Poll: Many discount slavery as main cause of Civil War

[trice]

Originally Posted by jreb721

Slavery was one of the issues the states susceded for but the war did not start until tyrant abe called for volunteers to put down the rebellion. what rebellion, the states had formed their own country, they weren't rebelling. good ole abe promised not to resupply fort sumter but went back on his word and thats when they fired on it. so really what started the war was abe calling the 75,000 volunteers up to put down a non-existant rebellion.

Long before Lincoln made this call (only justified by the secessionist attack upon Ft. Sumter), the Confederate Congress had authorized an unlimited Army of long-term troops (Regular Army plus Volunteers). Shortly thereafter they passed a limit of 100,000 Volunteers plus the Regular Army.

By the time of the attack on Ft. Sumter, Jefferson Davis had actually called for about 32,000 of those Volunteers, and a small Regular Army had begun forming. The secessionists states had also called up and begun using their Militia in various aggressive acts against the United States (siezing forts, ships, arsenals, Customs Houses, funds, bullion, Mints, etc.) They had also used armed force against US soldiers more than once (in Lousiana, in Texas, in South Carolina, etc.) and were besieging the only two US posts they had been unable to sieze unopposed.

While all this was going on, the total authorized force of the US Army was about 16,000, about 14,000 of which was stationed between the Mississippi River and the Pacific Ocean. Neither Buchanan nor Lincoln had asked for a single additional soldier. No troops had been moved back east of the Mississippi -- with the exception of the troops the secessionists were expelling from Texas, and which they would decide to intern at the same time they decided to attack Ft. Sumter.

All these secessionist actions appear to be outrageous acts of provocative aggression. Yet you tell us that Lincoln's calling troops to defend the United States is the cause of the war. That seems far-fetched.

If you truly want to maintain that, please explain all these aggressive, provocative, illegal actions by the secessionists that precede Lincoln's call for troops. Why, exactly, do you skip over what they did and condemn what Lincoln did?

Tim

[larry_cockerham]

Blue, I don't recall reading were it says a state couldn't leave the Union of their own free will. They all entered it that way. Firing on a US Army post was a no-no. PSS It was about more than slavery.

[ole]

Firing on a US Army post was a no-no.

And that, Mr. Cockerham, pushes everything else into the background. We can argue forever over this and that and whatever, but that single act cannot be defended. (Except to claim that the tyrant Lincoln intentionally provoked Jeff Davis into a desperate defense of his good name.)

Will be in Kentucky next summer. Might you be available?

ole

[Baggage Handler #2]

Originally Posted by larry_cockerham

... PS It was about more than slavery.

Other causes may have contributed to the start, and certainly the motives for many who fought on either side had nothing to do with "the peculiar institution."

I am curious why no one considers the slaves' point of view. Must we even now deny their voice in what went on? For forty percent of the southern population this most certainly was what it was all about.

If you are able during some quiet afternoon, find a tree and a cool drink. Sit in the shade and try turning the tables around and pretend the white man in the south was invisible - his voice counted for nothing.
Consider only the opinions of those who remain.
All of the pretty little deceits evaporate, and from the ephemera emerges one solid looming issue.
Having been by law denied even literacy during their lifetimes, is it just that their voices should remain unheard in ours?

I am sorry if that comes across strong. For all I know your gg grand daddy was a slave.

For all you know, so was mine.

[larry_cockerham]

Originally Posted by ole

And that, Mr. Cockerham, pushes everything else into the background. We can argue forever over this and that and whatever, but that single act cannot be defended. (Except to claim that the tyrant Lincoln intentionally provoked Jeff Davis into a desperate defense of his good name.)

Will be in Kentucky next summer. Might you be available?

ole

Those few cannon balls lofted gently into Ft. Sumter brought on the ruckus which would have made one helluva bar fight had it been a smaller venue. Ask me in the spring. If you get a response, it would likely be yes.

[larry_cockerham]

Originally Posted by Baggage Handler #2

Other causes may have contributed to the start, and certainly the motives for many who fought on either side had nothing to do with "the peculiar institution."

I am curious why no one considers the slaves' point of view. Must we even now deny their voice in what went on? For forty percent of the southern population this most certainly was what it was all about.

If you are able during some quiet afternoon, find a tree and a cool drink. Sit in the shade and try turning the tables around and pretend the white man in the south was invisible - his voice counted for nothing.
Consider only the opinions of those who remain.
All of the pretty little deceits evaporate, and from the ephemera emerges one solid looming issue.
Having been by law denied even literacy during their lifetimes, is it just that their voices should remain unheard in ours?

I am sorry if that comes across strong. For all I know your gg grand daddy was a slave.

For all you know, so was mine.

My gg grand daddies were all slaves to their farms. Their gg grand daddies, the ones with the bucks, owned a few slaves and from the records I've seen treated them extremely well, though failed to set them free. Only the angels and father time through their descendants could bring that about. Your point is well taken, and it is one I've considered many times. As bad as it might have been, the black folks who came to America were perhaps in some cases not much worse off than they had been in Africa in terms of shelter and learning a new culture. I'll duck for incoming on that one, a trick I learned from Ole. Things have worked out for the better. It's a shame, to say the very least, that it took almost 400 years for it to happen.

[ole]

As bad as it might have been, the black folks who came to America were perhaps in some cases not much worse off than they had been in Africa in terms of shelter and learning a new culture. I'll duck for incoming on that one,

And incoming you shall have. Never thought I'd hear you say that, Larry. To accept that they were not worse off is to accept that they lived in and ate dirt back home. So even bondage was a betterment.

The West African was roughly comparable to our Native American, though not quite so nomadic. They had homes and farms and families. They had possessions and pride and status in their communities. To even suggest that bondage was an improvement .... never mind.

ole

[larry_cockerham]

Many, if not all, of the folks in Africa, who made it to the British colony known as America were already in bondage. Not a good thing, regardless of it's location. Shelter in Africa was perhaps not so necessary as shelter in north America. Life 'back home' was in most cases no bed of roses. A more or less kindly plantation owner at least offered food and some level of physical care. To be free you have to have a sense of not being free. That may well have been a remote concept for many folks hauled to north America aside from their very real creature discomfort, if any, at the time. Certainly being hauled into the Jamestown settlement in 1619, right before gx12 grandpa carried out his raid, was no bed of roses. A lush rice plantation in South Carolina, assuming a kind master, might have been an improvement over a starving village in west Africa. Servitude by any evaluation gets a big thumbs down. Blacks living on small farms in the mountains in the late 1700s were well on their way to normalcy, if not defacto freedom. If one takes Alex Haley's ROOTS as gospel, and I have not particular reason to suspect otherwise, aside from an attempt to create a marketable story, then this was a quasi-brutal time. Freedom for blacks and other minorities in this nation was a slow and painful process. American Indians fared not too much better than blacks, they were just strong enough to put up a far better fight. (Irish and Italian immigrants had had more practice cracking heads back home, hence were better equipped for the challenge of dealing with the yankees.) Around here Andrew Jackson and Abe Lincoln are not looked upon as heros by everyone.

[ole]

Life 'back home' was in most cases no bed of roses.

No bed of roses, to be sure, but they were not worse off than your ggpappy's people. And they, like your ggpappy's people, were free.

ole

[trice]

Originally Posted by larry_cockerham

Those few cannon balls lofted gently into Ft. Sumter brought on the ruckus which would have made one helluva bar fight had it been a smaller venue. ...

Larry,

The Confederates spend several months preparing for the attack, then fired over 3,000 rounds of heavy artillery at the fort. Seems like it might amount to more than a bar fight.

Tim