What, in your PERSONAL opinion, was the cause of the War, and how did you come to your conclusion?

[unionblue]

Friends, Thea, Tommy and I have decided to start a new thread, with the hopes of involving more of you in the debates and to find out where each of us on this board stand concerning the War we talk about so much.

I have decided to lead off and give my own personal opinion on what caused the War and how I came to that opinion.

Foremost in my mind, the Civil War (Sorry, Thea, but I call them like I see them) was caused by the institution of slavery. PERIOD.

Now, there are some other details to that cause, but in my humble opinion, it all revolves around the issue of slavery and it's spread throughout the country. That's my short version.

How did I come to this conclusion? It was a long and twisted road, fellow members, and not one immediately arrived at.

As a resident of the great State of Ohio, I am pretty sure I had much the same quality education that most of you got in high school. US History was a one-period, 40 minute class, that covered the Civil War in a couple of paragraphs: "The war was about slavery. Lincoln freed the slaves. Next chapter."

My main interest in history at the time was World War II, so I knew little about the contest between North and South and did not much care. Upon graduating, I enlisted in the US Army for 20 years, got married, got a daughter and remained pretty ignorant of the Civil War.

Then I saw the movie "Gettysburg" and "Glory" and was so moved by each of them. I noticed at the end of the movie the credits that stated Civil War reenactors helped with the movies. After retiring from the Army, I joined up with some fellow reenactors here in Ohio and loved every drill, every reenactment and every camp out.

I still carried around my conviction that I would never reenact Confederate as I knew the War had been about slavery. That is why I reenacted with a Yankee unit, the 76th OVI. Then my friend Ron Goodwin, Old Reb on this board, moved to Ohio from Mississippi and joined my reenacting unit.

Ron & I hit it off at once and became fast friends. But Ron complained of being in "itchy Union wool" and wanted to form a Rebel reenacting company. A lot of boys, me included, thought it would be fun to don the gray once in a while, so Ron had his wish and Company D, 17th Mississippi Infantry Regiment, The Rough & Readies, was born.

It was during this period Ron and I talked, along with some newly recruited boys from the South, about the REAL causes of the War Between The States as Ron referred to it. States Rights, Tariffs, peaceful secession, etc.

I bought it all. Why not? Ron produced documentation, books, articles and much sincere passion in his reasoning. I was so convinced of Ron's version of events, I even presented those causes of the War at school presentations I did, stating to a class that the War was NOT about slavery and many black slaves actually enlisted in the Confederate army and fought Union forces along side their white companions (I still cringe at the reaction of the black female teacher in the classroom that day).

Being impressed with Ron's collection of books on the subject, I felt I had to start my own, so that I could more accurately give out information during my presentations. At this time I was very busy giving presentations at schools, private & public, elementary and high schools, libraries and retirement homes. I was having a ball.

Then I began my own research and some things were just not adding up. The more books I bought, the more I was troubled. Then I began asking Ron some questions, then more questions and then we were outright debating on our road trips to various reenactments around the country. Ron taught me on thing for sure. Never debate him unless you had something to back it up with. Ron was (and IS) smart, sharp and totally dedicated to the idea of States Rights and the legality of secession.

I now have a library on the Civil War that rivals most city libraries. I have done more research and reading in the last four years than I ever did my entire life. I hear and now thank Ron for making me research, dig, search and find out for myself what I believe. Without him, I would be just another poor slob wondering if the Civil War was fought in 1776, 1812 or was that later?

So, friendship brought me to my opinion on the cause of the War, and friendship on this board keeps me searching out the facts so I can support my opinion.

There we be friends. Now lets hear from you and how you got here.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

I never had a interest in the Civil War myself, until also seeing, the movies of The Blue and the Grey, Gettysburg, Glory, and the mini-series, that was made sometime ago of North and South. Probably, the driving force behind these movies, was a computer civil war game, that I would play on occasion. I also agree, that slavery, was the main driving force behind the war. I've read in books, such as Battle Cry of Freedom, how even way before the civil war broke out, how this country, was constantly at odds, between the slave, and anti-slave people. How at even one time, there was a meeting of delegates in Washington, and a actual fist fight, broke out on the floor, over the slavery issue. There, were other issues, that were "hot potatoes", with state rights being one of them, but without slavery, as the driving force, I don't think, that the war would have happened.Maj. Gen. Gordon, of the CSA, wrote after the war, that if not for the slaves, he didn't think, that the war would have happened.
Gunsmoke

[thea_447]

To my esteemed colleagues on this newly created message board, I will tell you upfront that I cannot concur with the opinion that slavery was the foremost cause of the War. As you have pointed out, Neil, the South took this as their major point when seceding but I think they did this for a different reason. (More on that later.)

Henceforth, Neil, I will do my best to partially accomodate you and not call it the WBTS. Since Civil War is a term I cannot abide this will have to do. I say this in part because if you've read any of the surrender papers that Southern men signed ( I refer to relatives'), there are TWO names on the document, the United States and the Confederate States. Since this was the official document issued by the United States government, one can see clearly that they considered this a war between TWO NATIONS.)

Also, every reference I've made to "The Great Unpleasantness" was simply to insert a bit of wry humor into an otherwise dark subject, where brother fought brother and the entire country bled. Since we all know precisely what war we are referring too, I will call it just that, the War.

As I have stated before I don't believe any war has ever been fought merely on high moral grounds. Such stuff is more likely found in fairy-tales and MANY documentaries. These same fables, if you will, have, over the generations, been accepted as truths, but not by all people, myself included.

The South was rich, the Northern industries needed her wealth. The South wanted free trade, the North would deny them that because it hit them where they lived, the pocketbook. The end result was War.

Greed is a powerful motivator. And the Northern states had it in spades. Under Federal legislation the exports of the South were the "meat and potatoes" of the Federal revenue. And the wealth of the South always went North, never staying in the South.

Lincoln knew this. If this widely venerated man had felt so strongly about slavery, why did he wait TWO YEARS into the war to write the EP?
First off, he thought there would be some minor skirmishes, and the South would falter and fall back into line.
He NEVER understood the will of the Southern fighting man and the women they left behind. But he was willing to wage the bloodiest war on American soil because of his stubbornness, not because of any high moral tone. Re-read his speeches in the Congress before his election to the Presidency.

This is just the beginning of what I hope will be a fruitful study of the War, by both Northern and Southern interested parties.

One last point before closing for this evening, if indeed the North felt so strongly about the slavery issue, isn't it amazing that they allowed child labor to run rampant in their factories, and thought this was quite alright. Children being put to work in sweat shops was somehow overlooked in their zest to have the factories flourishing with extremely cheap labor. Yet they looked down on the South for its practices which had been the order of the day since the inception of this country. (I'm }}} NOT trying to justify slavery, I'm stating fact.)

And with that said, I will close for tonight.

Till we meet again. Thea

Howdy,

Well..here goes, part of it any way...I have been a student of the civil war since I was about 7. I was born into a military family. My grandfather was a veteran of the union army. He served and fought for the 28th Ky vet vol reg. My father was a 23 year veteran of military service and served and fought in WW2, Korea, and Viet Nam. He got a bucket load of medals. My family lost lives in Revolutionary war, Boer war, WW1, WW2 and Viet Nam. I have traced parts of my family all the way back to William the Conqueror’s Domesday Book.

I was born on a military base in Kansas. at about 3 years old my father retired and returned to his home in Tennessee. Being a state that was both occupied for several years by the Yankees as well as battlefields everywhere, it was a ever present part of our daily lives as well as our heritage. Trust me. The poverty and effects from the war and reconstruction is still felt.

I was my father's "little buddy" and as such I went everywhere with him. Since Dickson County was a dry county that meant I grew up knowing all the moonshiners and bootleggers. Now contrary to popular myth, moonshining was pretty rare. It was more profitable to be a bootlegger..buy bonded in the bottle in another county or state and bring it here to sell. Yet moonshining did exist. I learned so much from those old hillbillies. One in particular was an old black man. (how old I'm not sure. you know how it is when you are a kid) He had an old apple tree and made point of making sure I ate my fill. He also was a descendant of slaves. He hated the yankees. I mean hated. He said they were more abusive and killed and beat more blacks than south ever did. He had relative who was crippled my union soldier for not "gettin out of the way" . He had no one to turn to for help so he went to his former master who took care of him til the day he died. He said it was worse after the war for blacks than you can imagine. He said the yankees just used them then threw them away. He would go on about yankees all day if you'd let him. He just plain hated the government. Which he called the “Yankee’s guvmint” He dressed like you’d expect but he always had roll cash on him you could choke a mule with.

As a child, I had a friend (hard to believe huh? Me? A friend? Lol). He had the coolest set of civil war soldiers. He had a passion for the war. His dog was named Rebel. As we grew up we read everything we could find. We acted out the battles. Shiloh, Brice’s Crossroads, Gettysburg....always on the side of the south but in our world we won. Grin. Yet he was very non biased actually. He was the one, when I said Little Mac was horrible that he was actually really good. That he created, trained, organized the AOP that defeated the south. That given the free reign and non interference that Grant was given, he likely would have won the war with a lot less casualties.

As I grew I read. Since I had and lost family in so many wars I never really focused on one war over the other. Unless perhaps WW2. Yet our teachers did teach of the war. We had one who, when students left his class they were excited. He brought films, pistols, rifles, uniforms etc from his home to class.

So my background was such it made it easy to find reason to be interested in the war. Also is why I hold the movies about the war in virtual contempt. Although my grandfather was a union soldier, (and his picture, 16 yrs old, pistol in hand, always occupied place of honor, ) his son, my dad, was pro south. Not just past but present. He used to explain why they had always made the best soldiers and that there was an unspoken ideology in military to make sure that you had rural southerners in every company. Especially rifle companies. He’d point out the top 3 medal earners of WW2 were southern. He pointed out casualty rates were higher. Texas losing most etc. That Tennessee was the Volunteer State. He had traveled the world and USA for 25 years. Yet he thought best people, the best place to live, was in the south.....it was home.

So I came by having a Union grandfather (who, btw, was pretty ashamed of things his army did according to my grandmother. Serving with Sherman I can see why) to a military father in military family...So my interest came naturally as falling off a log.

Personally. I think the war was inevitable. I see that slavery was just one item in a concatenation of conflicts between the different cultures of the north and south that predated the existence of this nation. Secession was going to happen. So many states had too many conflicts.

Why then, 1860? I personally think it WAS slavery, tariffs, taxes and the railroad. Slavery was the excuse.

It was used by Radical Republicans. I think to overlook the fundamental actions they supported as glorious on one hand while simultaneous mouthing lame insincere condemnation is a big mistake. They said one thing but did another. The sad fact is that everything the north did had no choice but to lead the south to accept and believe that the north not only condemned slavery but that they wanted the slaves to turn on their masters. Lincoln himself, in his statement regarding John Brown, said basically...yes John brown was crazy, but he just couldn’t take it anymore, YOU drove him to it. That is like telling a battered spouse...yes it was awful and wrong your husband beat you but he just could not take your complaining anymore. Personally I think the day Sherman stood up before congress and declared Hinton’s book the Republican Manifesto war could not be avoided. This was tantamount to telling the south. We want you to bend to our will and we want slaves rise up to kill you. It could be interpreted no other way. Why bother to condemn John Brown then literally days after do this??

Also I blame the railroads. For years Texas had pleaded for more military assistance against bandits from Mexico, Indians etc. (Read Texas secession declaration)We had just recently had war with Mexico. The railroad was to be built for military reasons. The path that railroad took was the real key. Do they decide to put railroad near the border with country hostile to us, in a land already populated and rife with danger? No. Do they put it where soldiers are most needed? No..they put it through Nebraska. Look at this way to get the importance of certain people wanting this railroad for other than national or military interest....we consider that war to be our biggest trial as a nation. Literally torn apart. Yet they insisted on building it right then. To expend resources and energy not to reserve the union. But to put money in yankee’s pockets.

Funny that I was the one that thought a word limit was good idea eh? I will admit first and foremost that these ideas are not popular. Nor do I say them very well. I am not a gifted writer. Nor much of an organizer of ideas. I seldom even bother to proofread. So forgive the disjointed rambling nature of my posts. I am ready to engage in exchange of ideas now. I am ready for thought provoking attacks.

YMOS
tommy

[illreb]

Neil,
I shutter to begin this post, I have seen many boards destroy any worth while civil war discussions after starting a post like this (nothing but bickering , name calling and banishment from the board) Well here goes nothing

The opening of your post sounds like I wrote it.I too LOVE World War II history, knew nothing of the Civil War(and didn't care) . In school we didn't even get the few paragraphs you spoke of. 7th grade history ended with the election of Lincoln, 8th grade began with the reconstruction(no kidding). I didn't know what we where reconstructing from. I too joined the military,3 yrs in Va. (battlefields everywhere and i did not care)When I left the Navy I stopped in Washington for some sight seeing. I visited the Lincoln Memorial bought a small book on the war and I've been hooked eversince.I read everything I can find,I reenact both yank and reb,visit every civil war site I can get to, and surf the web for anything on the War Between the States

When I first began studying the war I believed the "guys in blue "were good and "guys in gray" were bad cut and dry. I now believe MOST northern soldiers fought to preserve the union not slaves and MOST southerners for stopping the invasion of their states heck your common reb didn't own slaves and a many reb officers fought for their states not to preserve slavery(ie Lee,Longstreet,Jackson) .Yes slavery was a part of the war (and many believed in it) but it was just a part of the states rights problem.Which many thought was a bigger problem then slavery alone. the federal government didn't think it a goal of the war until after Antietam and made it more an issue to stop international intervention and less an issue of actually freeing slaves (Lincoln himself said if he could preserve the union without freeing the slaves he would do it)
I try to think of the issue as a 19th century american and don't believe most 19th century northerner or southerner thought of slavery as the MAIN reason for fighting.It just became a bigger issue as the war progressed
Illreb

Keith,
While I expect to be challenged, and to I expect to be thought an idiot etc. I am pretty sure it will be pointed out to me in fairly reasonable terms. grin. I am sure we can be adult about it.....well...kinda sure.


Neil,
I can feel compassion for being put in the position with the black teacher in the class. Yet whether blacks today like it or not. Blacks did serve in the confederacy. Not in great numbers but in enough numbers that they should be respected for their service. Rather than being dismissed and insulted as non existent. I think the ones that volunteered in the last days of the war showed willingness even at a time when the cause was lost. One of the best articles I read regarding this was not chock full of facts. Yet it was told by a re-enactor. I am sure you have read it. If not, I highly recommend it.
http://www.37thtexas.org/html/Wshcitypaper.html


Thea,
I, myself prefer to call the war the WBTS or The war of Northern Aggression, but I often refer to it as the civil war just because it is known by that by more people. While I know words have power and it is not just about semantics, I do not get too worked up over it. I would not be offended by hearing it called anything except unimportant.

YMOS
tommy

Charles,
I do not know of a fist fight but I do know of the caning of Charles Sumner by Brooks. While I would say his actions were wrong. I can also say if I was there and it was my kinfolk he was saying those things about he'd be lucky to get away with just a caning. I would think I would surely have challenged him to a duel and tried my best to shoot him dead. Parlimentary procedure be d****d.

Also...after Sherman made is proclamation stating that the Hinton Helper book being his party's manifesto and distrubiting 100,000 copies of it, it was said that the only congressmen not carrying a gun and knife were the ones carrying two guns. Or something to that effect.

Politics was a bit different back then eh?


YMOS
tommy

[jeffdavislegion]

I hesitate to enter this type of discussion for several reasons.

A. The topic has been done to death. It has surfaced at one time or another on every civil war board, and generally becomes a shoving match between "The Unionists" and "The Lost Causers."

B. The topic has much in common with "discussions" on abortion, gun control and the war with Iraq. The positions are belief-driven, are usually solidly rooted, and virtually no minds are changed.

C. The discussion generally wanders off into side discussions - such as why the common soldier fought, i.e. "The Federals fought to "preserve the Union," or "The Confederates fought an invading army." The motivation of the common soldier is irrelevant to the CAUSE of war.

D. A battle always arises over the name of the war. Noms-de-guerre such as the official "War of the Rebellion" or the counterbalance "War of Northern Aggression" are simply semantics to promote an agenda. It was a war between citizens of the same country. The argument that it was not a civil war because it was between two sovereign nations is another point-of-view semantic exercise. While the surrender papers used United States and Confederate States, that was four years after the start. I use the term Civil War without apologies or accommodation.

E. Wars are seldom fought only for one specific reason. There are always collateral reasons. These collateral reasons are usually offered by the handful, but in effect distract the discussion from the real reason. While there may be many collateral reasons for a war, there usually is ONE defining reason.

That all being said, I guess I have to enter my drei pfennig's worth:

I believe that the principal reason behind the Civil War was slavery in general, and the inability (refusal?) of those leaders OF BOTH SIDES to deal with it rationally.

1. The South had a culture and an economy built on slavery - the North did not. You can try to convert that into economics, but the root difference was slavery.

2. The country was being torn apart over the argument about slavery - particularly the admission of new states as slave or free. Arguably, the Civil War began on the Kansas-Missouri border in the 1850's. They were arguing about the right to have slaves within the state - and little else.

3. The Constitution of the Confederate States specifically guaranteed the rights of the states to maintain the institution of slavery.
Article IV, Section 3 (3): The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of Negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

4. States' rights is the most common quoted reason by those with an opposing opinion. States rights to what? Primarily the states' rights to continue the institution of slavery. This argument typically focuses on the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution:

X - Rights of the States under Constitution
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

However, it generally ignores Article III:
Section 3 - Treason defined. Proof of. Punishment of.
1. Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort . . .

It is fairly established in common law that an uprising against a sovereign nation is considered to be treason. For example, Great Britain considered us to be treasonous around 1776. Please bear in mind that I don't consider treason to be morally wrong when committed for morally correct reasons. In my lexicon, treason is simply a term for outright rebellion against a sovereign state, or giving aid and comfort to its enemies.

5. The secession documents of the majority of the Confederate states allude specifically to the issue of slavery.

People can stir as many collateral issues into the pot as necessary to justify a position. However, I contend that all of these collateral issues have their genesis in slavery.

Now before I get pounced on for being a **** Yankee, please take a look at my user name. I had six cousins in the Adams Troop, Jeff Davis Legion, Adams County, Mississippi. I don’t believe I besmirch their names by believing that they fought with honor for a dishonorable cause.

Daniel,

Welcome to the fray. Do not hesitate. Jump right in.

I think part of the intention of this thread was to avoid lots of quoting, cutting and pasting but a more personal opinion. Also I have no problem with the subject shifting in any and all directions. I am eager to hit any and all tangents.

State Rights was the issue. I swear before God almighty that if it had not been slavery it would have been something else. Sovereignty of the states was too important to the South (Even before the official formation of the nation this fact is easily apparent) and the issue had been raised before about secession that had absolutely nothing to do with slavery. It was about the right of each state to self determine it's own laws not included or protected in the constitution. Be it a law about slavery or the income tax or anything at all. It had to do with not being told what to do by the central government.


The south saw the controlling of states rights as the key. That is the way the southerners in 1860 saw it.

}They saw it as the central government using the slavery of one people to enslave a nation.

I can relate to that. I can read the history and see the hubris of the central government towards the South and the state's rights.

As to the articles you pasted. They were not traitor's nor committed treason. They were no longer part of the union nor bound to the Constitution. So the articles are moot. Null and void.

As to pouncing on you for being a **** Yankee. Nope. I do not hate yankee's nor their opinions. As I stated earlier. My grandfather was in the Union army. A yankee. If I had lived then I'd have shot him. Or he'd have shot me. But I still am proud of that 16 year old boy who went to war. He most likely did it for money though. Yet I respect the Yankees then, excepting many of the ones I would deem war criminals, and the yankees now. Yet respect does not mean I agree with nor even like them.

All that said I would confess to taking some measure of offence for saying it was a dishonorable cause.

YMOS
tommy

[jeffdavislegion]

Tommy,

As to the articles you pasted. They were not traitors nor committed treason. They were no longer part of the union nor bound to the Constitution. So the articles are moot. Null and void.

Your conclusion is valid if I accept the fact that secession from the Union was valid and lawful. Further, I must accept the argument that the United States was a loose confederation of independent states with individual rights of sovereignty, which I do not. Finally, since my belief is that the the southern states' primary motivation was to preserve the institution of slavery, I cannot accept that conclusion. The leaders of the Confederacy committed treason, just as did George Washington, Thomas Paine, and the others who supported the Revolution. As I said, treason is not dishonorable if it is for the right reason - but it is still treason.

As to my referring to the "cause" as dishonorable, that statement is predicated on my belief that the war was waged primarily over the preservation of slavery. Any war in support of slavery is by definition dishonorable. If I were convinced that the war was truly over states' rights, and further convinced that the primary "states' right" was NOT slavery, I would reclassify my opinion. However, as you can probably tell, I am not so convinced. I simply cannot classify a cause as honorable when, in my opinion, it was fought to preserve a way of life that bought and sold people as chattel.

I'm not trying to be contentious here - it's just that this particular discussion seems to be dichotomous. I have a belief which I cannot prove. I can only state my opinion, and justify it based on my assumptions. As I stated earlier, people have a side, and their side seldom changes. Regardless of my perception of the logic of my own opinion and arguments, they're not likely to change your opinion - and vice versa.

In closing, I'll note my very first statement. This topic has been hashed and rehashed. In fact, one can find at least a dozen versions of it on this board. I don't have much to offer other than what I've stated to this point.

I appreciate your opinion and your willingness to state it and justify it; however, I simply disagree with no malice intended.

I apologize for the "cut and paste." It seemed it was de rigeur on this forum.