Was there really a "cause" in 1861?

[jpeter]

Reading several threads, I'm beginning to wonder if we don't make too much out of our own bullet points leading into the war.

Personally, I think the reality for 1861 was that, culturally speaking, the South was in a fast-moving stream. For an southern individual to go against southern political claims, one had to be a salmon moving against the current. You would have had to have broken relationships and risked being ostracized in order to be anti-slavery. You would have risked your life to be pro-Lincoln.

It wasn't a matter of simply making a decision about whose policy you were for or against. If you were born in the South between 1840 and 1845 (the period most soldiers were born into), then by the time you were of fighting age, you would have been raised believing two sections of the country were hostile towards each other. You naturally would have sided with your respective clan.

I personally don't think there was much of a cause factor in 1861. The causes for the Civil War were cast years before that. Ft. Sumter was inevitable - just a matter of when. I get the feeling everyone was just standing around waiting for the bell to ring by that time. The Peace Committee was largely viewed as a joke, and all political compromise had been discarded.

Defined, the word "cause" is "a person or thing that gives rise to an action."

But we tend to make causes intellectual talking points in history. A leads to B. But the American Civil War was not that kind of war in my opinion.

There was no surprise attack. There was no Hitler-like dictator. There was no assassination of the Austrian archduke. No economic crisis. There was only a long stream of misery known as institutional slavery and the political counterpart known as the 3/5ths rule. Slavery was part of the American fabric for 250 years before the Civil War. That was the river everyone was thrown into... and with that came all the baggage known as tariffs and states rights.

Slavery was eventually made the South's burden because of the highly profitable cash crop. But whichever region would have made a comfortable lifestyle out of slavery, that would be the region to defend it. Slavery was America's burden. The South just inherited it at a time when it was like inheriting cruelty or some offensive personality trait. Much of America didn't want it, but they couldn't get rid of it. Those stuck with it were forced to defend it because of the lifestyle it provided or because they wanted to justify that a slave economy and a ruling class is something in which to take pride.

But to think those that volunteered for the army could simply pick a side is naive. It could be done that way, but the ramifications of ones' personal life would forever change if one went against the clan. We can't just discard long-standing loyalty as reason enough.

Carry on.

 

[OpnCoronet]

But, it is also true that the south politically or socially was not progressing, at the time. They, in fact, were regressing, becoming a reactionary state, looking 'back' to a half-remembered storied past, wherein, as Bruce Catton, would say, a happy land full of contented slaves living in comfortable huts, who honored the masters who put them in those huts.
Most of the Founding Fathers look to a time in a better future, Slavery would wither and die. By 1860 such a future was mostly inconprehensible and considered a threat, to the public weal.

 

[Savez]

But, it is also true that the south politically or socially was not progressing, at the time. They, in fact, were regressing, becoming a reactionary state, looking 'back' to a half-remembered storied past, wherein, as Bruce Catton, would say, a happy land full of contented slaves living in comfortable huts, who honored the masters who put them in those huts.
Most of the Founding Fathers look to a time in a better future, Slavery would wither and die. By 1860 such a future was mostly inconprehensible and considered a threat, to the public weal.

Jpeter made a great post but you just couldn't keep your hand out of the "treasure box" could you? Go figure.

 

[Savez]

It wasn't a matter of simply making a decision about whose policy you were for or against. If you were born in the South between 1840 and 1845 (the period most soldiers were born into), then by the time you were of fighting age, you would have been raised believing two sections of the country were hostile towards each other. You naturally would have sided with your respective clan.

This goes along with my "Andy Griffith" theory on the Civil War, that I've posted here before. haha !! good post.

 

[jgoodguy]

Jpeter made a great post but you just couldn't keep your hand out of the "treasure box" could you? Go figure.

Rabbit hole, not treasure box. At the bottom of every Civil War rabbit hole there is the slavery pony.

It is my understanding that public eduction was deemphasized in the South. There were few publishing houses or magazines published in the South. That would appear to make the charge of regression a valid starting point.

 

[OpnCoronet]

Does the fact of the csa being a reactionary state, have nothing to do with the 'cause' of the war? The fact that if events were reversed and the north slave based and south free labor, only confirms that the war would still be a matter of North and South over a sectionalist form of gov't.
In discussions on the causes of the war or of secession, slavery cannot be ignored. Despite the distress this fact causes some, that should not be an argument against recognizing that fact, nor in avoiding or ignoring it.

 

[Jojotater]

I'm sure it has been argued here countless times. There can be a difference on what started the war and why a soldier enlisted on this side or that. As far as the loaded question of slavery starting the war, one thing I believe: No slavery, no war. That doesn't mean it couldn't have been avoided.

 

[jpeter]

Does the fact of the csa being a reactionary state, have nothing to do with the 'cause' of the war? The fact that if events were reversed and the north slave based and south free labor, only confirms that the war would still be a matter of North and South over a sectionalist form of gov't.
In discussions on the causes of the war or of secession, slavery cannot be ignored. Despite the distress this fact causes some, that should not be an argument against recognizing that fact, nor in avoiding or ignoring it.

Slavery was the political cause of the eventual conflict. There is no mistaking that.

But the gravity of the situation, by 1861, pulled northern and southern soldiers into the war. You don't need to call slavery the reason "the South" or "the North" went to war when you're on the edge of a cliff and a light breeze will blow you over. The weight of any cause would have knocked you over by 1861.

American history suggests that slavery led to the war. But I don't think people growing up in the 1850s simply chose door #1 or door #2.

 

[Nathanb1]

Reading several threads, I'm beginning to wonder if we don't make too much out of our own bullet points leading into the war.

Personally, I think the reality for 1861 was that, culturally speaking, the South was in a fast-moving stream. For an southern individual to go against southern political claims, one had to be a salmon moving against the current. You would have had to have broken relationships and risked being ostracized in order to be anti-slavery. You would have risked your life to be pro-Lincoln.

It wasn't a matter of simply making a decision about whose policy you were for or against. If you were born in the South between 1840 and 1845 (the period most soldiers were born into), then by the time you were of fighting age, you would have been raised believing two sections of the country were hostile towards each other. You naturally would have sided with your respective clan.

I personally don't think there was much of a cause factor in 1861. The causes for the Civil War were cast years before that. Ft. Sumter was inevitable - just a matter of when. I get the feeling everyone was just standing around waiting for the bell to ring by that time. The Peace Committee was largely viewed as a joke, and all political compromise had been discarded.

Defined, the word "cause" is "a person or thing that gives rise to an action."

But we tend to make causes intellectual talking points in history. A leads to B. But the American Civil War was not that kind of war in my opinion.

There was no surprise attack. There was no Hitler-like dictator. There was no assassination of the Austrian archduke. No economic crisis. There was only a long stream of misery known as institutional slavery and the political counterpart known as the 3/5ths rule. Slavery was part of the American fabric for 250 years before the Civil War. That was the river everyone was thrown into... and with that came all the baggage known as tariffs and states rights.

Slavery was eventually made the South's burden because of the highly profitable cash crop. But whichever region would have made a comfortable lifestyle out of slavery, that would be the region to defend it. Slavery was America's burden. The South just inherited it at a time when it was like inheriting cruelty or some offensive personality trait. Much of America didn't want it, but they couldn't get rid of it. Those stuck with it were forced to defend it because of the lifestyle it provided or because they wanted to justify that a slave economy and a ruling class is something in which to take pride.

But to think those that volunteered for the army could simply pick a side is naive. It could be done that way, but the ramifications of ones' personal life would forever change if one went against the clan. We can't just discard long-standing loyalty as reason enough.

Carry on.

There. You said it. Awesome.

 

[Savez]

Rabbit hole, not treasure box. At the bottom of every Civil War rabbit hole there is the slavery pony.

It is my understanding that public eduction was deemphasized in the South. There were few publishing houses or magazines published in the South. That would appear to make the charge of regression a valid starting point.

Correction, at the bottom of every Civil War rabbit hole there is a wad of money.

 

[unionblue]

Savez,

A $4 billion dollar wad clutched in the hands of nearly 4 million slaves, perhaps.

I have heard this reason being given many times, recently by Battalion and his '$500 million' figure on a recent thread that I never got an explanation for.

Perhaps you could explain where these wads of money were coming from and who was directly benefiting from them with the sources that convinced you to have this view.

It would be appreciated.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

[Savez]

That rise in the value of the blacks is also the index to the rise in the aggregate property of the Union, which has become as follows, showing the official assessed valuation :



North

$3,095,833,338 in 1850 to $ 3,426,180,318 in 1858​

South
2,947,781,366 in 1850 to $ 4,620,617,564 in 1858 ​

SOUTHERN WEALTH AND NORTHERN PROFITS,
AS EXHIBITED IN STATISTICAL FACTS AND OFFICIAL FIGURES:
SHOWING THE NECESSITY OF UNION TO THE FUTURE PROSPERITY AND
WELFARE OF THE REPUBLIC​

BY ​

THOMAS PKENTICE KETTELL​

 

[Savez]

Savez,

A $4 billion dollar wad clutched in the hands of nearly 4 million slaves, perhaps.

I have heard this reason being given many times, recently by Battalion and his '$500 million' figure on a recent thread that I never got an explanation for.

Perhaps you could explain where these wads of money were coming from and who was directly benefiting from them with the sources that convinced you to have this view.

It would be appreciated.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

That's kind of my point. When the money started going the other way, Northern elites were not happy, hence the Morrill Tariff.

 

[jgoodguy]

Correction, at the bottom of every Civil War rabbit hole there is a wad of money.

Yea.

For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs

 

[Savez]

For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

 

[jgoodguy]

Expired Image Removed Originally Posted by unionblue Expired Image Removed
Savez,

A $4 billion dollar wad clutched in the hands of nearly 4 million slaves, perhaps.

I have heard this reason being given many times, recently by Battalion and his '$500 million' figure on a recent thread that I never got an explanation for.

Perhaps you could explain where these wads of money were coming from and who was directly benefiting from them with the sources that convinced you to have this view.

It would be appreciated.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

That's kind of my point. When the money started going the other way, Northern elites were not happy, hence the Morrill Tariff.

Of course prior to that the Southerns got things like the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 to protect their financial interest. Exactly what is your point? President Davis opens fire on Fort Sumter because the Northern elites are not happy? The South keeps Abe off the ballot to insure the Northern elites' boy winning the presidency? Southern politicos secede to insure its passage?

According to the wiki

The second session of the 36th Congress began in December 1860. At first it appeared that Hunter would keep the Morrill bill tabled until the end of the term in March.
However, in December 1860 and January 1861, seven southern states declared secession, and their low-tariff Senators withdrew. Republicans took control of the Senate in February, and Hunter lost his hold on the Finance Committee.
Meanwhile the Treasury was in financial crisis, with less than $500,000 on hand and millions in unpaid bills. The Union urgently needed new revenue. A recent historian concludes, "the impetus for revising the tariff arose as an attempt to augment revenue, stave off 'ruin,' and address the accumulating debt."[5]
The Morrill bill was brought to the Senate floor for a vote on February 20, and passed 25 to 14. It was supported by 24 Republicans and Democrat William Bigler of Pennsylvania, and opposed by seven southern Democrats, three from the Border, two from the north, and two from the far west. Five northern and three Border Democrats abstained, as did one Republican; the remaining four Senators were paired, as some had to be absent for personal reasons

If accurate, the tariff was needed to keep the govt. solvent and lacking an income tax amendment to levy income tax, it was a needed tax. What alternative was there? A surtax on slaves?

 

[Rob9641]

That rise in the value of the blacks is also the index to the rise in the aggregate property of the Union, which has become as follows, showing the official assessed valuation :



North

$3,095,833,338 in 1850 to $ 3,426,180,318 in 1858​

South
2,947,781,366 in 1850 to $ 4,620,617,564 in 1858 ​

SOUTHERN WEALTH AND NORTHERN PROFITS,
AS EXHIBITED IN STATISTICAL FACTS AND OFFICIAL FIGURES:
SHOWING THE NECESSITY OF UNION TO THE FUTURE PROSPERITY AND
WELFARE OF THE REPUBLIC​

BY ​

THOMAS PKENTICE KETTELL​

Help me out here. Is this saying that the value of black slaves in the South was rising faster than Northern property in the 1850s? Are you saying that the North was reluctant to let the South go because of the rising value of its slaves? Are you saying that the war was over the wealth involved in slaves (i.e., that the North couldn't let the South go because it would be letting more than half the nation's wealth go?)

 

[rpkennedy]

Help me out here. Is this saying that the value of black slaves in the South was rising faster than Northern property in the 1850s? Are you saying that the North was reluctant to let the South go because of the rising value of its slaves? Are you saying that the war was over the wealth involved in slaves (i.e., that the North couldn't let the South go because it would be letting more than half the nation's wealth go?)

Kettell was essentially arguing that both the North and the South needed one another in order to prosper. Unfortunately for Kettell, both sides spun his conclusions for their own arguments and completely ignored his overall point.

R

 

[jgoodguy]

For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

Depends on the translation. I used the NIV. Click the link for a bunch more.

 

[OpnCoronet]

Kettell was obviously wrong. The north did not need the south's slavers or its cotton, in order to prosper. Even as, the secessionists claimed that the South did not need the north in order for southern slave owners to prosper and in that limited phase, it is possible that they were correct; If they could have seceded peacefully.