Alright, since we have the God thread going....

 

 

 

And since there are a number of historians, either trained, think they are trained, whatever around here.

 

 

Let's talk about this little event in American history.

 

 

 

What caused the Civil War?

 

 

 

Enjoy and may this be as interesting as the God thread.

Oy...this is going to be interesting. I don't know much about the Civil War, but I did some research and here's what I found....

 

What caused the beginning of the Civil War?

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With the differences between North and South seemingly insurmountable it seemed just a matter of time before the South would secede. The only question would be what the government would do about it?

 

Both of the statements below were made by the same man, one in the North and one in the South. What does this tell us about the man ? Why do you think he had to make both of these statements?

 

Statement A

 

"Let us discard all this quibbling about this man and the other man, this race, and that race and the other race being inferior, and therefore they must be placed in an inferior position. Let us discard all these things, and unite as one people throughout this land, until we shall once more stand up declaring that all men are created equal."

 

Statement B

 

"I will say, then, that I am not, nor have ever been, in favor of brining about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people... And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

 

The author of both of these statement was Abraham Lincoln. Suprised, don't be. Yes "Honest Abe" was, in fact, a politician. He said what he needed to say in order to get elected. He never said he would abolish slavery, althougjh that was his true desire. In fact the abolition of slavery didn't even become a war goal until after the battle of Gettysburg. These statements tell us that Lincoln recognized that there was only one thing that really needed to be done...keep the Union together. Lincoln wanted to elected by the nation, not just by one section. In the end Lincoln failed to acheive this objective just as he failed to kep the Union together peacfully. It would take a war the likes of which we had bever known. A war that killed more American than any other conflict before or since.

 

I. The Beginning of the Civil War?

 

A. How did the Dred Scott decision effect America?

 

1. The Dred Scott decision through America into chaos. This had been a much watched and debated verdict, kind of like the OJ trial! The South hailed it as great victory while the North decried the decision. As a result America was further divided, more Northerners became abolitionists and America was further than ever form being a unified.

 

B. What different groups and political parties existed in the mid 1800's and what were there basic positions?

 

1. Whig Party - The Whigs were founded in response to the policies of Andrew Jackson. Whigs for the most part were the old Federalists. They supported the old guard elite and felt the commoners, like "King Mob" were a danger. The Whigs succeded in getting two Presidents elected; William Henry Harrison and Zacahry Taylor. Eventually the Whig Party disintegrated and most of its members joined the newly formed Republican Party.

 

2. Free Soil Party - A party originally led by Martin Van Buren, former leader of the the Jacksonian Democrats. They stood for abolition of slavery in the territories and federally funded impprovements. They also supported the notion of the government giving free land to settlers, hence the name Free Soil. In 1848 they gained 10% of the vote, proving that an antislavery party could gain popular support.

 

3. Democratic Party - Split in 1848 by the formation of the Free Soil Party and split agfain in the election of 1860 into Northern Democrats and Southern Democrats. The original Democratic Party tried to say little about slavery, thus leading to the creation of the Free Soilists. The Northern Democrats supported the idea of popular sovreignty and the Southern Democrats supported slavery.

 

4. Republican Party - Formed in 1854 when Whigs, Free Soilists and Northern Democrats got together. This Republican Party had no connectio to the Democrat-Republican Party formed by Jefferson. It supported high tariffs to protect the Northern Economy and other economic policies. The main issue, however, was the parties pledge to keep slavery out of the territories.

 

5. Constitutional Union Party - Formed by remnants of the Whigs and American Party they said little except that they wanted to support the Constitution and protect the Union.

 

6. Know Nothings - A so called nativist group they carried out propoganda and terror campaigns against immigrants, Catholics and Jews. They opposed anyone who was not a native to the United States. What did they think about the real Native Americans, the Indians, well you figure it out! These were the fore runners of what we know and white supremists and the KKK!

 

7. Settlers - We don't think about them much but it's their territory everyone was fighting over! For the most part the settlers just wanted to be left alone. They couldn't afford slaves and eaked out a living on small farms and cattle ranchs.

 

C. How did Abraham Lincoln become famous?

 

1. Lincon ran for Senator from Illinois in 1858 opposing Stephan Douglas. The debate pitted a popular and well spoken Democrat in Douglas against the kindly and awkward Lincoln. The nation was already looking at Douglas as a potential Presidential candidate so the election and debate were closely followed.

 

2. In the so called "Lincoln - Douglas Debates" Lincoln emerged as a well spoken, staright forward and honest man. He developed a national repuation and became prominent in the Republican Party.

 

3. Lincoln lost to Douglas but they would meet again in the Presidential election of 1860.

 

D. What happened in the election of 1860?

 

1. Lincoln won as the Democrats split their vote.

 

 

 

Republican

Candidate: Lincoln

Electoral Vote: 180

Popular Vote: 1,866,000

%: 39.8

 

Northern Democrat

Candidate: Douglas

EV: 12

PV: 1,375,000

%: 29.5

 

Southern Democrat

Can: Breckinridge

EV:72

PV: 848,000

%: 18.1

 

Constitutional Union

Can: Bell

EV: 39

PV: 590,000

%: 12.6

 

E. What was the result of Lincoln's Election?

 

1. The South realized that they would never have the electoral votes to elect a Southern candidate. This crystallized years of thinking that there entire way of life was in danger, and they were right. They knew Lincoln opposed slavery, even though he never formally said so.

 

2. This realization left the south with no choice (from their perspective). They felt that the democractic system could not work for them, they felt that they did not have adequate represenation. In a sense Southerners felt immensly patriotic. They didn't feel as if they were destroying the country, instead they took the position that they were doing what our founding fathers and John Locke had intended. The government had ceased protecting them and instead was taking away their natural rights (again as they perceived it). It was their right, even theri responsibility to to secede.

 

3. Soutyh Carolina was the first to secede, more soon followed. Lincoln could do nothing, he was not yet the President.

 

F. What did President Buchanan do to stop the Southern states from seceding?

 

1. Nothing. Buchanan felt that it was illegal for them to secede and that it was also illegal for him to do anything to stop them.

 

G. How did the Civil War begin?

 

1. In February of 1861 represenatives from South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Texas and Louisiana formed the Confederate States of America. They elected Jefferson Davis President and began occupying federal builidings, postoffices, forts and other federal government property.

 

2. When Lincoln took office in March he knew he had to take action. By May another four states had seceded and another four after that were ready to secede.

 

3. In April Lincoln received word from the commander of Fort Sumter in Charlestown South Carolina that he could not hold the fort for more than six weeks without supplies and fresh troops. Not wanting to shed first blood he only sent the supplies. Soon thereafter Confederate forces opened fire on the fort while the Union fleet stood and watched. Fort Sumter would be sacrificed so that the Confederacy would be the aggresor and not the Union. The Civil War had begun.

 

http://www.socialstudieshelp.com/Lesson_34_Notes.htm

We had a Civil War?

"...think they are trained..."

 

Don't bash the history majors, they will be teaching you little bastard children! Just kidding.

 

Primarily it was economically caused. However, race was definitely an issue, otherwise the radical republican leigislation after the war would of not went through.

 

The south was enitrley socioeconomically different from the north and had a far different economy. After Lincoln presented a perceived threat to their economy and way of life, that was the perfect excuse to break from federal power, something they wanted to do since the days of Jackson.

the think they are trained mark is for amateur historians who really have never had anything more than a survey course at the college level if that and think they are historians because they have read a few books and pay attention to what the History Channel states, reading romantic historians such as Stephen Ambrose, etc......

yeah I was kidding around.

 

Now does anyone know enough to debate whether Hitler moving to Kiev costed Germany the entire second world war???

The two biggest causes are race and economics.

 

 

Those that subscribe to the school of apolegitics (sp) subscribe very much so to the economic theory stating that all things being equal the South would of still rebelled against the North, downplaying even making slavery a minor if not no issue at all.

 

 

However, slavery was a very large issue. Granted the North and the South had two very different economies. Look at a map of the area in 1860. Railroads are all over the North, while the South has railroads here and there only. So there is truth to the economic arguement.

 

 

But it all comes back to slavery. Without slave labor, the South does not have the plantation based economy they thrived on. While many will then counter argue that only about 5% owned slaves, these same people are the ones in control in the South through various means, Congress, state legislatures, etc....So in effect it was the thoughts and views of these people that the South followed. The concept of representing the people really did not exist at this time, so that arguement is really moot.

 

 

Essentially the main cause of the Civil War comes back to slavery no matter what argument you use. Ultimately, slavery comes to a head.

yeah I was kidding around.

 

Now does anyone know enough to debate whether Hitler moving to Kiev costed Germany the entire second world war???

i dont give a damn about Hitler or WWII.

 

 

 

if the United States and other victors hadnt screwed that treaty up so badly, Hitler never rises to power and we dont discuss this issue today.

 

 

some might know, but I will definitely excuse myself from that discussion namely due to two reasons.

 

1) I dont care about European history

 

2) I care even less about military history.

But it all comes back to slavery. Without slave labor, the South does not have the plantation based economy they thrived on. While many will then counter argue that only about 5% owned slaves, these same people are the ones in control in the South through various means, Congress, state legislatures, etc....So in effect it was the thoughts and views of these people that the South followed. The concept of representing the people really did not exist at this time, so that arguement is really moot.

 

 

Essentially the main cause of the Civil War comes back to slavery no matter what argument you use. Ultimately, slavery comes to a head.

Slavery is economics however. You create the same economic situation but minus slavery and the same would of happened probably. However, without the race issue, would the south have enough justification to rebel? who knows, but I think yes.

 

Slavery is intertwined with the economics of the period, but the economic result is stronger than the social differences.

i dont give a damn about Hitler or WWII.

 

if the United States and other victors hadnt screwed that treaty up so badly, Hitler never rises to power and we dont discuss this issue today.

 

some might know, but I will definitely excuse myself from that discussion namely due to two reasons.

 

1) I dont care about European history

 

2) I care even less about military history.

Civil War sounds like a war, you are telling me you don't like discussing what happened during it?

 

And to each their own, I personally love studying European history because they ran the show so long.

 

Right now I'm watching the historyt of the luger pistol...man my friends got to stop taking their finals sometime.

no i said i dont really give a damn about WWII.

 

 

the only war I have ever really gotten into in any way is the American Revolution and the Civil War.

 

 

perhaps because the professor at my undergraduate institute teaching WWII was a boring prick who i despised that I dont give a damn about it.

slavery encompassed much more than the economic framework in the South.

no i said i dont really give a damn about WWII.

 

 

the only war I have ever really gotten into in any way is the American Revolution and the Civil War.

 

 

perhaps because the professor at my undergraduate institute teaching WWII was a boring prick who i despised that I dont give a damn about it.

World War II shows what man is truly capable of. Nothing is scarier than World War II besides total mass destruction. Something like that I do like to study, but I know a lot of people that find it boring so I am not shocked.

 

OT: Did you see the responses to the 5 arguments you brought up?

slavery encompassed much more than the economic framework in the South.

Yes, but economic necessity of slavery scared the South enough to rebel, not just the social implications of it.

well, I guess I don't really have much to say...

what I will say, is that although the war had some to do with slavery, most of the soldiers for the South did not fight to defend slavery, their way of life, the socioeconomy of the South, or to defend states' rights. Just as 95% of the soldiers did not own slaves, these 95% (plus the slaveowners who fought, and the slaves themselves) fought to defend their property, and their state. Most of the war was fought in the South, and many came out and fought to defend their property, the property of loved ones, and the property in their state. That is known fact, backed by countless accounts written in journals and such by the soldiers.

No, they were also defending their way of life and many a man's dream was to own a slave- a right they didn't want to lose.

 

The war's cause is primarily economic. The rest is just personal.

I mean, I can't think of a nice way to put it, but...you're wrong. The main reason was because they were defending their land. Many had no idea it was because of slaves, or states' rights, etc. They knew they were being invaded.

 

And since this is the War Between The States thread, I would like to put this comment: General Sherman would be tried and sentenced to a very harsh punishment for his war crimes, if it had taken place today. So would Lincoln (that racist piece of sh*t), for advocating it.

I mean, I can't think of a nice way to put it, but...you're wrong. The main reason was because they were defending their land. Many had no idea it was because of slaves, or states' rights, etc. They knew they were being invaded.

 

And since this is the War Between The States thread, I would like to put this comment: General Sherman would be tried and sentenced to a very harsh punishment for his war crimes, if it had taken place today. So would Lincoln (that racist piece of sh*t), for advocating it.

Uh, the question was "what CAUSED the civil war." Defending land didn't cause it, it prolonged/perpetuated it. get the question straight!

 

And to your comment, Sherman's campaign cannot be justifiable, because all it did was kill a bunch of people while we're were going to win anyway. I'm not defending him, I don't think anyone is.

what caused the civil war for many Southerners? The threat of their land being attacked. Now, what caused the civil war politically? That has been discussed.

 

As for the Sherman comment I posed....I was just discussing. I never said anyone defended, or would defend it (although, I know of plenty of people who DO defend Sherman's acts, as deemed whatever is necessary to preserve the Union.

Not a Civil War fan, sorry.

what caused the civil war for many Southerners? The threat of their land being attacked. Now, what caused the civil war politically? That has been discussed.

 

As for the Sherman comment I posed....I was just discussing. I never said anyone defended, or would defend it (although, I know of plenty of people who DO defend Sherman's acts, as deemed whatever is necessary to preserve the Union.

I agree with you, one cannot justify Sherman's scorched earth campaign.

 

Many southerners saw more than a literal attack as a threat, but an attack on their culture and way of life.

but i thought it was all about economics?

but i thought it was all about economics?

nothing is entirely economic. Take for example us vs. the arabs. There is a huge cultural divide, however if they were sitting pretty like us, there wouldn't be the armed conflict. Our exploitation (and the 1st world's) of the middle east is what truly enrages them, even if they don't know it.

 

The south needed slavery and saw the north as an economic threat that was to deprive them. This is what threatened them initially and most dearly, because such economic threats then transcend into the social arena.

 

All wars are socioeconomic phenomena, but it always seems that economics comes first.

so then like i stated way back when.....

 

 

in the end it all comes back to slavery....

 

 

in economic, social, poltical terms etc.....