"Causes of the Civil War?" Topic

Cleburne, I said that three days ago. We've done the what. We've done the why. But clearly we've failed hi EEE ya.

@Grattan54
Republicans were anti-slavery but not all abolitionists?

It's contradictory…

There was no way for the South to create an anti-slavery party, but in the North it was possible.

@Quaama
Abolition of slavery was not the cause.

It's one of the causes but not the only one…

@robert piepenbrink
For example, on the Yankee side in any case, I read that before the introduction of conscription, many enlisted to escape a monotonous life in the horrible factories of the time or on farms…

They quickly became disillusioned.

@Cleburne1863
There are many reasons why the Yankees enlisted before the introduction of conscription, but it was certainly not for the liberation of slaves, which the majority of them didn't care about.

Some were for the liberation of slaves. They were called abolitionists. Or blacks themselves. Remember, conscription started in the summer of 1863. Black regiments were being formed before that time.
Were they large, or the majority? No. Were they present and still a reason? Yes.

The war was fought because the South seceeded. Why did they secede? To ensure slavery continued.

No, it is not contradictory. Most people in the north were anti-slavery. Meaning they did not believe in the institution. They did not want it to spread into the west. But, they did not believe that blacks were the equal of whites. They were okay with it remaining where it was.

Abolitionists believed that slavery had to end NOW. It was morally wrong and needed to end. Plus, they did believe blacks and whites were equal.

A technicality:

The Cause of the Civil War was the firing on Fort Sumpter.

Slavery was the catalyst of the act of Secession. But until one side or the other started armed conflict. No war.

Another technicality:

"Abolitionists believed that slavery had to end NOW. It was morally wrong and needed to end. Plus, they did believe blacks and whites were equal."

Not always true. Some believed they were equal, others did not. But yes they did believe slavery must be abolished.

"Many white abolitionists, while opposing slavery, didn't accept Black people as equals. They often focused on ending slavery, and saw Black people as symbols of exploitation rather than people who were being misused. For example, Abraham Lincoln said he didn't support social and political equality between the races, and opposed Black people voting, serving on juries, holding office, and marrying White people"

"Many white abolitionists, while decrying slavery, could not accept blacks as their equals."

Slavery was their crusade, but not always equality.

I've read many things, hi EEE ya. When I read history, I prefer to read things with supporting evidence. Did whoever wrote that provide any? Did he explain why life on southern farms or in southern factories was more acceptable? Or explain why people volunteered to be shot at to escape farm and factory instead of going west to hunt or prospect?

"Abolitionists believed that slavery had to end NOW. It was morally wrong and needed to end. Plus, they did believe blacks and whites were equal."

Not all abolitionists were created equal.

Types of Abolitionists.

1. Radical Abolitionists: Some abolitionists, like William Lloyd Garrison and Frederick Douglass, believed in both the immediate abolition of slavery and the inherent equality of all races. They argued for full civil rights and the integration of African Americans into society as equals to whites.

2. Moderate Abolitionists: Others were more moderate in their views. They opposed slavery on moral or religious grounds but did not necessarily believe in racial equality. Some of these abolitionists supported colonization efforts, which aimed to resettle freed African Americans in Africa rather than integrate them into American society.

3.Gradual Emancipationists: Some abolitionists believed in gradual emancipation rather than immediate abolition. They thought that African Americans should be freed over time, often coupled with education and "civilizing" efforts, but they might not have advocated for full equality.

Racism Among Abolitionists.

Even within the abolitionist movement, there was a significant amount of racism. Many white abolitionists, while opposing slavery, held paternalistic or condescending views about African Americans. They often believed that freed slaves would need guidance and control by whites to become "civilized" or productive members of society.

A couple of points.

By today's standards, almost everyone in the mid-nineteenth century was racist including Lincoln.

Abolitionists were a small percentage of the population. The 1860 census does not tell us but most historians (Gary Gallagher, James McPherson, etc.) say it was small perhaps 1 or 2%.

Sources and recommended reading.

"The Abolitionists" by James M. McPherson: McPherson is a renowned historian, and his work covers the range of beliefs within the abolitionist movement, including the differences between radical and moderate abolitionists, as well as the issue of racial equality.

"All on Fire: William Lloyd Garrison and the Abolition of Slavery" by Henry Mayer: This biography of William Lloyd Garrison provides insight into the radical abolitionists who advocated for immediate emancipation and racial equality, contrasting with others in the movement who held different views.

Mayer, Henry. "All on Fire: William Lloyd Garrison and the Abolition of Slavery." St. Martin's Press, 1998.

"Abolitionists and Slave Resistance Before the Civil War" by Herbert Aptheker: Aptheker's work examines the broader abolitionist movement and highlights the range of opinions on race and equality within it.

Aptheker, Herbert. "Abolitionists and Slave Resistance Before the Civil War." International Publishers, 1977.

"The Problem of Slavery in the Age of Emancipation" by David Brion Davis: Davis explores the complexities of abolitionism, including the paternalistic attitudes and the colonization efforts that reflected a lack of belief in racial equality.

"Arguing about Slavery: The Great Battle in the United States Congress" by William Lee Miller: This book provides context for the debates on slavery and abolition within Congress, revealing the spectrum of beliefs held by abolitionists, including those who were not committed to racial equality.

Miller, William Lee. "Arguing about Slavery: The Great Battle in the United States Congress." Knopf, 1996.
These sources provide detailed discussions on the various factions within the abolitionist movement and their differing views on race and equality before the Civil War.

We have been over all of this before.

TMP link

The cause of the war was slavery. Any of the other issues between North and South could have been resolved short of war.

"The new [Confederate] constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution — African slavery as it exists amongst us — the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution . . . The prevailing ideas entertained by . . . most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was a violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. . . Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of . . . the equality of races. This was an error . . .

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner–stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition."

— Alexander H. Stephens, Vice President of the CSA – March 21, 1861

When Mississippi seceded, she published a "Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Include and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union." It stated:

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery… Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billion dollars [the estimated total market value of slaves], or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property."

The succeeding states at the time in their own words in their succession conventions stated that the preservation of slavery was the reason they left the Union. The Confederate Constitution has it written in its preamble. Go read them for yourself.

When someone sincerely tells you who they are, I suggest that you believe them.

@Cleburne1863
I read somewhere that boredom, the desire to leave one's way of life was also a cause of the craze for volunteering.

@advocate
And without the war, how would slavery have disappeared?

@Grattan54
Most people in the North were against slavery, but they didn't want to abolish it because they agreed that it should stay that way???

Weird, weird…

@35thOVI
Yes the firing on Fort Sumter is really the biggest mistake made by the rebels…

Who ordered that?

He's really the one responsible for the American bloodbath.

No abolitionists could have believed that blacks could be even globally superior to them in certain areas?

Ah I understand, they saw blacks as symbols of exploitation rather than as mistreated people.

Yes, we must not forget that it was the 19th century, so alas there could not have been a "crusade" against slavery.

@robert piepenbrink
No, I don't think so, but youth, enthusiasm, ignorance of what battles are…

Besides, after their first battle, some must have regretted their commitment (of three months?), it's human.

@Old Contemptible
Radical abolitionists like William Lloyd Garrison and Frederick Douglass were more than a century ahead of their time, they were good people.

Moderate abolitionists opposed slavery for moral or religious reasons, but did not necessarily believe in racial equality.
Christ would not have approved of them.

Colonization efforts, which aimed to resettle freed African Americans in Africa rather than integrate them into American society as in 1822 with the American Colonization Society that began colonizing the future Liberia, under the assumption that black people would have a better chance at freedom and prosperity in Africa than in the United States.

Progressive Emancipationists: more hypocrites like the moderate abolitionists.

Significant racism within the abolitionist movement, what a time!

Some thought that blacks would need guidance and control from whites to become "civilized" or productive members of society, they meant "education"?

Yes in history we must always decontextualize (alas) people from the past who thought like the majority of us must not have been legion.

From what I understand the cause of the war was economic for the rebels and to preserve the union for the Yankee leaders.

Fort Sumpter was about who would shoot first in this war. Lincoln brilliantly maneuvered the Confederates into firing first. The war was going to happen. There were other federal installations or properties in the South. If the Confederates hadn't fired on Fort Sumpter it would have only delayed an armed conflict. Just my 2 cents.

@Old Contemptible
Lincoln brilliantly maneuvered the Confederates into firing first?

So he's not the "great man" many would like him to be?

Just my 1 cent.

OC but my point stands. Without a bullet fired, there was no war, just a country divided.

Slavery did not start the war, it caused some of the Southern states to leave the Union. The others followed when Lincoln responded.

It's a technicality, but war is different than Secession.

Also

Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina did not leave until after Ft Sumpter was fired on.

Would have been interesting to see how Lincoln would have defeated the initial states, without violating the neutrality of those 4, if they had not left the Union.

Its a technicality without any real difference.

Secession Is Secession and War is War. A state can leave the Union and until violence happens, there is no war. So unless one side tries to violently force the other to rejoin the Union, or one foolishly starts attacking the other, no war, just two countries where before there was one.

We can agree to disagree on that.

Lincoln brilliantly maneuvered the Confederates into firing first?

So he's not the "great man" many would like him to be?

hi EEE ya, I'd be interested in your concept of a great man. Yes, of course Lincoln played for every political and military advantage he could get. That's one of the things which makes him a great man--not sufficient, but necessary. An idiot holding the same beliefs wouldn't qualify.

OC,

You are correct on Abolitionists. I was just simplifying for the sake of the discussion.

You're fine. People don't realize how few there were. However, it takes only one radical to inflame the country: John Brown.

@35thOVI
Yes without a bullet fired, there was no war, just a country divided.

Lincoln who was not a Saint nor an abolitionist wanted only one thing, no secession.

So if they had not seceded Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina would have kept their slaves until abolition which would have happened one day or another, maybe they would have even had to participate in the war against states that had seceded if it had broken out.

@Cleburne1863
Slave states remaining in the union changed everything.

Slavery was no longer "the main cause" of the war.

@robert piepenbrink
Well on the other hand it is true that measuring 193.04 cm, that still made him a big man.

@Grattan54
Yes Old Contemptible explained well what the abolitionists were, 1 or 2% of the population.

@ Old Contemptible
Without war, no "rapid" abolition.

@All
It should be noted that seceding was completely legal since it was in the Declaration of Rights and in the Constitution of the United States of 1788, but Lincoln ignored all that, he even abolished habeas corpus.

He ignored the Declaration of Rights and had a new constitution drawn up to favor the federal centralizing state and not the confederal state, which is why many states decided to join the confederation.

For example, there were states like Maryland and Missouri that wanted to declare themselves neutral, but the North immediately set its sights militarily on these states.

So Maryland and Delaware have regiments in both camps as well as Kansas which became the 34th state of the Union on January 29, 1861.

Lincoln raised an army, so people rose up en masse to defend themselves because in the end who can accept that an army, whatever it is, can invade their territory.

Are you trying to spread ignorance just to get reactions?

Its the Bill of Rights.

Lincoln has the power to suspend habeas corpus. Its in the Constitution.
Article I, Section 9: "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

And Lincoln did not have a new Constitution drawn up. I have no idea where you came up with that idea.

^ Is "hi EEE ya" for real???

He would appear to be so. I think he has just had some really bad information on the Civil War. I wonder if one of his sources has been the book "The Real Lincoln." Maybe he can answer that after he is let out of the pokey.

I feel reasonably confident hi EEE ya is a real person, and to some degree sincere. This feels like a combination of poorly-chosen reading materials and translation difficulties, which is why I keep pestering him for sources.

There's a late biography which attributes to Thomas Aquinas the saying "beware of the man of one book." I generally take it to mean someone who has read a single volume on a subject and "taken it as Gospel." It's an easy thing to do when it's not really your field, and I'm afraid I've done it a few times myself.

We come to TMP both to learn and to teach. I'm hoping we can steer him to more sources and more reliable ones.

And I will now leave Polonius mode.

Its like reading one book on Little Bighorn and thinking you know what happened.

I like to say that when someone claims "I did my research!" that it really means that they googled a topic and cherry picked sites that they already agreed with.
Politics of the last 10 years show this is abundantly evident.
I won't go into what "politics" exactly, but you can guess what I'm talking about.
It used to be that bad "research" had a hard time getting published, due to things like Editors, finding a publisher, cost of printing, etc. Now there are no such limitations.

Naming no names 🙄 I think that some people posting on our historical discussion sites fit that description.

@All
In fact the war was lost before it started,but the Southerners still rose up en masse to defend themselves, because in the end, they could not accept that an army, whatever it was, could invade their territory.

The internet is where a lot of historical research is conducted. Researchers, authors, students, or curators can conduct research from home or office. Anyone can access the following:

National Archives (NARA)
Library of Congress
The American Battlefield Trust
Civil War Soldiers and Sailors System
HathiTrust Digital Library
Making of America Digital Archive
Civil War Archive
Digital Public Library of America
The New York Public Library (NYPL) Digital Collections
Civil War Trust's Map Center
Southern Historical Collection at UNC
The Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum
The Papers of Abraham Lincoln
The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln
The Lincoln Financial Foundation Collection
Lincoln Home National Historic Site
The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History
Abraham Lincoln Online
The Lincoln Institute
Google Arts & Culture: Abraham Lincoln Collection
Antietam on the Web
Huntington Library Lincoln Collection
The National Museum of American History

So yes I get my information online from many of these institutions. So can you and anyone else. I would be happy to post sources for anything I posted. It also helps that I have a decent library of my own to draw from.

Yes, yes, but in fact everyone will agree that the war was lost before it even began, but the southerners still rose up en masse to defend themselves, because in the end, they could not accept that an army, whatever it was, could invade their territory.

Well, that is classic lost cause rhetoric. Don't start at Appomattox and work backward. "The South didn't stand a chance but they put up a brave fight." Sure the CSA could have won. The Confederates certainly thought so. Do you think they would have sacrificed a quarter of their military-age men not counting the wounded just to make a point?

By the way from Lincoln's point of view, the loyal states weren't invading foreign territory. He maintained that all of the Confederacy was United States soil.

That is not what the South believed. They were confident and sure that they would win. They believed an area their size could not be conquered and held. They felt that all the great political leaders in US history had been Southerner and the North would not find good men to lead them. They dismissed Lincoln as a leader. They felt the Southerner soldier was superior to Northern soldiers and finally, they believed that England and France would come in on their side. It was only after they had lost the war, with the coming of the Lost cause, that the South started to claim they knew they couldn't win.

Once more, may I add, the South did not rise up en masse. 400,000 Southern men fought in the Union army and 4 slave states stayed in the Union.

@Old Contemptible
Of course the South didn't stand a chance and that "The South didn't stand a chance but they put up a brave fight."

Of course, the CSA could have won?

How and when?

Confederates certainly thought so, fortunately for them.

From Lincoln's point of view, the loyal states were not invading foreign territory.

He maintained that the entire Confederacy was the territory of the United States, yes but the Confederates thought otherwise.

@Grattan54
That slave states stayed in the Union is surprising that it happened?

hi EEE ya, you're circling back to questions already asked and answered. One more time:
The Confederacy might have won by exhausting northern political will. When wars drag on, the side farthest from the actual fighting is usually the one to lose interest. A major military defeat--not just heavy casualties, but an entire army removed from the order of battle, as at Saratoga, Yorktown and Dien Bien Phu can be a morale breaker even if it isn't militarily decisive. This is why I think the Seven Days, Shiloh and the Vicksburg Campaign were the south's best shot: a Union army might have been forced to surrender, being backed against the Ocean or an impassable river. Instead, this only happened to Confederate armies.

No one but the most ardent secessionists was surprised that some slave states stayed with the Union. Diplomacy was never the Confederacy's best feature.

"@Grattan54
That slave states stayed in the Union is surprising that it happened?"

Why do you keep asking the same question over and over?
Whenever you get the answers, to the same question, you pay no attention, or act as if you didn't get a reply.
Your basic belief is that all states have, or had, a universal solidarity based on one fact, the establishment of slavery in that state.
You are assuming that Florida is in 100% agreement with Arkansas.
You are assuming that all FREE States are in universal accord and harmony. Many New Yorkers would support slavery if they could. Many Pennsylvanians didn't care at all. Heck, Massachusetts and Maine were at odds over fishing.

Many regions and counties of every single slave state did not support slavery, or secession. West Virginia even seceded from Virginia. (The constitutional legality of that is something entirely different. 😊)
If the population of Alabama who elected the Legislature was 75% in favor of slavery and secession, that of Kentucky was far lower.
In fact, it was the Legislatures who voted on secession. NOT the people.

So, your continuing belief that all slave states agreed with each other in everything is wrong. In many cases, it was the only thing they agreed on.

Even abolitionists weren't 100% in agreement with each other.
Many favored deportations of all blacks to Africa. That included Lincoln for a while.
Many abolitionists favored freeing the slaves, but thought they were too child-like and ignorant to be trusted with the vote. Nor should they be allowed to own land.
Many, but by no means all, were for complete freedom, plus the vote.

And all this made the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments necessary. The fact that these were mostly ignored after Reconstruction is not the topic here.

Summer of 64 Lincoln was worried he would not be re-elected. Had not Mobile and Atlanta fallen . . .

McClellan wins, so does the CSA.

So southern hopes were not baseless.

Lincoln gave extensive pardons under his 10% plan, in the (iirc) three states that organized Union governments by 1864: LA, ARK, and Tennessee. Those pardons guaranteed protection of property except for slaves, who were freed. That pretty much precluded land redistribution of the "forty acres and a mule" type, at least in those states.

I do not think that McClellan would have abandoned the war and recognized. He just about repudiated the platform of the Democratic Party. He was a Democrat only insofar as he was not a Republican.
By his reckoning, he would have fought it "smarter". He would have won, but didn't really care about slavery. To him it was irrelevant.

That may well be the case, and we'll never know. Plus Lincoln would have pushed hard between November and March. But the CSA would have been considerably emboldened, and a Lincoln defeat would indicate that northern war weariness was substantial. So weaker Union will, stronger Confederate. And I think will would have been decisive, more so than the merely military.

For one big "what if," I think Lee's calculus changes if McC is president. Richmond falls, while Lincoln is still president, because he and Grant agree to go all out. ANV is defeated, but maybe disperses and organizes guerrilla resistance as some urged Lee to do and he wisely declined. But if he knows the man he has to outlast is McClellan? Most of Confederate territory was still unoccupied by Union troops, though almost all of the cities and infrastructure were.

It would have been horrible, but I can see the Confederates taking a path of no surrender.

+1 John

Hi-Yee-ha asked if I would post this on his threads. I said I would post it on his most accessed. I self censored the last few words, but I think you get his meaning.

"Hi-Yee-ha has a fait sécession de TMP ! Merde ! MDR !😄

I am a Breton by birth like all my ancestors and that therefore I never give in and that I ##!!#%*""

Nice to know he's well. I hope he finds time to read a few books on the ACW.

Sadly, since he appears to have no name, his claim to be a Breton remains unverifiable.

Hi EEE ya is Pascal Mahe (Mahe is a Breton Family Name).

He had and has no name on his TMP profile. I work on the assumption that, since you can't hide your true identity from government monitors, people do so to slander and insult their peers with impunity.

Not big on the whole "handle" thing.