2
2
0
I seems to be a favorite subject in Texas why the Civil War was fought, my fellow Texans almost always say it was economic and political reasons, I believe the reason was slavery. I always ask where they got their information as I know that it is something they heard from someone else or saw on TV or the Internet. I did some research and looked at the secession papers of many states and the papers are all very similar. The papers all state that slavery is the reason for secession, but my thick headed friends won't hear it although it seems a closed case to me. Here is a link to the Texas secession papers.
http://www.lsjunction.com/docs/secesson.htm
What do you think?
http://www.lsjunction.com/docs/secesson.htm
What do you think?
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 10
4
4
0
SGT Beau Thomas Excellent topic, and one that has been argued since 1861. I think your argument and logic are sound.
I think first you need to realize this is all a matter of perspective... meaning a dude from NJ (like me) sees this very different from say a dude from Georgia.
I am somewhat educated, like history, and have studied the civil war. I have heard more than one theory, and all seem to be based on personal opinion and location... and what do you want to believe... as none of us were there. We now rely on historical accounts, and our interpretation. I heard heard succession was about states rights, not about slavery too... Meaning the southern states thought the federal government was too directive...
To me, as a northerner... That has always seemed silly... and just an excuse...
In the end it is all matter of opinion.
I believe slavery and hence states rights to have slaves, or not, were the central issues.
I am sure my buddies from south of the Mason Dixon line will still trivialize slavery as a core issue/reason.
I think first you need to realize this is all a matter of perspective... meaning a dude from NJ (like me) sees this very different from say a dude from Georgia.
I am somewhat educated, like history, and have studied the civil war. I have heard more than one theory, and all seem to be based on personal opinion and location... and what do you want to believe... as none of us were there. We now rely on historical accounts, and our interpretation. I heard heard succession was about states rights, not about slavery too... Meaning the southern states thought the federal government was too directive...
To me, as a northerner... That has always seemed silly... and just an excuse...
In the end it is all matter of opinion.
I believe slavery and hence states rights to have slaves, or not, were the central issues.
I am sure my buddies from south of the Mason Dixon line will still trivialize slavery as a core issue/reason.
(4)
(0)
3
3
0
Slavery was undeniably the cause of secession. But not the cause of the war.
War did not need to be fought. Nothing compelled the North to invade. The South only invaded the North twice, 1862 (Antitam) and 1863 (Gettysburg) in attempts to force the North to withdraw.
The South fired the first shots, but in the face of calculated provocation. Lincoln ignored a peace delegation until after the shots were finally fired.
The North was compelled to fight, not to end Slavery--that justification would not come until later, and not even to "preserve the Union" that being the general justification for which there is no compulsion to be found. The reason was economic. The Morrill Tariff protected manufacturing, raising prices on things that the South didn't make for themselves. With secession the South would be free to pursue it's own trade and not forced into a colonial economic relationship with the North. With an independent South, the raw materials that they produced would be less available for the production of finished goods (especially textiles) and other nations (especially Britain) who were also offended by the tariff would change their trading partnerships to favor the South--the North would lose two ways. In addition the South would, of necessity, develop its own manufacturing capacity.
Further, I believe that slavery would have ended sooner than later in an independent South, either through industrialization or through a desire to be readmitted to the US--something I think would have also happened absent Southern expansion, perhaps into the Caribbean. But that's all speculation.
War did not need to be fought. Nothing compelled the North to invade. The South only invaded the North twice, 1862 (Antitam) and 1863 (Gettysburg) in attempts to force the North to withdraw.
The South fired the first shots, but in the face of calculated provocation. Lincoln ignored a peace delegation until after the shots were finally fired.
The North was compelled to fight, not to end Slavery--that justification would not come until later, and not even to "preserve the Union" that being the general justification for which there is no compulsion to be found. The reason was economic. The Morrill Tariff protected manufacturing, raising prices on things that the South didn't make for themselves. With secession the South would be free to pursue it's own trade and not forced into a colonial economic relationship with the North. With an independent South, the raw materials that they produced would be less available for the production of finished goods (especially textiles) and other nations (especially Britain) who were also offended by the tariff would change their trading partnerships to favor the South--the North would lose two ways. In addition the South would, of necessity, develop its own manufacturing capacity.
Further, I believe that slavery would have ended sooner than later in an independent South, either through industrialization or through a desire to be readmitted to the US--something I think would have also happened absent Southern expansion, perhaps into the Caribbean. But that's all speculation.
(3)
(0)
SGT Beau Thomas
Great comment SFC White, may I recommend the Harry Turtledove's "Southern Victory Series." It is s great collection of books that goes into great depth of "what if's." Interestingly, it also has the independent Confederacy making Cuba one of its states. Great read.
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
I've read those. The great thing about Turtledove is the research he does--sometimes he chooses differences that are quite fantastic, but they all have their roots in reality. There was a longstanding Southern desire to expand down the eastern coast of the Gulf of Mexico and into the Caribbean known as the Golden Circle.
(0)
(0)
PO2 Chris Sabo
See I do not understand the difference between secession, insurection, and revolution aside from point of view. Also I super tired and do not feel like digging in the bin/tote where my dictionary is.
Sidenote: i really truly desperately need a bookshelf or two.
Sidenote: i really truly desperately need a bookshelf or two.
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
PO2 Chris Sabo secession is simply an end of political allegiance, the establishment of independence or replacing one dependence with another.
Insurrection is an armed attempt to destroy or assume political dominance.
Revolution is the replacement of a government with another of a different sort. This can result from secession or from insurrection though where resolution is the goal, that's usually called rebellion.
Insurrection is an armed attempt to destroy or assume political dominance.
Revolution is the replacement of a government with another of a different sort. This can result from secession or from insurrection though where resolution is the goal, that's usually called rebellion.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
If you don't mind sitting in front of a computer for hours or burning through your phone's data plane, Yale university offers many courses for free on YouTube. HIST 119 is the civil war and reconstruction course.
http://oyc.yale.edu/history/hist-119
You can just watch the videos on YouTube but on the Yale site the course materials are available.
http://oyc.yale.edu/history/hist-119
You can just watch the videos on YouTube but on the Yale site the course materials are available.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google