 

The sectional crises were of long standing.  The Missouri Compromise of 1820, the Compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 all led in one way or another to the Civil War -- and the Kansas-Nebraska Act actually resulted in a war.

Moreover, the political climate was trending toward abolition of slavery: it was the primary issue that resulted in the formation of the Republican Party, for example, and political trends pointed to eventual abolitionist majorities in the House and Senate.  The numbers of potential Free states above the Mason-Dixon Line would have permitted Constitutional Amendments to that effect regardless of what the slave states wanted.

That's why the Southern states began seceding when Lincoln was elected: the handwriting was on the wall.  Stay in the Union and slavery would be abolished - the only alternative was to leave the Union, which they did.

The question facing Lincoln was not what to do about slavery, but rather, what to do about secession.  While it may or may not have been part of his reasoning, the fact is that a successful and even uncontested secession would have led to war between Free and Slave states regardless.

[the_doc]

The reason why there was Civil War cause a bunch of morons who wanted to keep people as property started it.  End of story..

That might  be the end of your story, but it is not the end of the overall explanation.  The North's tariff policy was a major contributor.  The slavery issue was subsumed under arguments about States' rights.  Federal overreach is a mess that has continued to this day--thanks largely to our beloved Republican POTUS Lincoln, I'm afraid.  I personally believe we could have averted the war and negotiated an end to slavery if Lincoln had been more careful.

Lincoln was strongly connected to the Republican crony capitalists of his own day, as it turns out.  (See the book Dark Union, available on Amazon.  It's a real shocker, especially the discussion of the assassination of Lincoln and the escape of John Wilkes Booth.)

A well-researched article by a modern-day Southerner is also found here:   https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/review/ft-sumter-the-first-act-of-aggression/

[r9etb]

That might  be the end of your story, but it is not the end of the overall explanation.  The North's tariff policy was a major contributor. 

No, it wasn't.  The sectional crises leading up to the Civil War were about slavery, not tariffs.  The secession crisis was about slavery, not tariffs.  Without the long-standing disagreement about keeping or abolishing slavery, the Civil War almost certainly would not have happened.

[geronl]

In reality, had the South won, North America would be like Europe.. Constant warfare..

Had the south won, slavery would have still ended by the end of the century. Cuba would be a Confederate state, probably. I wonder if both sides would have supported the same side in WW1 and WW2?

[Free Vulcan]

In reality, had the South won, North America would be like Europe.. Constant warfare..

NA would have BEEN Europe. The Brits at the time of the Civil War still just saw us as a rebellious colony, and were chummy with the Confederacy to undermine the Union. They would have benefited from two weaker nations because they still had ambitions out west, as did other European empires.  If they had been able to establish there, no doubt they would have eventually worked eastward to at least the Mississippi.

The West could have seen a remarkably different history without the Union winning and a single, strong, westward expanding government creating the nation we have today.

[r9etb]

Had the south won, slavery would have still ended by the end of the century. Cuba would be a Confederate state, probably. I wonder if both sides would have supported the same side in WW1 and WW2?

Had the south won, then there would have been a war after that as the two countries competed for land and resources further west.  The difference in industrial capacity and development of resources between North and South would have continued to grow, and the South would have been crushed.

Of course, that's all speculation, because the South was unable even to win the first war.

[ABX]

Every account I have read leads me to believe that if someone had told Union soldiers that they were fighting to free slaves they would have all went home that very day.

Not that I've read. It was a major issued pushed in every church pulpit and newspaper. It was the centerpiece of the Lincoln/Douglas debate. If you look at political cartoons of the time or read sermons, they were definitely aware of exactly this and felt they were personally doing God's work. They were not ignorant at all of what they were fighting for, it was made a spiritual fight for them.

A few examples of political cartoons of the time.



This phrase and symbolism "Am I not a man and a brother" was commonly used and plastered all over the North leaving no doubt what people were fighting for.



Here is one example of many sermons you can still find copies of.. abolition was preached weekly.
http://antislavery.eserver.org/religious/millersermon/millersermon.pdf

There was even a big boom in hymns in churches written at the time with an abolition theme.
https://www.loc.gov/item/ihas.200197383



...and on the opposite side, anti-abolition cartoons painted those against slavery as doing the Devil's work. For example:



To the people of the time, slavery was the central issue and a spiritual battle and you can see proof of this from their newspapers, hymns, and sermons.

[r9etb]

NA would have BEEN Europe. The Brits at the time of the Civil War still just saw us as a rebellious colony, and were chummy with the Confederacy to undermine the Union. They would have benefited from two weaker nations because they still had ambitions out west, as did other European empires.

You're probably correct about European imperial ambitions, especially in those regions that the Monroe Doctrine had declared off-limits.  The North could have enforced it, the South could not, but probably even that would have led to war between North and South.

As to how Britain saw the Confederacy .... they mainly saw it in terms of cotton.  At the beginning of the war the English textile industry was dependent on a steady supply of American cotton from the South.  The blockade prevented a lot of that supply from reaching England, and they began looking elsewhere for sources of cotton -- Egypt, in particular; and once those alternate sources were operational the reasons for supporting the South pretty much dried up.

The South, meanwhile, relied mainly on Cotton for hard money -- and without the ability to export it their ability to use credit to buy arms and other material from England and Europe pretty much evaporated.

[r9etb]

To the people of the time, slavery was the central issue and a spiritual battle and you can see proof of this from their newspapers, hymns, and sermons.

Indeed.  Consider the line from the Battle Hymn of the Republic:

In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me.
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on.

[Smokin Joe]

Had the south won, then there would have been a war after that as the two countries competed for land and resources further west.  The difference in industrial capacity and development of resources between North and South would have continued to grow, and the South would have been crushed.

Of course, that's all speculation, because the South was unable even to win the first war.

Let me tweak your analysis just a little. The south was industrializing. Atlanta was important because of the railroad shops, shipbuilding in Mobile and Newport News is still a big deal, and in Mississippi as well. One of the longest operating iron works was Tredegar in Richmond. Imagine what the South could have done without the North stripping it of profit. I think industrial expansion in the south would have been rapid, and the South had raw materials to trade with as well, and would have been producing finished goods to trade in short order. Part of the Northern choke hold was to prevent the South from producing the finished products instead of being treated as a colony to strip for raw materials.
I have spent enough time in a State where Crude oil sells for 40 bucks at the wellhead, but gasoline is over $2/gallon, and wheat is under $4 per bushel, but a loaf of bread is $2 to know the money is made taking those raw materials to finished product. That, and controlling trade and banking was the source of the North's wealth, and the North invaded the South to ensure that stayed the same.

[Smokin Joe]

Indeed.  Consider the line from the Battle Hymn of the Republic:

Written by abolitionist Julia Ward Howe in 1862 I would expect such to reflect the writers personal politics more than be an accurate reflection of the overall motivation of the Union.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Battle_Hymn_of_the_Republic

[Free Vulcan]

You're probably correct about European imperial ambitions, especially in those regions that the Monroe Doctrine had declared off-limits.  The North could have enforced it, the South could not, but probably even that would have led to war between North and South.

And at least Britain at the time was not scared of us. We boarded one of their merchant ships to pull off a couple of Confederate officials, and they moved 11K troops to Canada to take NYC if we didn't back down and apologize, which Lincoln did obviously not wanting a two front war.

Had the split stayed mostly Britain would have played the two off each other and grabbed the spoils from any weakness. That would have led to yet more war as the rest of Europe would have tried to get a piece of the weak western hemisphere.

I doubt either the North or South would have survived being hemmed in and getting bled like that. It might have even forced us to re-merge to do so. As it was, by 1875 or so Europe knew we were a legit nation not to be trifled with, and we had hegemony coast to coast.

[r9etb]

Let me tweak your analysis just a little. The south was industrializing. Atlanta was important because of the railroad shops, shipbuilding in Mobile and Newport News is still a big deal, and in Mississippi as well. One of the longest operating iron works was Tredegar in Richmond. Imagine what the South could have done without the North stripping it of profit. I think industrial expansion in the south would have been rapid, and the South had raw materials to trade with as well, and would have been producing finished goods to trade in short order.

But to put things in perspective, you've essentially listed the entirety of the South's industrial capacity.  Although the South did amazing things with what they had, they could never have kept pace with the North, much less even caught up with them.  The North had an existing and robust industrial base.  The South had nothing.  During the war, they could not even produce their own guns.

Just to make clear the disparity: at the beginning of the war, the North was responsible for 90% of the nation's industrial production.  The South's economy depended primarily on cotton exports. 

Had the South won the Civil War, they would still have relied on cotton exports, and would have had to deal with stiff international competition from India, Egypt, Brazil, and elsewhere.  Even could they have created an industrial base before they went bankrupt, the North would have swamped them commercially and especially in the ability to produce military goods.

[r9etb]

Written by abolitionist Julia Ward Howe in 1862 I would expect such to reflect the writers personal politics more than be an accurate reflection of the overall motivation of the Union.

It was a mighty popular tune, Joe -- that's the point.  She wrote it -- the soldiers sang it.

[r9etb]

I doubt either the North or South would have survived being hemmed in and getting bled like that. It might have even forced us to re-merge to do so. As it was, by 1875 or so Europe knew we were a legit nation not to be trifled with, and we had hegemony coast to coast.

The North would have been fine, because it had the land (coast to coast), resources (including gold, industrial raw materials, and energy), rail infrastructure, people, and industrial base necessary to take its place at the leading edge of the Industrial Revolution. 

By contrast, the agrarian South would have been in serious trouble, as its world supremacy as a cotton exporter had been supplanted before the end of the war.

[Sanguine]

It was a mighty popular tune, Joe -- that's the point.  She wrote it -- the soldiers sang it.

They also sang "The Bonnie Blue Flag".  Not sure what either one proves.

We are a band of brothers and native to the soil


Fighting for our liberty, with treasure, blood and toil


And when our rights were threatened, the cry rose near and far


Hurrah for the Bonnie Blue Flag that bears a single star!

Hurrah!  Hurrah!


For Southern rights, hurrah!


Hurrah for the Bonnie Blue Flag that bears a single star.

As long as the Union was faithful to her trust


Like friends and like brethren, kind we were, and just


But now, when Northern treachery attempts our rights to mar


We hoist on high the Bonnie Blue Flag that bears a single star.

Hurrah!  Hurrah! 


For Southern rights, hurrah!


Hurrah for the Bonnie Blue Flag that bears a single star.

First gallant South Carolina nobly made the stand


Then came Alabama and took her by the hand


Next, quickly Mississippi, Georgia, and Florida


All raised on high the Bonnie Blue Flag that bears a single star.

Hurrah!  Hurrah!


For Southern rights, hurrah!


Hurrah for the Bonnie Blue Flag that bears a single star.

Ye men of valor gather round the banner of the right


Texas and fair Louisiana join us in the fight


Davis, our loved President, and Stephens statesmen rare


Now rally round the Bonnie Blue Flag that bears a single star.

Hurrah!  Hurrah!


For Southern rights, hurrah!


Hurrah for the Bonnie Blue Flag that bears a single star.

Like This “Bonnie Blue Flag” Page

Now here’s to brave Virginia, the old Dominion State,


With the young Confederacy at length has linked her fate,


Impelled by her example, now other states prepare


To hoist high the Bonnie Blue Flag that bears a single star.

Hurrah!  Hurrah!


For Southern rights, hurrah!


Hurrah for the Bonnie Blue Flag that bears a single star.

Then cheer, boys, cheer, and raise a joyous shout


For Arkansas and North Carolina now have both gone out,


And let another rousing cheer for Tennessee be given,


The single star of the Bonnie Blue Flag has grown to be eleven.

Hurrah!  Hurrah!


For Southern rights, hurrah!


Hurrah for the Bonnie Blue Flag that bears a single star.


Then here’s to our Confederacy, strong we are and brave,


Like patriots of old we’ll fight, our heritage to save;


And rather than submit to shame, to die we would prefer,


So cheer, cheer for the Bonnie Blue Flag that bears a single star.
Hurrah!  Hurrah!


For Southern rights, hurrah!


Hurrah for the Bonnie Blue Flag that bears a single star.

Hurrah!  Hurrah!


For Southern rights, hurrah!


Hurrah for the Bonnie Blue Flag that bears a single star.

[DiogenesLamp]

Again, who fired the first shot?

When the Spanish Armada was sent to invade England,  who was the aggressor?   

Who fired the first shot? 

[DiogenesLamp]

The question facing Lincoln was not what to do about slavery, but rather, what to do about secession.  While it may or may not have been part of his reasoning, the fact is that a successful and even uncontested secession would have led to war between Free and Slave states regardless.

Lincoln was in favor of Secession when Texas declared Independence from Mexico.   In a speech to
Congress in 1848 He championed it as a Sacred  Right. 

Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better-- This is a most valuable, -- a most sacred right -- a right, which we hope and belive, is to liberate the world

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mal:@field(DOCID+@lit(d0007400))


He also offered to trade Ft. Sumter in exchange for assurances from Virginia that they would remain in the Union.   

This means that as a matter of Principle,  Lincoln was willing to accept the secession of the lesser Southern States. 


Like the old joke goes,   "We've already determined what kind of girl you are,  now we are just haggling over the price. " 


 

[DiogenesLamp]

Lincoln was strongly connected to the Republican crony capitalists of his own day, as it turns out.  (See the book Dark Union, available on Amazon.  It's a real shocker, especially the discussion of the assassination of Lincoln and the escape of John Wilkes Booth.)

I have come to that conclusion myself based on my own independent research.   Lincoln's mentor was Henry Clay and his political philosophy was "Mercantilism."   

This basically boils down to "What is good for big business is good for the Country."   


The aftermath of the Lincoln era was a series of the most massive corruption this nation has ever seen. 

It is no wonder this period is regarded as the age of Robber Barons.   

[DiogenesLamp]

No, it wasn't.  The sectional crises leading up to the Civil War were about slavery, not tariffs.  The secession crisis was about slavery, not tariffs.  Without the long-standing disagreement about keeping or abolishing slavery, the Civil War almost certainly would not have happened.

Why sure.   It never bothered the 4 million citizens in the South that they were paying 75% of the costs of running the entire Federal Government,  and that the Federal Government was using some of that money to subsidize Northern Industries. 

http://www.civilwarcauses.org/rhett.htm



I know that I would be perfectly content to pay 75% of all taxes while the 20 million Northerners were only paying 25% of the cost.   


That wouldn't bother me at all.   Don't all of us believe we should be taxed at four times the amount of North Eastern Liberals?   

 

[DiogenesLamp]

Had the south won, slavery would have still ended by the end of the century. Cuba would be a Confederate state, probably. I wonder if both sides would have supported the same side in WW1 and WW2?

More like it would have kept both sides out of World War I,  and therefore would have prevented World War II.   

[r9etb]

Why sure.   It never bothered the 4 million citizens in the South that they were paying 75% of the costs of running the entire Federal Government,  and that the Federal Government was using some of that money to subsidize Northern Industries. 

You have a grand future in writing alternative histories.  You just need to work on grammar, logic, and readability....

[kevindavis007]

More like it would have kept both sides out of World War I,  and therefore would have prevented World War II.

Comment removed.  Please try an argument rather than an ad hominem.

-MOD2