Civil war cause

SGT Beau Thomas — Mon, 05 Jan 2015 01:22:37 -0500

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?

Response by SSG Charles Coats made Mar 19 at 2015 8:24 PM

SSG Charles Coats — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 20:24:29 -0400

SGT Thomas,

First let me congratulate you on just being interested enough to question the reasons for the war, as most Americans could care less! I would encourage you to research other causes of the war (particularly economic) as slavery was a "divide and conquer" method used much like many other wedge issues are today, to have us look one way while things are going on elsewhere... also, always ask the question: qui bono??!

WHO financed each side during the so-called "Civil War"??

Response by SGT Beau Thomas made Mar 19 at 2015 8:58 PM

SGT Beau Thomas — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 20:58:50 -0400

Both good replies. And I have researched it pretty thoroughly in while I was in college. Every article has different reasons for the war depending on the era it was written. I am always brought back to the Sourh Carolina, Texas, Georgia, etc.. Papers of secession. They all state unequivocally that they are seceding because of slavery. The other causes seem to be secondary. I have previously discussed this in great detail with my Phd history Professor and he agreed with my conclusion. Google the papers and decide for yourselfs. To me, it is as easy as black or white.

Response by MSgt Robert Pellam made Mar 19 at 2015 9:36 PM

MSgt Robert Pellam — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 21:36:58 -0400

The Civil War. This is a popular subject here in South Carolina. I was the only Yankee in my Old South Class last semester. Oh we did have one Canadian. Anyway my thoughts on it.

Slavery was a root cause. But it was an economic reason to. If the Southern Plantation owners lost its slaves, then its free labor was gone. The South was also very paranoid at the time too. With about 4 million Slaves the White population was very concerned about rebellion. Although a few small ones happened, they never approached the size or organization that would actually permit them to take over the South. It didn't help that Northern Abolitionists were doing their part to try and promote freedom of slaves.

Now Politically most of the Southern Politicians were Planters. They owned slaves and it was in their best interest to keep them. There were huge fights in Washington D.C. over voting rights in Congress, over states coming into the Union if they were slave or free state.

Now I also mention Nationalism. The South has a large attitude that if it wasn't for them the revolutionary war wouldn't have been one. And remember Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, shoot, most of the first presidents were from Virginia and had owned slaves. So there was a belief that this was the way. They pushed that to be successful in the South, you should start as a Yeoman farmer (small self serving farmer) and work yourself up to Planter (Owned 20+ Slaves) And that was the Southern American Dream in the south.

When Lincoln got elected, the South didn't wait until he got into office, they succeeded starting that Winter. Lincoln for his part, had no intentions of abolishing Slaver right away. It wasn't until January 1863 that he ordered the Emancipation Proclamation. This was more to the effect to try and boost support for the War, as the North had been taking a beating up until this point.

The rest is history they say, but there is always more.. A LOT more.

In the end, the root cause was the economics of Slavery. Shoot if someone is a technological determinist they will actually say the Cotton Gin. But that is another can of worms for another time. Sorry this is so abridged and choppy. If you ever want a good history class, The Old South is great to study, along with a Civil War class. I missed the Civil War class last semester and plan on taking it in the Fall. Hope it helped, at least from a Yankee's point of view.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 19 at 2015 10:12 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 22:12:38 -0400

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.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 19 at 2015 10:24 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 22:24:21 -0400

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.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Mar 20 at 2015 12:58 AM

COL Charles Williams — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 00:58:52 -0400

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.

Response by SGT Tyler G. made Mar 20 at 2015 5:23 AM

SGT Tyler G. — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 05:23:54 -0400

We must separate the secession from the war. The core of the socio-economic reasons why the South seceded was indeed slavery, but the war wasn't so. Lincoln's prime goal wasn't to end slavery, but to uphold the Union. Making it a war about slavery with the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 was a move to keep England from joining the South (they had already abolished slavery). The proclamation had already been written for some time, but they needed a victory (they were losing every battle at the time) to put weight behind it, otherwise it could be ignored as simple rhetoric by foreign powers. Keep in mind, the proclamation didn't free all slaves, only those in the southern states. Some northern states, namely Maryland I believe, still had slaves, and would until the amendment during the reconstruction era. This was because, once again, his goal was to preserve the Union first and foremost, and he was willing to do whatever he had to in order to achieve that goal. Still one of the greatest presidents, precisely for his upholding of the Union, but we can't let myth shroud the greyer reality of history.

Response by SGT John Wesley made Mar 20 at 2015 5:26 AM

SGT John Wesley — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 05:26:45 -0400

The reason was that the states felt that the Feds were overstepping their boundaries. The issue was slavery, but states individual rights was the cause of secession.

Response by PO2 Chris Sabo made Sep 1 at 2022 5:34 PM

PO2 Chris Sabo — Thu, 01 Sep 2022 17:34:40 -0400

When your economy only works because of slave labor. Abolishing slavery does tank the economy. So economic reasons is a partial truth.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 1 at 2022 10:32 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 01 Sep 2022 22:32:47 -0400

Slavery was, undeniably, the reason for secession. However, it was not the reason for war. War was chosen by Lincoln to overcome secession, but that didn't have to be.