Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
The North's war was about the economic dominance of the continent.
They cared nothing about slaves.
You are wrong.
Not about everything. Just the two things you mention above.
"...any man who pretends to believe that this is not a war for the emancipation of the blacks...is either a fool or a liar." (Taken from The Vidette, November 2, 1862, the unit newspaper of Morgan's Confederate Brigade.)
"The fact that slavery is the sole undeniable cause of this infamous rebellion, that it is a war of, by, and for Slavery, is as plain as the noon-day sun." (Taken from The Wisconsin Volunteer, February 6, 1862, the newspaper of the Thirteenth Wisconsin Infantry Regiment.)
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
The North's war was for the economic dominance of the continent.
Really... is that what the average soldier of the Iron or Irish Brigade though? How bout those boys in the AoT US?
They cared nothing about slaves. Depends entirely who you ask, I rather suspect the men of the USCT would disagree....
Look at the first post of the thread. (I've copied it here for your convenience) It's by a gent apparently interested in opinions and research... I may be wrong but I do not believe your Lost Cause rhetoric would be too interesting. I know it bores me to tears.
"Not what the politicians or Generals or high officers fought for.
Rather, what the ordinary soldier fought for.
As you know, this topic has been argued and discussed in various disparate threads. I think this issue deserves it's own dedicated thread.
The common ideas:
The Northern boys fought only for Union and/or defense of the United States government, not for abolition.
The Southern boys fought for home and hearth, for their state, to resist the evil invader, not to defend slavery.
Is that a fair starting point?
If so lets discuss/argue this out here rather than within the "Slavery - The Cause" thread where it gets lost or those other threads."
__________________ Shane Christen
American Legion Post 352
SUVCW Camp Abernethy# 48
Lifetime NRA member
3rd MN VI
For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow. Eccl 1:18
The more I research, the more I read, the more I have time to think on it, we are not going to be able to move from the subject of slavery as the cause of the Civil War, even when we examine the personal reasons of why each man decided to fight.
It is becoming utterly impossible to do so.
When I first became interested in the Civil War and later, Civil War reenacting, I gave slavery little thought as I was of the firm opinion, brave men could not cross such open ground, such deadly spaces, just to ensure other men were enslaved.
But I have come to realize, that was just my 21st century feelings glossing over my preconcieved notions of why such obviously brave men fought in such a brutal conflict. I do not know how many times I have been told that I view my Confederate ancestors through a 21st century lens when I discuss their views on slavery.
I now realize the reverse is true. My friends and other board members who say those Southern men who fought for the South fought for many reasons other than the institution of slavery, are the ones who are viewing those men through 21st century lenses.
More and more evidence points to this simple fact. Slavery was a recognized and embraced institution in the South, covering the entire gambit of social, political, religious, and everyday life in the region. To the typical, nonslaveholding, Southern man, slavery was right, normal and ordained by God, supported by custom and law, deemed right and necessary. And so it was. At the time.
Why wouldn't a nonslaveholding Southern man fight for slavery? In his mind this institution being threatened by the North, it's destruction or elimination, would turn his world upsidedown, threaten his social order, endanger his family, and more importantly, his own freedom and place in that familiar social order.
No, the Southern soldier wasn't 'tricked' into fighting for wealthy planters, nor did he march into battle over something as abstract as a tariff and to say he did so is trying to attach a 21st century viewpoint in order for us here in this century to be a bit more comfortable with his reasons for taking up arms and almost tearing the United States asunder.
No, if we accept his 19th century worldview, we will find that the typical Southern soldier's view did not extend very far from his region, his state, his home. The elimination of slavery threatened all of it and must be preserved at all costs.
We will never stray far from the subject of slavery when discussing why the men on both sides fought in the Civil War.
They won't let us.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
I am afraid I have to agree with UNIONBLUE in this case. It is just hard for those of us today to accept that slavery was the accepted standard in the south, whether you owned them or not. There were several Pinckney's in the Union Colored troops. I don't believe that was their original family name. so I have to accept that my ancestors held slaves. In fact at the current Pinckney family reunions both the black and the white Pinckney's get together. Slavery like abortion today was the law of the land. At least our ancestors had the fire in their belly to either get rid of it or keep it, that in not present today.
At least our ancestors had the fire in their belly to either get rid of it or keep it, that is not present today.
Pinckney: I'll agree that 19th century convictions were strong enough to shed blood. Similar convictions are alive today, although the more violence-prone sides don't exhibit a trace of the 'nads those guys had.
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
The North's war was about the economic dominance of the continent.
They cared nothing about slaves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by unionblue
You are wrong.
Not about everything. Just the two things you mention above.
Words of an 1861 Yankee (not the 2007 versions)-
"To keep this Northern division of the continent as the field for millions of the white race to claim their natural birthright in, and exercise their energies and their talents for their own advantage and the general prosperity, it is essential that but one Government shall exercise authority from the Gulf of Mexico to Canada, and from the Atlantic to the Pacific. What would this country be, broken up into pieces, and divided into different confederacies, with rival interests, and rival institutions? How could the enterprise and industry of the free North develope itself with another and rival government, based on principles so entirely opposite to free labor, limiting its expansion southwardly, and holding three-fourths of the line of the sea coast of the country in its own possession?....
To be cut off at one blow from this privilege, and to be deprived of the freedom of the coasting trade, would be ruinous to our commercial interests, and crippling to every other pursuit on which our prosperity is founded."
Philadelphia Public Ledger, 7 June 1861
Just found this yesterday...
...turns out I was more correct than I thought.
The North's war was about the economic dominance of the continent.
They cared nothing about slaves.
Words of an 1861 Yankee (not the 2007 versions)-
"To keep this Northern division of the continent as the field for millions of the white race to claim their natural birthright in, and exercise their energies and their talents for their own advantage and the general prosperity, it is essential that but one Government shall exercise authority from the Gulf of Mexico to Canada, and from the Atlantic to the Pacific. What would this country be, broken up into pieces, and divided into different confederacies, with rival interests, and rival institutions? How could the enterprise and industry of the free North develope itself with another and rival government, based on principles so entirely opposite to free labor, limiting its expansion southwardly, and holding three-fourths of the line of the sea coast of the country in its own possession?....
To be cut off at one blow from this privilege, and to be deprived of the freedom of the coasting trade, would be ruinous to our commercial interests, and crippling to every other pursuit on which our prosperity is founded."
Philadelphia Public Ledger, 7 June 1861
Just found this yesterday...
...turns out I was more correct than I thought.
This appears to say that there needs to be a single Union. It does not appear to back either of the two points you are claiming. Please explain clearly exactly what you think this means and why you think it has anything at all to do with the claims you have put forth. Please use your own words. Please do not simply throw sections of other people's work about without stating what *YOU*, yourself, think they mean.
If you do not do that, no one can possibly make any sense of what you say.
I find those who claim that 'economic dominance' and that the North 'cared nothing about slaves' are the ones viewing the causes of the war from a 21st century view.
The historical evidence and examination of those men from the 19th century, in their letters, diaries, speeches and papers, are not going to tolerate such a view.
Try as you might, you are always going to have to come back to this 19th century view. View it as you will, twist it, shape it and tie it up in a bright, pink bow, when you open the package, slavery is going to be staring right back at you.
It is not speculation or a 21st century worldview.
It's history.
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
