Slavery; THE Cause?

[larry_cockerham]

Originally Posted by Battalion

Yes.

Yes.

As volunteers....yes. As conscripts...not so much.

Supplemental answer for 1-3: They all supported their adopted state & region.

The German immigrants in Missouri did not.



Yes.

Southern was perhaps a state of mind more than anything else, or a feeling in one's heart or soul. Many southern men fought in a belief to preserve a previously hard-earned Union. Slavery wasn't THE cause, just a condition and a very bad habit caught up in a much larger struggle. Slavery continues to get much undeserved recognition and there appears to be much supposition attempting to be pasted on men who simply weren't there for that reason. Slavery was bad. Step on it's head until it ceases to exist on the earth, but please don't attempt to burden all men of the 'civil' war with its load.

[unionblue]

Originally Posted by larry_cockerham

Southern was perhaps a state of mind more than anything else, or a feeling in one's heart or soul.

Being Southern did not and should not automatically suppose one was a Confederate either. There were Southerners, who had lived in the South all their lives, who did not support secession nor the idea of a Confederate nation. This does not mean they were not 'Southerners.'

Many southern men fought in a belief to preserve a previously hard-earned Union. Slavery wasn't THE cause, just a condition and a very bad habit caught up in a much larger struggle.

Sorry, Larry, but this sounds more like an excuse than a hard, historical fact and more and more, we are finding out through new studies, books, and research, that slavery was a big deal, even to the nonslaveholding Southerners. Slavery continues to be THE cause to the vast majority of modern historians, the one issue that simply would not go away, no matter how hard they tried in the 19th century and no matter how hard we try in the 21st. IMO.

Slavery continues to get much undeserved recognition and there appears to be much supposition attempting to be pasted on men who simply weren't there for that reason.

Again, as much as I would like to agree with you, this is becoming more and more NOT to be the case. It has been my experience, both at this board and at other functions, that slavery gets little or no recognition as a cause of the war. If anything, there is outright denial that slavery had ANYTHING to do with the war, and we both know that simply is not true.

I really think the hardest part in recognizing slavery as a major cause, if not THE cause of the war, is not wanting to be embarrased concerning our ancestors, our wanting to take pride in them and that we are proud to be their decsendents. We, I think, that by our ancestors, being products of their time and condition, should somehow be considered automatically 'evil' because they thought slavery right and that they considered it essential to their physical safety and to their social standing.

They were who they were and all the denial in the world or the supposing that the majority of them were not there for 'that' reason comes across more as an emotional defense more than a historical one. At least, that is the way it comes across to me.

Slavery was bad. Step on it's head until it ceases to exist on the earth, but please don't attempt to burden all men of the 'civil' war with its load.

And why not, if the men of the period considered that load part of their life, their social order, their hope for financial advancement and something that to them was as normal as the sun rising in the East?

If these men (and women) had been raised up in a society, a social climate that told them every day of their lives, from the pulpit, the court house, and the halls of their state and local governments, that slavery was legal, moral, and a religious duty, why wouldn't they fight for the maintaining of such a system? Slavery would be to the average Southerner as water would be to a fish in the ocean, both would be totally unaware of each until it was suddenly gone or threatened.

Again, if slavery and keeping the black man in his place in the social order was not a primary reason for the war, then why Jim Crow after the war? Why the need for the Civil Rights activisim in the 1960s? Were these not attempts, both in the political, legal, and social orders to keep the black man as close as possible to the institution of slavery?

To me, it's tracing the root back to its source and it all springs from slavery. Didn't always think that way, but to me, the historical evidence and documentation is unavoidable when coming to this conclusion.

For me, at least.

Lecture over,
Unionblue

[Hanny]

Originally Posted by unionblue

Again, if slavery and keeping the black man in his place in the social order was not a primary reason for the war, then why Jim Crow after the war? Why the need for the Civil Rights activisim in the 1960s? Were these not attempts, both in the political, legal, and social orders to keep the black man as close as possible to the institution of slavery?

Unionblue

Because the former slave was still in his place decades after the war ended, the North was not intrestsed in elevating to equality, but preventing him from enabling the south to win a mil struggle, ergo slavery to change his place in the social order was not a war aim, nor was it achieved for many decades post the event, in fact income for negros and social mobilty fell post war and would not rise to near parity with whites for over a century.

Because exactly of what you post, you post as though the war was over keeping the black in his place from a cs pov, and changing that place from a northern pov, when the blacks place in crows laws was exactly the same as his place in northern states from where those laws were lifted from and used in the south, and had been since the 1830s,MLK was required to act because the USA was and still is a racist society ( KKK membership was highest in the mid west not the south in the 1930s) that has taken longer than anywhere else to use multicultrism to solve social pressures.

In 1937 the US mil explained its reason why negros could not and should not be used in combat roles, but only for manual labour, it reads worse than a pro slavery explanation of why negros are suitable for slavery only.

[trice]

Originally Posted by Hanny

Because the former slave was still in his place decades after the war ended, the North was not intrestsed in elevating to equality, but preventing him from enabling the south to win a mil struggle, ergo slavery to change his place in the social order was not a war aim, nor was it achieved for many decades post the event, in fact income for negros and social mobilty fell post war and would not rise to near parity with whites for over a century.

Because exactly of what you post, you post as though the war was over keeping the black in his place from a cs pov, and changing that place from a northern pov, when the blacks place in crows laws was exactly the same as his place in northern states from where those laws were lifted from and used in the south, and had been since the 1830s,MLK was required to act because the USA was and still is a racist society ( KKK membership was highest in the mid west not the south in the 1930s) that has taken longer than anywhere else to use multicultrism to solve social pressures.

In 1937 the US mil explained its reason why negros could not and should not be used in combat roles, but only for manual labour, it reads worse than a pro slavery explanation of why negros are suitable for slavery only.

Hanny,

IMHO, it is not disputable that the prime (indeed the overwhelming) reason the South seceded and went to war was to protect slave property rights.

Also IMHO, there is no credible evidence that the rest of the country went to war for any reason other than outrage over the Confederate attack upon the United States. While there were abolitionists about in the North, they did not have the type of power or influence needed to get a war started to "free the slaves". Had the Confederacy not forced war upon the US, the Civil War would not have started.

Tim

[Baggage Handler #2]

There is a critically important distinction no one is making.

Why the war started vs why an individual went to war.

"How" you sell something, if you're Rhett or one of the others is very different from "why" you're giving the pitch or even "what" you're selling.

So, yes, the war started for one reason.
The reasons an individual man signed up to fight are in many cases very different.

There was a book by a Luftwaffe pilot who touches on this idea, making reference to the Pied Piper of Hamelin, and even Sam Watkins makes mention of it. Their reasons for going seemed right to them at the time, but afterwards (if I read Watkins correctly) there was a sense of betrayal in the people that led them to make those decisions.
Even Shakespeare brushes up against the thought in one of the battle eve scenes in Henry V.
The expression "rich man's war, poor man's fight" touches it, but doesn't go far enough, IMO.

[Hanny]

Originally Posted by Baggage Handler #2

There is a critically important distinction no one is making.

Why the war started vs why an individual went to war.

"How" you sell something, if you're Rhett or one of the others is very different from "why" you're giving the pitch or even "what" you're selling.

So, yes, the war started for one reason.
The reasons an individual man signed up to fight are in many cases very different.

There was a book by a Luftwaffe pilot who touches on this idea, making reference to the Pied Piper of Hamelin, and even Sam Watkins makes mention of it. Their reasons for going seemed right to them at the time, but afterwards (if I read Watkins correctly) there was a sense of betrayal in the people that led them to make those decisions.
Even Shakespeare brushes up against the thought in one of the battle eve scenes in Henry V.
The expression "rich man's war, poor man's fight" touches it, but doesn't go far enough, IMO.

Fair points, to which i would add, that when the deep south went out of the Union, principly over who would control the instituition of slavery, either the federal government or the states, there was no war, when lincoln asked for militia to coerce them back, the war came and the upper south secedded over coercion, not slavery at all.

[Battalion]

Originally Posted by unionblue

They were who they were and all the denial in the world or the supposing that the majority of them were not there for 'that' reason comes across more as an emotional defense more than a historical one. At least, that is the way it comes across to me.

I feel the same way in regard to the North with the money issue.
Though each individual did not consider themselves at war for the money interest...it was the money interest who benefited. It was the money interest that harangued the populace and paid for the war...and later received the dividends.

People in the North simply cannot own up to this. They would rather eat nails and crawl over broken glass.

I know 'Restore the Glorious Union' and 'Fight for Freedom' &c., sounds better...but you need to face facts.

[trice]

Originally Posted by Battalion

I feel the same way in regard to the North with the money issue.
Though each individual did not consider themselves at war for the money interest...it was the money interest who benefited. It was the money interest they harangued the populace and paid for the war...and later received the dividends.

People in the North simply cannot own up to this. They would rather eat nails and crawl over broken glass.

I know 'Restore the Glorious Union' and 'Fight for Freedom' &c., sounds better...but you need to face facts.

The problem with this is that we know, for sure, that the US did not go to war for these reasons. On April 11, 1861, there was no movement to go to war in the North. The Congress had raised no additional troops; had not voted any funds; had given no authorization to the President to do anything. There was a lot of hand-wringing and talk, but absolutely no reason to believe a war would be started by the US side. Then the Confederacy (after building their military up over a period of months) assaulted the US at Ft. Sumter and began interning US soldiers peacefully withdrawing from Texas.

Immediately after that, the North is aflame with a desire to avenge themselves for this violent assault. This is clear and undeniable, well-documented since the day it happened. Yet you squirm and twist to avoid acknowledging it. Face the facts: there would have been no war at that time without the Confederate aggression.

Tim

[larry_cockerham]

Originally Posted by Baggage Handler #2

There is a critically important distinction no one is making.

Why the war started vs why an individual went to war.

"How" you sell something, if you're Rhett or one of the others is very different from "why" you're giving the pitch or even "what" you're selling.

So, yes, the war started for one reason.
The reasons an individual man signed up to fight are in many cases very different.

There was a book by a Luftwaffe pilot who touches on this idea, making reference to the Pied Piper of Hamelin, and even Sam Watkins makes mention of it. Their reasons for going seemed right to them at the time, but afterwards (if I read Watkins correctly) there was a sense of betrayal in the people that led them to make those decisions.
Even Shakespeare brushes up against the thought in one of the battle eve scenes in Henry V.
The expression "rich man's war, poor man's fight" touches it, but doesn't go far enough, IMO.

Finally! Finally! Finally! Someone is paying attention and has their brain in gear! This is it in a nutshell. Neil, this is why your lecture is flawed. These men did exist. There are documents to prove it. The writing of Capt. John Quincy Adams Bryant of the 10th Tennessee US Cavalry prove he thought that way. He and gg grandpa Cockerham were from Wilkes County, North Carolina and apparently of much the same mindset. They didn't give a hoot in ### about slavery, but were fond enough of the Union to stake their lives and the welfare of their families on their effort in the war. Current attempts to re-write history with blinders makes me confident that my service in the SCV is at least needed. The truth is the truth, no more no less. Baggagehandler, at least, is awake.

[Beowulf]

Keep the thread on point, no more hijacking. Slavery; THE Cause? Not a modern political agenda.