Civil War History - General DiscussionFor Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.
I've been avidly following all discussions wherein causes for the WBTS are debated -- sometimes hotly. I'd like some help in listing the "causes" and getting some perspective on their ranking.
Bear with me for a moment. I haven't given the concept much thought or polish, so can we begin by making a list, in no particular order, of all the possible "causes"? My initial thoughts, incomplete and in no particular order would include:
- Tariffs
- Sectionalism
- Slavery
- Money
- Political Power
Relooking at this list, I'm thinking that I've proposed the impossible. How can we separate sectionalism without ringing in slavery, money and tariffs? How can we separate Tariffs without dragging along sectionalism, without dragging in the rest?
Nevertheless, a discussion and ranking of all possible causes would help me understand the roots of the conflict. One example: Under what category would the likes of John Brown, Harriet Beecher Stowe, abolitionists and fire-eaters fit? Or is that sort of heat deserving of a separate category. And will they all fit under a single definition?
Any suggestions?
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
I too have followed the developing discussions on various boards and have been coming around to the conclusion that slavery is the nexus point at which all the other proposed causes meet.
All the Other causes noted here, would seem to be eliminated as causes of the Civil War, by the fact that for almost a century various inequities or problems concerning them, were amenable to the normal political process, established through the Constitutional and established governing processes.
Many have noted the existence of the "two societies" that developed in America through it history, but few seem to realize that the differences of the societies were almost solely due to a slave economy existing within a developing free market society.
Without slavery, as the economic base of a sectional economy, it is difficult to imagine another source of sectional difference of such magnitude that it would be insoluable by the normal legislative or Constitutional process.
Without slavery, as the economic base of a sectional economy, it is difficult to imagine another source of sectional difference of such magnitude that it would be insoluable by the normal legislative or Constitutional process.
I'll cheerfully second that thought. I guess I should have included "claimed causes" (Lost and otherwise) in the definition.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Relooking at this list, I'm thinking that I've proposed the impossible. How can we separate sectionalism without ringing in slavery, money and tariffs? How can we separate Tariffs without dragging along sectionalism, without dragging in the rest?
They don't fit in neat compartments, do they? "Sectionalism" encompasses such broad ground, it could easily be divided into several categories - but I wouldn't know where to start. Somewhere in there belongs the South's being offended by northern religionists declaring slavery and its advocates to be sinners, and their being offended by the northern celebrations of John Brown as a hero.
You didn't need to be a slaveowner to get your nose bent out of shape over insults against what you believed to be a superior way of life.
Slavery was the linchpin, no question there. But i feel the reason it came to war was that if the north let the south go, the implications would be enormous and more devestating than the body count. It was the fear that a separation of the union would reopen the territory to those european empires invalidating the Monroe Doctrine, in essence destroying all they had fought for since 1765 from the stamp act congress, on.
Respectfully,
Matt
__________________ Great-Great Grand Nephew of George H. Pfau, 4th NJ Vol Infantry
Without the issue of slavery, there is no secession. The South was a slave economy; wealth was garnered by the ownership of slaves and not by industrial enterprise, generally.
One need only read the Constitution of the Confederate States and compare it to the U.S. Constitution, and reflect how important slavery was to the South and to that Confederate document.
Lincoln could not ban slavery in the United States, but with a Republican controlled Congress, he could seriously damage slavery in the American territories, immediately after his election. Lincoln had promised as much in his pre-election Cooper Union speech.
The southern states were losing power in the U.S. Congress and could see more loss of power in the 1860's, as immigrants flocked to the northern states, increasing northern power in the House of Representatives. The continuing outlook was for more states free of slavery, than states that approved slavery, increasing anti-slave power in the Senate.
Unfortunately, the South never gauged their ability to wage war for more than a year. It lacked industry to fight a modern war and win. As a famous writer deftly said, the South had their cotton, their slaves and their arrogance.
It would seem that categorization will be impossible as the only causative factor (that I can see) not directly involved with slavery would be tariffs. Would that be a reason that some promote the idea that they were the primary stimulus for secession?
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
IMO, slavery was the main cause for the WBTS, but now that I've seen the word "money" listed above, I believe it ranks right up there with slavery. You might say "slavery/money" was the primary cause for the war, couldn't you?
The slave-holders and planters bought slaves to pick cotton, so the planter could sell it and make ...money. The wealthy southern plantation owner, or even the yeoman farmer - anybody who had slaves and relied on them to do the work on the plantation, UNPAID, knew that they were crucial to the financial well-being of the owners, their way of life. No slaves = nobody to pick the cotton, except white folks who they'd have to pay wages to. The slave-owner did not want to see that sytem disrupted. I think "money" was very much a part of the main cause of slavery. Nobody in the South wanted to upset that apple cart...even to the point of going to war to preserve that peculiar "arrangement".
Terry
__________________ "In this great struggle, this form of Government and every form of human right is endangered if our enemies succeed. There is more involved in this contest than is realized by every one." Abraham Lincoln - August 18, 1864 Speech to the 164th Ohio Regiment
In fairness to the Confederate apologists, one might acknowledge that the planter's motivation wasn't so much money as it was culture -- a deeply ingrained practice that had metastasized to the point that its removal would be fatal.
On the other hand, to accuse the Yankee monied interest of starting the war is disenguous. It's much like killing the goose. And as to its pursuing war to keep that market -- ludicrous. Buy from me or I'll kill you.
So. To me, including money in the list leans more to the politically powerful planters' resentment toward paying the cost of using other people's money. I can appreciate that resentment -- I've read that 40 to 52 percent of each cotton crop was, in effect, owned by bankers, factors, shippers, and other agents involved in its sale.
The planter class was wealthy. The richest people in the US were predominantly planters. But it was money on paper, not gold in the pocket. There was no liquidity in the planter's wealth. It was in the number of slaves at X dollars per head and in the land at Y per acre. The missus needs several new dresses for the summer season at the springs? Borrow the cash using that paper wealth as collateral. Little wonder that the financiers owned a good portion of each crop.
At least one mystery escapes me. Where were the southern financiers? Shippers? Insurers? (By the way, for those who read all the threads, the massive Cotton Exchange in Savannah was built in 1887.)
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Ole, thanks for your post above. I'm not sure what you're trying to say in it though. It's way over my head, so to speak. In other words, I don't understand it. In my post I was trying to say that slavery and money both were sort of entertwined as far as the South was concerned, and the wealthy planters, slaveowners, legislators, infuential politicians were adamant that it should not be disturbed. So both slavery and money could be said to have been the main causes of the war, as I see it.
I believe the South started the war, in an effort to protect their money/slave system, which was at the heart of the Southern way of life. Any attempt to disrupt that system, in the South, would be met with extreme violence, which is what happened. Slavery, and all that goes with it, was to be preserved at all cost. Too many people in the South, had too much at stake, ...money, for too long, to let it all go without a fight. That's just my opinion.
Terry
__________________ "In this great struggle, this form of Government and every form of human right is endangered if our enemies succeed. There is more involved in this contest than is realized by every one." Abraham Lincoln - August 18, 1864 Speech to the 164th Ohio Regiment
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
The Gathering Storm 
Linear Mode
