Was the American Civil War inevitable?

[Ria]

Was the Civil War inevitable, or was it the result of extremism and failures of leadership on both sides?

The other day in US history class we were answering questions from our class book, and this one stood out to me. I thought about it for a while...I still am not sure. There already was a great rift between the North and South...regarding culture (slavery, industry, etc) and from this branched the issue of state's rights. But extremism and propaganda were alive and kicking, with political cartoons and things like Uncle Tom's Cabin (which revealed the brutality of slavery). And then there was bad leadership, with James Polk who wanted to expand into Canadian and Mexican territory...he provoked Mexico until it attacked US troops, and it gave Polk a reason to start a war. Popular sovereignty became reinforced but it was flawed because different areas interpreted it as a benefit to them. The Kansas-Nebraska Act didn't specify when or how the residents were to decide the fate of slavery...

If there hadn't had been so much animosity, and "bad leadership", would the Union have let the South make their own country? Have their own Constitution? The Confederacy already made up one, but Congress didn't allow it to pass (and plus the Union won, obviously). And there's no doubt that extremism and mistakes in leadership fueled the fire...I think there might have been a form of a Civil war but most likely not on such a great scale.

I am in no shape or form a Civil War genius, but I know there are some on this site. What do you guys think? :)

[Ratamacue]

Well, in my opinion, the ending of slavery was inevitable and almost certainly would have happened by the end of the 19th century, but the war definitely wasn't, especially considering that when it boils down to it, it was a matter of States' Rights vs. Federal control. As you said, it was really a result of propaganda on both sides. Unwillingness to compromise on both sides of the table led the South to secede and refusal to use diplomacy led the North to take up arms against the CSA.

So basically, I'd say that the Civil War was a complete cluster f*ck that could have been avoided if people on both sides weren't such bullheaded assholes in the beginning.

[BigBaribal]

The slavery was probably just a pretext, like the "war on terroooooor" today.

Moral pretexts are just pretexts to motivate the common "yes-men". Like Machievel said it, "states are cold monsters".

It'salso rather fun to know that Robert E. Lee sold his slaves long ago before the civil war, while Ulysse Grant kept his slaves (he had interests in the South) even after the beginning of the civil war.

Btw, it's also interesting to know that about 3000 blacks, who had been liberated from slavery, also possessed about 18'000 slaves themselves.

[BigBaribal]

http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm



DIXIE'S CENSORED SUBJECT
BLACK SLAVEOWNERS

By Robert M. Grooms

© 1997
(THIS ARTICLE IS COPYRIGHTED AND IS PROVIDED HERE COURTESY OF THE BARNES REVIEW)

In an 1856 letter to his wife Mary Custis Lee, Robert E. Lee called slavery "a moral and political evil." Yet he concluded that black slaves were immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially and physically.

The fact is large numbers of free Negroes owned black slaves; in fact, in numbers disproportionate to their representation in society at large. In 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves. According to the U.S. census report for that last year before the Civil War, there were nearly 27 million whites in the country. Some eight million of them lived in the slaveholding states.

The census also determined that there were fewer than 385,000 individuals who owned slaves (1). Even if all slaveholders had been white, that would amount to only 1.4 percent of whites in the country (or 4.8 percent of southern whites owning one or more slaves).

In the rare instances when the ownership of slaves by free Negroes is acknowledged in the history books, justification centers on the claim that black slave masters were simply individuals who purchased the freedom of a spouse or child from a white slaveholder and had been unable to legally manumit them. Although this did indeed happen at times, it is a misrepresentation of the majority of instances, one which is debunked by records of the period on blacks who owned slaves. These include individuals such as Justus Angel and Mistress L. Horry, of Colleton District, South Carolina, who each owned 84 slaves in 1830. In fact, in 1830 a fourth of the free Negro slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves; eight owning 30 or more (2).

According to federal census reports, on June 1, 1860 there were nearly 4.5 million Negroes in the United States, with fewer than four million of them living in the southern slaveholding states. Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. The country's leading African American historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city.

To return to the census figures quoted above, this 28 percent is certainly impressive when compared to less than 1.4 percent of all American whites and less than 4.8 percent of southern whites. The statistics show that, when free, blacks disproportionately became slave masters.

The majority of slaveholders, white and black, owned only one to five slaves. More often than not, and contrary to a century and a half of bullwhips-on-tortured-backs propaganda, black and white masters worked and ate alongside their charges; be it in house, field or workshop. The few individuals who owned 50 or more slaves were confined to the top one percent, and have been defined as slave magnates.

In 1860 there were at least six Negroes in Louisiana who owned 65 or more slaves The largest number, 152 slaves, were owned by the widow C. Richards and her son P.C. Richards, who owned a large sugar cane plantation. Another Negro slave magnate in Louisiana, with over 100 slaves, was Antoine Dubuclet, a sugar planter whose estate was valued at (in 1860 dollars) $264,000 (3). That year, the mean wealth of southern white men was $3,978 (4).

In Charleston, South Carolina in 1860 125 free Negroes owned slaves; six of them owning 10 or more. Of the $1.5 million in taxable property owned by free Negroes in Charleston, more than $300,000 represented slave holdings (5). In North Carolina 69 free Negroes were slave owners (6).

In 1860 William Ellison was South Carolina's largest Negro slaveowner. In Black Masters. A Free Family of Color in the Old South, authors Michael P. Johnson and James L. Roak write a sympathetic account of Ellison's life. From Ellison's birth as a slave to his death at 71, the authors attempt to provide justification, based on their own speculation, as to why a former slave would become a magnate slave master.

At birth he was given the name April. A common practice among slaves of the period was to name a child after the day or month of his or her birth. Between 1800 and 1802 April was purchased by a white slave-owner named William Ellison. Apprenticed at 12, he was taught the trades of carpentry, blacksmithing and machining, as well as how to read, write, cipher and do basic bookkeeping.

On June 8, 1816, William Ellison appeared before a magistrate (with five local freeholders as supporting witnesses) to gain permission to free April, now 26 years of age. In 1800 the South Carolina legislature had set out in detail the procedures for manumission. To end the practice of freeing unruly slaves of "bad or depraved" character and those who "from age or infirmity" were incapacitated, the state required that an owner testify under oath to the good character of the slave he sought to free. Also required was evidence of the slave's "ability to gain a livelihood in an honest way."

Although lawmakers of the time could not envision the incredibly vast public welfare structures of a later age, these stipulations became law in order to prevent slaveholders from freeing individuals who would become a burden on the general public.

Interestingly, considering today's accounts of life under slavery, authors Johnson and Roak report instances where free Negroes petitioned to be allowed to become slaves; this because they were unable to support themselves.

Black Confederates and Afro-Yankees in Civil War Virginia (University Press of Virginia-1995) was written by Ervin L. Jordan Jr., an African-American and assistant professor and associate curator of the Special Collections Department, University of Virginia library. He wrote: "One of the more curious aspects of the free black existence in Virginia was their ownership of slaves. Black slave masters owned members of their family and freed them in their wills. Free blacks were encouraged to sell themselves into slavery and had the right to choose their owner through a lengthy court procedure."

In 1816, shortly after his manumission, April moved to Stateburg. Initially he hired slave workers from local owners. When in 1817 he built a gin for Judge Thomas Watries, he credited the judge nine dollars "for hire of carpenter George for 12 days." By 1820 he had purchased two adult males to work in his shop (7). In fewer than four years after being freed, April demonstrated that he had no problem perpetuating an institution he had been released from. He also achieved greater monetary success than most white people of the period.

On June 20, 1820, April appeared in the Sumter District courthouse in Sumterville. Described in court papers submitted by his attorney as a "freed yellow man of about 29 years of age," he requested a name change because it "would yet greatly advance his interest as a tradesman." A new name would also "save him and his children from degradation and contempt which the minds of some do and will attach to the name April." Because "of the kindness" of his former master and as a "Mark of gratitude and respect for him" April asked that his name be changed to William Ellison. His request was granted.

In time the black Ellison family joined the predominantly white Episcopalian church. On August 6, 1824 he was allowed to put a family bench on the first floor, among those of the wealthy white families. Other blacks, free and slave, and poor whites sat in the balcony. Another wealthy Negro family would later join the first floor worshippers.

Between 1822 and the mid-1840s, Ellison gradually built a small empire, acquiring slaves in increasing numbers. He became one of South Carolina's major cotton gin manufacturers, selling his machines as far away as Mississippi. From February 1817 until the War Between the States commenced, his business advertisements appeared regularly in newspapers across the state. These included the Camden Gazette, the Sumter Southern Whig and the Black River Watchman.

Ellison was so successful, due to his utilization of cheap slave labor, that many white competitors went out of business. Such situations discredit impressions that whites dealt only with other whites. Where money was involved, it was apparent that neither Ellison's race or former status were considerations.

In his book, Ervin L. Jordan Jr. writes that, as the great conflagration of 1861-1865 approached: "Free Afro-Virginians were a nascent black middle class under siege, but several acquired property before and during the war. Approximately 169 free blacks owned 145,976 acres in the counties of Amelia, Amherst, Isle of Wight, Nansemond, Prince William and Surry, averaging 870 acres each. Twenty-rune Petersburg blacks each owned property worth $1,000 and continued to purchase more despite the war."

Jordan offers an example: "Gilbert Hunt, a Richmond ex-slave blacksmith, owned two slaves, a house valued at $1,376, and $500 in other properties at his death in 1863." Jordan wrote that "some free black residents of Hampton and Norfolk owned property of considerable value; 17 black Hamptonians possessed property worth a total of $15,000. Thirty-six black men paid taxes as heads of families in Elizabeth City County and were employed as blacksmiths, bricklayers, fishermen, oystermen and day laborers. In three Norfolk County parishes 160 blacks owned a total of $41,158 in real estate and personal property.

The general practice of the period was that plantation owners would buy seed and equip~ ment on credit and settle their outstanding accounts when the annual cotton crop was sold. Ellison, like all free Negroes, could resort to the courts for enforcement of the terms of contract agreements. Several times Ellison successfully sued white men for money owed him.

In 1838 Ellison purchased on time 54.5 acres adjoining his original acreage from one Stephen D. Miller. He moved into a large home on the property. What made the acquisition notable was that Miller had served in the South Carolina legislature, both in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate, and while a resident of Stateburg had been governor of the state. Ellison's next door neighbor was Dr. W.W. Anderson, master of "Borough House, a magnificent 18th Century mansion. Anderson's son would win fame in the War Between the States as General "Fighting ****" Anderson.

By 1847 Ellison owned over 350 acres, and more than 900 by 1860. He raised mostly cotton, with a small acreage set aside for cultivating foodstuffs to feed his family and slaves. In 1840 he owned 30 slaves, and by 1860 he owned 63. His sons, who lived in homes on the property, owned an additional nine slaves. They were trained as gin makers by their father (8). They had spent time in Canada, where many wealthy American Negroes of the period sent their children for advanced formal education. Ellison's sons and daughters married mulattos from Charleston, bringing them to the Ellison plantation to live.

In 1860 Ellison greatly underestimated his worth to tax assessors at $65,000. Even using this falsely stated figure, this man who had been a slave 44 years earlier had achieved great financial success. His wealth outdistanced 90 percent of his white neighbors in Sumter District. In the entire state, only five percent owned as much real estate as Ellison. His wealth was 15 times greater than that of the state's average for whites. And Ellison owned more slaves than 99 percent of the South's slaveholders.

Although a successful businessman and cotton farmer, Ellison's major source of income derived from being a "slave breeder." Slave breeding was looked upon with disgust throughout the South, and the laws of most southern states forbade the sale of slaves under the age of 12. In several states it was illegal to sell inherited slaves (9). Nevertheless, in 1840 Ellison secretly began slave breeding.

While there was subsequent investment return in raising and keeping young males, females were not productive workers in his factory or his cotton fields. As a result, except for a few females he raised to become "breeders," Ellison sold the female and many of the male children born to his female slaves at an average price of $400. Ellison had a reputation as a harsh master. His slaves were said to be the district's worst fed and clothed. On his property was located a small, windowless building where he would chain his problem slaves.

As with the slaves of his white counterparts, occasionally Ellison's slaves ran away. The historians of Sumter District reported that from time to time Ellison advertised for the return of his runaways. On at least one occasion Ellison hired the services of a slave catcher. According to an account by Robert N. Andrews, a white man who had purchased a small hotel in Stateburg in the 1820s, Ellison hired him to run down "a valuable slave. Andrews caught the slave in Belleville, Virginia. He stated: "I was paid on returning home $77.50 and $74 for expenses.

William Ellison died December 5, 1861. His will stated that his estate should pass into the joint hands of his free daughter and his two surviving sons. He bequeathed $500 to the slave daughter he had sold.

Following in their father's footsteps, the Ellison family actively supported the Confederacy throughout the war. They converted nearly their entire plantation to the production of corn, fodder, bacon, corn shucks and cotton for the Confederate armies. They paid $5,000 in taxes during the war. They also invested more than $9,000 in Confederate bonds, treasury notes and certificates in addition to the Confederate currency they held. At the end, all this valuable paper became worthless.

The younger Ellisons contributed more than farm produce, labor and money to the Confederate cause. On March 27, 1863 John Wilson Buckner, William Ellison's oldest grandson, enlisted in the 1st South Carolina Artillery. Buckner served in the company of Captains P.P. Galliard and A.H. Boykin, local white men who knew that Buckner was a Negro. Although it was illegal at the time for a Negro to formally join the Confederate forces, the Ellison family's prestige nullified the law in the minds of Buckner's comrades. Buckner was wounded in action on July 12, 1863. At his funeral in Stateburg in August, 1895 he was praised by his former Confederate officers as being a "faithful soldier."

Following the war the Ellison family fortune quickly dwindled. But many former Negro slave magnates quickly took advantage of circumstances and benefited by virtue of their race. For example Antoine Dubuclet, the previously mentioned New Orleans plantation owner who held more than 100 slaves, became Louisiana state treasurer during Reconstruction, a post he held from 1868 to 1877 (10).

A truer picture of the Old South, one never presented by the nation's mind molders, emerges from this account. The American South had been undergoing structural evolutionary changes far, far greater than generations of Americans have been led to believe. In time, within a relatively short time, the obsolete and economically nonviable institution of slavery would have disappeared. The nation would have been spared awesome traumas from which it would never fully recover.

[Ria]

Btw, it's also interesting to know that about 3000 blacks, who had been liberated from slavery, also possessed about 18'000 slaves themselves.

Yes I knew that blacks had owned slaves, and the South used that as an excuse to keep slavery as an institution. "See, even the blacks do it, so it must be ok!"
:slap:

[Ratamacue]

The slavery was probably just a pretext, like the "war on terroooooor" today.

Moral pretexts are just pretexts to motivate the common "yes-men". Like Machievel said it, "states are cold monsters".

It'salso rather fun to know that Robert E. Lee sold his slaves long ago before the civil war, while Ulysse Grant kept his slaves (he had interests in the South) even after the beginning of the civil war.

Btw, it's also interesting to know that about 3000 blacks, who had been liberated from slavery, also possessed about 18'000 slaves themselves.
Slavery wasn't the primary issue put forth by the North until after *****sburg. Prior to that, it was simply about maintaining the union between the states. Lincoln even said it himself:


"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. The sooner the national authority can be restored, the nearer the Union will be the Union as it was."
Slavery became the "cause" when it was apparent that the North needed an ideal or sort of moral high-ground to stay motivated. The South could fight under the cause of gaining independence, but many in the North certainly wouldn't see the advantage in maintaining the union between the North and South. Therefore, abolishing slavery gave a strong motivation for the men who volunteered to fight.

[Ria]

The slavery was probably just a pretext, like the "war on terroooooor" today.

Moral pretexts are just pretexts to motivate the common "yes-men". Like Machievel said it, "states are cold monsters".

It'salso rather fun to know that Robert E. Lee sold his slaves long ago before the civil war, while Ulysse Grant kept his slaves (he had interests in the South) even after the beginning of the civil war.

Btw, it's also interesting to know that about 3000 blacks, who had been liberated from slavery, also possessed about 18'000 slaves themselves.
Slavery wasn't the primary issue put forth by the North until after *****sburg. Prior to that, it was simply about maintaining the union between the states. Lincoln even said it himself:


"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. The sooner the national authority can be restored, the nearer the Union will be the Union as it was."
Slavery became the "cause" when it was apparent that the North needed an ideal or sort of moral high-ground to stay motivated. The South could fight under the cause of gaining independence, but many in the North certainly wouldn't see the advantage in maintaining the union between the North and South. Therefore, abolishing slavery gave a strong motivation for the men who volunteered to fight.

Exactly...of course slavery was partly why the North and South created a schism...but the Emancipation Proclamation make the war about slavery.

[BigBaribal]

It is also rarely said that Lincoln perhaps planned to send back the liberated slaves to Africa.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa082800a.htm

[Geezah]

The following link makes for a good read, The Louisiana Native Guard (http://www2.netdoor.com/~jgh/)

[ViktorNavorski]

Two quotes from Abraham Lincoln I would like to add to this discussion.

"A house divided against itself cannot stand."
I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.
I do not expect the union to be dissolved--I do not expect the house to fall--but I do expect that it will cease to be divided.
It will become all one thing, or all the other." - June 16, 1858

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free." - August 22, 1862

[ViktorNavorski]

It is also rarely said that Lincoln perhaps planned to send back the liberated slaves to Africa.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa082800a.htm

That was in the process for quiet a while, ever since the Amistad case and John Quincy Adams.

[Dennis G]

As I understand the origins of the US Civil War, the driving issue was that the industrializing north was very rapidly expanding its infrastructure and wanted to heavily tax the less-industrialized South's cotton exports to England to provide additional federal revenue to fund infrastructure investments in the north. The South, understandably, was not happy with this fiscal raid on their resources, particularly because it did not benefit them in any way.

The slavery issue was a smoke screen that successfully convinced the English not to intervene on behalf of their Southern US trading partners. As I understand the history, the British queen read the anti-slavery propaganda book "Uncle Tom's Cabin" and was deeply horrified. She then vetoed any UK military intervention to break the US North's blockade of the US South's ports.

As I understand the history, Robert E. Lee was quoted as having said, "We should have freed the slaves and then gone to war."

I was taught in high school history class that the US Civil war was about slavery and abolition. But I have since learned from reading other historical sources that the US Civil war was more about taxation without representation and the federal government vastly expanding its revenues and powers than it was about slavery.

I'm just getting through a new book about George Washington (His Excellency-Ellis), and a good deal of it is the time of the debates on the articles of Confederation, and further on into his Presidency. Clearly based on his writings, he didn't not push the issue then as his focus was to concrete the fragile US into a working, sovereign (good) country and government over that issue, a position that was in agreement with many involved of the time.

His direction, essentially a feign calling it a state issue to be dealt with in each state, put off Federal government involvement/postioning until 1808 at it's earliest.

It was the right decision then and now I believe-we very well may not have become a sovereign country to begin with or perhaps would have split very early on (first couple of years) if that issue was pushed at that time. Splitting that early would have brought us into British subjugation again methinks (or French-that's too scary to contemplate). As it was, we barely were able to defend outselves during the 1812 war. Any less than what we were.....

Dennis

[James]

I won't go far as to say that a civil war was inevitable, but I do think it is possible to say that at some point in our first 100 or so years, there would be some type of conflict to settle a dispute between supporters of States' and Federal rights.

[walford]

In 1850, Sen. William Seward (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USASseward.htm) (R-NY) predicted a civil war if slavery were not abolished, famously labeling the growing tension between the industrializing North and the largely feudal South as an "Irrepressible Conflict (http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~rpekarek/sewardcss.html)."

Historian Charles Beard (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAbeardC.htm) further developed thought on the Civil War, explaining that it completed the promise of the Constitution, labeling the outcome as the "Second American Revolution (http://www.eh.net/encyclopedia/?article=ransom.civil.war.us)."

[Ria]

Awesome Dennis :)


I won't go far as to say that a civil war was inevitable, but I do think it is possible to say that at some point in our first 100 or so years, there would be some type of conflict to settle a dispute between supporters of States' and Federal rights.

I agree. Thank you guys very much :)
Interesting links BigBaribal, Geezah, Viktor, and Walford.

[Steel21]

Btw, it's also interesting to know that about 3000 blacks, who had been liberated from slavery, also possessed about 18'000 slaves themselves.

VERY INTERESTING!

Any documentation for me to check out? Thanks!
[/quote]

[Steel21]

In 1850, Sen. William Seward (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USASseward.htm) (R-NY) predicted a civil war if slavery were not abolished, famously labeling the growing tension between the industrializing North and the largely feudal South as an "Irrepressible Conflict (http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~rpekarek/sewardcss.html)."

Historian Charles Beard (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAbeardC.htm) further developed thought on the Civil War, explaining that it completed the promise of the Constitution, labeling the outcome as the "Second American Revolution (http://www.eh.net/encyclopedia/?article=ransom.civil.war.us)."

All wars are aviodable. That divine message of the constitution crap is just wishful thinking, if not sef agrandizement. I dont buy it.

By 1850, the rift was already thick in the air. All that theory about "Second American Revolution" is BS.

We all like to think that we are some form of higher being than your comon beast with higher ideals, morals and aspirations...... dream on.

[Para]

The Northern states where fairly industrialised and the Southern States made much of their from Cotton. There was a great deal of wealth in the south, held by a fairly small group of people. Now in England William Wilberforce had after many years of trying managed to get the anti slavery laws passed in Britain. Once these laws had been passed Britain took it upon it's self to stamp out slavery across the world and the Royal Navy ships had instructions that they where to intercept any slave trading ships from any nation. Well those from the Southern States where not very happy with this turn of events and wanted the US to take a more positive stand on the matter. Now this brought the whole matter to head in the northern states where it set of all the debates on slavery and on the wording of the American Constitution, on what the wording of liberty and freedom should mean to all Americans. This polarised to two factions and from that time there was really no give in either side

[Durandal]

Here is the reason why the Civil War happened.


Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.


This portion of the Constitution, part of Article 1, Section 2, was the defining text that allowed the South to develop a political wall to prevent the North from doing much of anything. It was officially adopted in 1789. Our founding forefathers avoided a Civil War then and did so early on. We traveled a road that brought us closer and closer to that bloody war because we wanted to avoid it in the late 1700s.

States Rights was NOT the reason. State's Rights was a code word for Slavery then.

Slavery was at the heart of things but in many different ways, not just "Slavery was bad therefore we need to free the slaves." This reason, though spoken about a lot was NOT the reason we went to War with each other.

Its the 3/5 th vote.

The whites controlled the slave vote in the South. They were used to determine the number of representatives to the Congress. Think about that.

The North nearly succeeded from the Union during the lead up to the Louisiana Purchase because they were all to be slave States.

Following the Revolutionary War, those founding forefathers that were from Slaves States, understood where the institution of slavery was headed. So they fought to keep it alive as long as possible. Thomas Jefferson ran on the slave ticket defending the institution and gaining its votes during his run of the White House.

The power was placed in the hands of the South. Why? To prevent slavery from being abolished. That is the only reason why. It was corrupt when it was formed. It was corrupt when we went to war with ourselves over it.

Every other reason, the myriad of the them, takes a back seat to the 3/5ths vote.

[lunatic2T2]

My history professor asked us this once.
Could America have gradually and peacefully developed independence within the British Commonwealth, as Canada did, rather than engaging in a violent revolution?

It brought up good points of debate. I'm glad we chose revolution, because our country wouldn't be as cool as it is today. woot

[texzilla]

As a southerner, it amazes me at the ridiculous moralism that those with little understanding of the true nature of the war, or of the real history of slavery, place upon this conflict.

My paternal great great grandfather lost four brothers in the Army of Northern Virginia. On the maternal side two brothers were lost, one at Shiloh, the other riding in JEB Stuart's calvalry. None were slaveholders.
They died a in desparate fight to protect their homeland.

This war was inevitable from the construction of the Constitution. The 3/5ths clause was there to protect the convention, as the southern states would have left the negotiations with a zero clause, the northern states would never accept a full credit on the census. All agreed to the compromise becasue the overriding interest of all 13 states was to seek a stronger union than the confederation in order to survive the fragile infancy period.

I see no mention here of the insidious history of the slave trade, the responsibilities of the Dutch, French, Spanish, Portugese, and English slavers who profited greatly in transporting Africans to the new world, returning home laden with treasure. The trade triangle of slaves/sugar/rum is not mentioned here; it was a primary source of New England's wealth in the 17th/18th century. A real source of conflict was the predominance of mercantilism as the primary driver of foreign trade. The North was a part of the mercantilist heirarchy; the south had shifted from colonies of England to economic colonies of the North. Where do you think the high quality cotton came from to supply the northern textile plants?

The war was inevitable as the economic facors continued to exacerbate the cultural differences between the states. If you read the writings of Calhoun and Clay from the 1820's, the union was perilously close to dissolution. These issues continued to swell through the 1850's with no political solution to come, as the south bristled under terrible tariffs and other mercantilist controls on trade to force most commerce to the North rather than the spot markets of Europe.

The South was mired in its own issues of a colonial economy, ruled by a small class of elitists that clung to power against a flood of Scots-Irish immigrants that saw slavery as a labor competitive issue more than a moral issue. If you look at the maps of support for succession, you'll see that the Appalchian areas of Alabama were solidly against succession. These mountainous areas throughout the south were selling timber to the North, without slave labor, and had no other markets, and needed the westward expansion of railroads to supprt their future.

The anti-slavery issues of the MidWest came also from economic issues. These immigrant fueled farmers, in placve from the homestead act, saw slavery as a unfair trade issue, that pushed down commodity prices they had to compete with in the New England and eastern markets.

Slavery was doomed by the coming of mechanized farming. Had slavery not existed, I believe the war would have still occurred, maybe later, maybe earleir, as the mercantilistic issues would have still existed.

The Emancipation Proclamation was strictly a political tool. It freed no slaves in the slaveholding border states, nor in the areas already conquered. It gave a moral reason for the war to quell the anti-Lincoln, anti-war factions in the North, who wanted the conflict to end so that commerce could resume. They knew the South would remain primarily economically tied to the North after the war no matterthe outcome.

No country was as brutally conquered by the US, and then occupied as was the south. There was no Marshall Plan. The Reconstruction Era was where the real issues of race, poverty, and other problems of the south were really created, as the freed slaves and poor whites competed for the same meager resources, and the ruling elites kept them antagonistic towards each other. Otherwise, class simularities might have overcome race to create a different set of circumstances for the south.

This was a horrific conflict; with modern weapons used with 18th century tactics. If you ever go to a place of hallowed ground such as Shiloh, where over 20,000 died in just two days, perhaps you will see that this war is a complex issue, far more so than the abolishonist point of view simply put in the history books these days.

[Durandal]

They died a in desparate fight to protect their homeland.

That's complete BS. They died protecting the political visions of their "masters" the rich Southern Elite, who broke from the Union for reasons they disliked.

[James]

Jeez... this has turned into an old thread, hasn't it...

"The Civil War was about slavery!"
"No, it was about states' rights!"
"Bull****! You're retarded!"
"I know you are, but what am I?"

:roll:

[Aerosoul]

Lincoln was not an abolitionist, no matter how hard people will try convince you he was, solely to try and make up for America's giant mistake.

He stated in his first inaugural adress h had no intentions to abolish slavery, only contain it. He also said he believed the negro was not his equal man.

As for the ineveitability of the Civil War, YES! There was so much going on in the previous 30 years it was bound to happen. The MO Compromise is what kinda started it all. Splitting slavery lines for North and South. Which made no sense 'cause slavery was protected in the Constitution, but whatever.

Then you had Harper's Ferry in the 50's, where John Brown tried to raid the Federal aresenalbut failed.

Anyway, yes it absolutely unavoidable. The Civil War was not about slavery until 1863 when the Emancipation was passed. Previously, it was solely about preserving the Union. But then Lincoln passed the Emancipation, freeing all the slaves in the South. But hey wait a minute! The CSA was not part of the USA! So the Emancipation didn't mean **** until 1865. And what was ridiculous was that Lincoln could have freed slaves in the Border states (neutral) but did not.

Go figure.