Poll: Many discount slavery as main cause of Civil War

[trice]

Originally Posted by Vareb

that doesn't mean they did the right thing.

At that time in history, the South thought so.

Of course, some of them did. Some did not. And if you will look you will notice that illegal actions were taken by the secessionists before the convention voted, including attempts upon the Federal facilities at Harpers Ferry and Norfolk. Just as in TN, the VA secessionists acted to provoke a public uproar and rush a decision.

But I note you avoided the content of my message, just as everyone who raises this issue about VA does. Why is that? Is there some problem with acknowledging the aggressions of the secessionists/Confederates from December of 1860 to April of 1861 that caused the war? Could it be because looking at what happened objectively means you must acknowledge that Lincoln's call for troops was justified under the law?

Tim

[DHPatrick]

Originally Posted by trice

Of course, some of them did. Some did not. And if you will look you will notice that illegal actions were taken by the secessionists before the convention voted, including attempts upon the Federal facilities at Harpers Ferry and Norfolk. Just as in TN, the VA secessionists acted to provoke a public uproar and rush a decision.

But I note you avoided the content of my message, just as everyone who raises this issue about VA does. Why is that? Is there some problem with acknowledging the aggressions of the secessionists/Confederates from December of 1860 to April of 1861 that caused the war? Could it be because looking at what happened objectively means you must acknowledge that Lincoln's call for troops was justified under the law?

Tim

Tim,

There was certainly agression from parties on both sides. These parties on both sides were responsible for creating the atmosphere that was a prelude to to the Civil War.

Then again, I must say I would be very hesitant to brand the whole North or South for the actions of a some.

[Parrott Gun]

Originally Posted by DHPatrick

Tim,

There was certainly agression from parties on both sides. These parties on both sides were responsible for creating the atmosphere that was a prelude to to the Civil War.

Obviously seizing federal arsenals, firing on a federal fort, and interning U.S soldiers in Texas would be considered aggression. What actions on the part of the north would you consider aggression?

[JohnW in E.TN]

Originally Posted by larry_cockerham

Union Blue, alias Neil, has long ago convinced me that slavery was a central consideration in the mostly political jousting that occurred when the war was set in motion. I have long offered the opinion that a considerable number, perhaps a majority, of southern and Union soldiers were drawn into the conflict for far more diverse reasoning. A major war was occurring in the southern United States, not so united at the time. War was a reason to enter war. Slavery was of far lesser importance to the southern fighting man.

Larry,

Neil set me on the path of this discovery as well. However, like you, I remain unconvinced that all Southern fighting men went to war to preserve the institution of slavery. The South was not a monolith, especially in the Appalachian South. Many of the men from these areas were dirt poor, side-hill farmers, and were more concerned with keeping their families from starving than in helping some rich planter keep his slaves. Slavery got the mess started, but the men fought for many reasons.

Regards,

John W.

[trice]

Originally Posted by DHPatrick

Tim,

There was certainly agression from parties on both sides. These parties on both sides were responsible for creating the atmosphere that was a prelude to to the Civil War.

Then again, I must say I would be very hesitant to brand the whole North or South for the actions of a some.

Your statement is incorrect.

Lincoln's call for troops is in reaction to a long string of illegal and aggressive acts -- including the use of armed military force to seize Federal property and money, the siege of Federal installations, assault on US troops, and the internment of US troops peacefully withdrawing from Texas in accordance with an existing agreement. Many of those acts were illegal even under the state laws of the secessionists themselves. Not one act that was taken by either Buchanan or Lincoln up to that point would be regarded as aggression under international law -- but dozens of acts by the secessionists/Confederates would.

Tim

[timewalker]

Originally Posted by JohnW in E.TN

Larry,

Neil set me on the path of this discovery as well. However, like you, I remain unconvinced that all Southern fighting men went to war to preserve the institution of slavery. The South was not a monolith, especially in the Appalachian South. Many of the men from these areas were dirt poor, side-hill farmers, and were more concerned with keeping their families from starving than in helping some rich planter keep his slaves. Slavery got the mess started, but the men fought for many reasons.

Regards,

John W.

I do not think that anyone is claiming that all Southern men fought for slavery. Clearly, some fought because they were conscripted adnd did not have a choice. Some fought just because they wanted to fight and were not particularly interested in what the cause was, they just wanted to "get in on the fun." Some clearly believed that they were fighting Northern oppression/invasiom.

The point remains, however, that the Confederacy itself went to war to preserve slavery. The states seceded because of slavery. The Confederacy fired on Fort Sumter in order to convince the Northern slave states to join a Confederacy founded on and created to preserve slavery. Therefore, in a way, anyone fighting for the Confederacy was fighting to preserve slavery, just as every British soldier in the Boer War in South Africa was fighting to preserve British Imperialism, although I imagine a number of those British soldier would not have expressed it in those terms.

[JohnW in E.TN]

Originally Posted by timewalker

The point remains, however, that the Confederacy itself went to war to preserve slavery. The states seceded because of slavery. The Confederacy fired on Fort Sumter in order to convince the Northern slave states to join a Confederacy founded on and created to preserve slavery. Therefore, in a way, anyone fighting for the Confederacy was fighting to preserve slavery, just as every British soldier in the Boer War in South Africa was fighting to preserve British Imperialism, although I imagine a number of those British soldier would not have expressed it in those terms.

Nowhere did I dispute the point that slavery started the War. Please re-read my post. My point was that each individual soldier did NOT enlist to defend the institution. And yes, there have been people on this forum in the past, who have stated that ALL Southern soldiers went to war to defend slavery , or that they all hoped to someday own a slave themselves.

Regards,

John W.

[Elennsar]

The distinction between Jack the Tennesean saying "I'm gonna to fight for slavery and kill me some d--- n------ loving Yankees, ma! I'll be back in time for the harvest!" and Jack the Tennessean taking up arms to fight for a government and cause that was out to defend and if at all possible expand slavery with the exact thoughts on his mind when he signs his name or makes his mark on Captain Smith's Southern Defenders (or whatever he called his company) is not a vast chasm. The Confederacy's leaders made it nakedly obvious how they felt about slavery and how horribly dangerous the d--- n----- loving Yankees were to good Southerner women who if said Yankees got their way way would be forced to do all sorts of unnatural acts with newly freed slaves. Those who answered their call to arms had to believe in that to some extent.

Even if Jack didn't personally believe slavery was a positively good and moral thing, and even if he personally had no desire to own slaves...to argue that he didn't fight for slavery is like not entirely unlike arguing that the people who went off on the Crusades didn't fight for the Catholic Church.

This said.

This is still not quite the same thing as Jack crusading (in absence of a better word within the English language) for God, the South, and slavery. I don't believe the difference is very large, but it is about as valid to say that Jack believed passionately in slavery because Alexander Stephens spoke of it as one of the greatest things about the South as to say that Jack the Ohioan passionately believed in ending slavery because Abraham Lincoln issued the Emanicipation Proclaimation.

There were a number of reasons involved in both of their feelings on why they joined the war (and the side they chose)...some of them being the reasons people join all wars. As stupid as it sounds, "It sounds like a great adventure. I'm going to join." has appealed to the young and bored from the Trojan War up until at least the first World War.

[DHPatrick]

Originally Posted by trice

Your statement is incorrect.

Lincoln's call for troops is in reaction to a long string of illegal and aggressive acts -- including the use of armed military force to seize Federal property and money, the siege of Federal installations, assault on US troops, and the internment of US troops peacefully withdrawing from Texas in accordance with an existing agreement. Many of those acts were illegal even under the state laws of the secessionists themselves. Not one act that was taken by either Buchanan or Lincoln up to that point would be regarded as aggression under international law -- but dozens of acts by the secessionists/Confederates would.

Tim

Tim

I actually found your post again. Reference my private message to you.

You answer seems to be subjective, suggesting there is no room for any discussion. At this point I must assume you discount the governer's message to the North. You also discount the fact that the Union side sent a disguised commercial vessel to resupply Fort Sumter. You seem to discount the fact that Lincoln attempted to retrieve the vessel after he received Major Anderson's message. Further that a heavily armed and over manned (a 300 complimented - check out a frigate's compliment) sloop was dispatched (considered a 14 gun vessel, but with more) - dispatched most likely because of it's lesser draught.

I can provide you distinct evidence that as few as 4 guns can be very effective in ending a full fledged engagement, an engagement involving fairly large forces.

Now having said this, the South was not without blame. As I said earlier both sides were to blame.

If I speak wrong, please forgive me.

[Elennsar]

Sumpter was a (national) government owned fort, garrisoned by a part of the army of the United States, located where it was and held by United States soldiers to defend against the enemies of the United States.

Unless Lincoln bent over backwards to avoid conflict, which would have been a great failure on his part so far as his duties as president go, he had to hold the Federal instalations in the South.

The only ones provoking war here are those willing to use military force to unlawfully seize them.

Attempting to resupply and reinforce Fort Sumpter was an act to hold on to what was legitimately the property of the United States.

As such...the siege of and attack on Fort Sumpter were an attack on the United States of America.

Darn Lincoln, "provoking" the South, despite its wishes and desires for peace and tranqulity, to make war on the government of the United States.