American Civil War

[SonOfOdin]

Well, since I only leant Maltese/European History in Primary School and Basic International History in Secondary, I never really learnt that much on the Americas from 1600's onwards
I learnt on European Colonization and all but nothing on the French-Indian War, War of Independence, War of 1812, Civil War etc

Now, after watching some films(The Patriot(I know...it's inaccurate), Last of the Mohicans etc) and obviously, playing ETW(RTI), I learnt quite alot about the French-Indian War and particularly about the War for Independence

But I'm still dry on the Civil War era
Can someone explain to me the Causes, Results and any other major change during the period?(except the Breachloading Mechanism...which I've watched a documentary about Snipers on)
Ohh, and I know that there was the Union(North) and the Confederancy(South), I just don't know what they did...

Thanks

[Barry Goldwater]

The South rebelled when the planter aristocracy realized that their political power (until 1860, the South were pretty much kingmakers in American politics) was at an end with the inclusion of more & more new free states, a fact that was proven with Lincoln's election. I'd imagine it was just a matter of time before Emancipation is forced through by Lincoln/some later Republican President if they (the South) had not seceded. Slavery became the big issue when Lincoln whipped out the Emancipation Proclamation, which killed any chance of any foreign empire intervening on the CSA's side.

The result? Well, Lincoln was assassinated not long after his reelection, and his successor Johnson ed up Reconstruction. Then came Grant and his horrendously corrupt government, followed by Rutherford Hayes, who ended Reconstruction in exchange for the South's support in the 1876 election, allowing Southerners to enact fun shiz like the Jim Crow laws.

I just don't know what they did...

Uh, they both did a lot. What exactly d'you want to know?

[SonOfOdin]

Well, thanks for the info

I wanted to know what they did as in, what they proposed, and what they fough for
So basically the war started because the south saw that their political power was in threat, and when Lincoln was elected, they lost even more power?

[Frederich Barbarossa]

Well, thanks for the info

I wanted to know what they did as in, what they proposed, and what they fough for
So basically the war started because the south saw that their political power was in threat, and when Lincoln was elected, they lost even more power?

Also because the northern didn't want to industrialize the south. Thats why the south lost the war even in the begginning, because it didn't have industrial capacity to with stand the North for more then 5 years. They basically fought for that and Politics like the others say... But none of this slavery nonsense!

[CtrlAltDe1337]

...and here come the horde of Yankees and Californians who have no clue other than the textbook "slavery slavery slavery" answer...



In a nutshell, the war was fought over states rights. The Southern states saw themselves as sovereign nations bound together in a legal compact (union). As such, the states should have the right to freely leave the union if they so desired. The North saw states as not much more than territories (parts of a single nation) that could never leave the union. So when the states seceded, they saw this as treason. But the southern states saw that as merely their right. They entered the union freely, and should be able to leave freely.


Of course, slavery was one of the major rights the states claimed for themselves, among other things, and polarized the nation. But not all slave-holding states wanted to secede. Several counties broke off of Virginia to form West Virginia, and Kentucky and Missouri had slaves but did not secede. So it wasn't purely a slave-vs-nonslave thing.

Also, many southerners were opposed to succession, but felt their loyalties were to their states, not the union. Others were opposed to slavery, but felt that secession was the right thing to do, even though it would mean slavery would continue in the South for much longer.

[Scipio Afracanis]

...and here come the horde of Yankees and Californians who have no clue other than the textbook "slavery slavery slavery" answer...



In a nutshell, the war was fought over states rights. The Southern states saw themselves as sovereign nations bound together in a legal compact (union). As such, the states should have the right to freely leave the union if they so desired. The North saw states as not much more than territories (parts of a single nation) that could never leave the union. So when the states seceded, they saw this as treason. But the southern states saw that as merely their right. They entered the union freely, and should be able to leave freely.


Of course, slavery was one of the major rights the states claimed for themselves, among other things, and polarized the nation. But not all slave-holding states wanted to secede. Several counties broke off of Virginia to form West Virginia, and Kentucky and Missouri had slaves but did not secede. So it wasn't purely a slave-vs-nonslave thing.

Also, many southerners were opposed to succession, but felt their loyalties were to their states, not the union. Others were opposed to slavery, but felt that secession was the right thing to do, even though it would mean slavery would continue in the South for much longer.

I would also agree with state rights. +rep

[Last Roman]

...and here come the horde of Yankees and Californians who have no clue other than the textbook "slavery slavery slavery" answer...

well, it WAS about slavery. Or at least, that was a major catalyst for the war.

[JP226]

well, it WAS about slavery. Or at least, that was a major catalyst for the war.

Slavery was a spark, much as Ferdinand's assassination was. It was two competing ways of life, a northern one built in manufacturing and and at that point in need of protectionism, versus an agrarian one with a compteitive advantage. SC nearly suceeded under Adrew Jackson's administration because of Tariffs.

People that tend to cry out about "slavery slavery slavery" tend to miss the vast complexities that people ar so much willing to die over capital as they are profit, if that makes sense the way i'm explaining it. If theSouth could have made just as much money without slaves, which arguably they could/ would eventually, then war was not necessary for either the north or the south.

[Anduril248]

The end result was that we as a nation was trully formed, as we are trully one union, of states/territories that have the ability, to work together through a strong centralized government, there is no suceeding from the union.

[Barry Goldwater]

I wanted to know what they did as in, what they proposed, and what they fough for
So basically the war started because the south saw that their political power was in threat, and when Lincoln was elected, they lost even more power?

Yeah, that's pretty much it. Lincoln's election proved that their days as a political powerhouse were at an end.

The Southern planter barons wanted to preserve their waning political power and slavery, which their economy was reliant on - the 'defense of states' rights' was just a convenient excuse for them. If the Feds decided to shove slavery down the free states' throats, I highly doubt they'd so much as bat an eyelid. (yes, I know that is highly unlikely)

The North wanted to preserve the Union, with slavery becoming the official cause after Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation.

[BarnesBL0278]

The end result was that we as a nation was trully formed, as we are trully one union, of states/territories that have the ability, to work together through a strong centralized government, there is no suceeding from the union.

Article four of the constitution, and amendment 10. You're wrong. Of course, nobody believes that anymore, but in truth, we formed a nation as thirteen seperate states, and states being used in the traditional sense, with each having all the powers of a sovereign nation. When they entered constitutional union, they retained the bulk of these powers, with tariff, tax, and ultimate judicial power resting with the federal government, whose sole job was really to ensure the liberties and freedom of the citizens and to ensure a cooperation between those seperate nations. Ie, currency and taxes had to be uniform, so that no port could be given preference to another.

As for why the South seceded, they held absolutely no congressional power, which in the language of the day was referred to as "disparity of legislative power," or "congressional exclusion." In today's language that's referred to as "Oppression of the Majority," which translates into lay terms to mean that the welfare of the society in the union would definitely conquer over the individual liberty and freedom of the citizens of those underrepresented states. Now, contrary to popular belief, the American Constitution, which is very specifically listed as the "Supreme Law of the Land" and therefore overpowering to ANY legislation before or after by ANYONE for ANY reason, states quite clearly that while your security and welfare will be promoted, your liberty is guaranteed. THe exact phrase is actually in the preamble, which I don't wish to quote. This means that the rights of the individual (the right to fair representation being one) should NEVER be subject to the oppression of the majority.

How, you ask were they? Well, in 1861 there were 35 states, 11 of them voting Southern. Nearly everything in congress requires a 2/3rds majority. If all the southern states voted against something, 2 of the northern states could vote not present or merely abstain, and the vote would get passed. Conversely, if every northern state abstained from a vote, the southern states could not pass legislation. Given that the interests of the northern states differed wholly and completely from those of the south, and the time period of 1850-1860 saw a number of legislative acts that were directly aimed at providing preference to Northern commerce (the tax breaks to Northern port industry were so great that the Southern states, who posessed merely 30 percent of the population of the nation and were disproportionately poorer, contrary to common thought, were paying almost three quarters of the nation's taxes, and to add insult to injury, were receiving almost none of the benefits as they could not get votes passed to have roads built, railroads produced, or other public works projects enacted. Disparity of power) the SOuthern congressmen first attempted to block and veto all legislation, then threatened to withdraw from Congress, and finally, after the election of Lincoln and the overtaking of congress by the Republican party, which professed in almost every political aim to attempt to industrialize the nation (IE, inadvertantly destroy the economy of the South) they withdrew not only from Congress, but from the Constitutional union.

This raised no eyebrows until Lincoln's inauguration, mind you. Everyone accepted the right of a state to seceed. In fact, the only reference to the Union being perpetual and binding was one found in the Articles of Confederation, which was replaced by the Constitutional Union, and thus defunct in 1787.
Further arguing in favor of Secession, in 1812 the Hartford Convention met, and damn near the entirety of New ENgland vowed that they would secede, and agreed that the date of that secession would be in June of 1814, simply because they didn't want to pay taxes on the war of 1812, which they viewed as imperialist and agressive (the real reason was that New England commerce suffered terribly, as foreign markets refused trade with the U.S. in several places, and British naval vessels were openly firing on American merchantmen). Of course, the War ended and this was forgotten.

In 1837, South Carolina threatened secession. It was widely accepted and acknowledged that it was legal. So much so that Congress bent to her wishes and gave her what she wanted as opposed to watching her go.

And all of this, of course, was backed by the Grand and Glorious document, the United States COnstitution, so wholly misunderstood in today's day and age. Remember, according to the Constitution, the true seat of power lies with the State government, of whom the Federal government is actually servant. Unless of course that state's actions disparage or deny rights to the citizens of another state. THEN the federal government can dictate to the state, but not until.

Make sense?

[Last Roman]

Article four of the constitution, and amendment 10. You're wrong. Of course, nobody believes that anymore, but in truth, we formed a nation as thirteen seperate states, and states being used in the traditional sense, with each having all the powers of a sovereign nation. ?

that's why it said perpetual union right?

The Southern government requested numerous times that the United States remove troops from her land

by which they had no legal right to do so in the first place.

[Icefrisco]

To answer the op's question about how the war started, there are a number of competing theories:

1) Slavery (Main Northern view)- Probably the most famous, its supports the notion that Southerners rebelled because they wanted to continue to use slaves to sustain their economy. Northerners fought to free the Blacks, and became especially dedicated when Lincoln made the war into a moral crusade after he released the Emmancipation Proclamation.

2) State's Rights (Main Southern view)- Asserts that the Federal Government was trying to weaken Southern liberties in order to destroy the Southern way of life. By destroying the "Southern way of life" I mean increasing tariffs and ending slavery. Southerners thought an end to these things would destroy their economic livelihood and culture. Therefore, they fought to protect their liberties and the Northerners fought to destroy Southern society.

3) Class Warfare- Southern aristocrats were increasingly concerned that they would lose influence because new western territories could not support slavery and Northern states were growing due to immigration. This made them increasingly worried that they would become weak. In response, they influenced Southern governments to secede. This left the nation divided because poorer Southern states (Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, ect.) were not happy to fight a rich man's war. Basically, Northern businessmen, poor Northerners, and very poor Southerners (especially from Appalachia) banded together to destroy the plantation owners' influence.

4) Economic Differences- Northerners and Southerners could not live together because their economies and livelihoods were very different. They were angry at each other because they weere both competing for the same infrastructure improvements which led to many clashes, especially about the transcontinental railroad. Each side saw that their economies were best for the country so in the end each side was motivated to prove that either farming (Southern) or factory work (Northern) was better.

5) Southern Loss of Political Power- Southerners were gradually losing political influence due to an influx of immigrants to the North, expansion of Northerners and immigrants moving West, and an end to the creation of Southern states. The South wanted to retain an equal 50-50 ratio between Slave and Free states. However, after the main Mexican cession lands were divided up, there were more Free states than slave. To prevent the growth of future Free states, Southerners hoped to annex Latin American countries (especially Nicaragua and Cuba) to keep political power. However, once public opinion turned against annexations, the Southerners were afraid the North could dominate federal policy. In the end, that would have left the South unable to prevent a Northern dominated Congress from giving Blacks rights and raising tariffs. Southerners simply fought to keep political power.

I think the best view is the Southern loss of political power. However, all the main views have some good points to them though the slavery and state's rights views are probably the weakest.

[BarnesBL0278]

To answer the op's question about how the war started, there are a number of competing theories:

1) Slavery (Main Northern view)- Probably the most famous, its supports the notion that Southerners rebelled because they wanted to continue to use slaves to sustain their economy. Northerners fought to free the Blacks, and became especially dedicated when Lincoln made the war into a moral crusade after he released the Emmancipation Proclamation.

2) State's Rights (Main Southern view)- Asserts that the Federal Government was trying to weaken Southern liberties in order to destroy the Southern way of life. By destroying the "Southern way of life" I mean increasing tariffs and ending slavery. Southerners thought an end to these things would destroy their economic livelihood and culture. Therefore, they fought to protect their liberties and the Northerners fought to destroy Southern society.

3) Class Warfare- Southern aristocrats were increasingly concerned that they would lose influence because new western territories could not support slavery and Northern states were growing due to immigration. This made them increasingly worried that they would become weak. In response, they influenced Southern governments to secede. This left the nation divided because poorer Southern states (Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, ect.) were not happy to fight a rich man's war. Basically, Northern businessmen, poor Northerners, and very poor Southerners (especially from Appalachia) banded together to destroy the plantation owners' influence.

4) Economic Differences- Northerners and Southerners could not live together because their economies and livelihoods were very different. They were angry at each other because they weere both competing for the same infrastructure improvements which led to many clashes, especially about the transcontinental railroad. Each side saw that their economies were best for the country so in the end each side was motivated to prove that either farming (Southern) or factory work (Northern) was better.

5) Southern Loss of Political Power- Southerners were gradually losing political influence due to an influx of immigrants to the North, expansion of Northerners and immigrants moving West, and an end to the creation of Southern states. The South wanted to retain an equal 50-50 ratio between Slave and Free states. However, after the main Mexican cession lands were divided up, there were more Free states than slave. To prevent the growth of future Free states, Southerners hoped to annex Latin American countries (especially Nicaragua and Cuba) to keep political power. However, once public opinion turned against annexations, the Southerners were afraid the North could dominate federal policy. In the end, that would have left the South unable to prevent a Northern dominated Congress from giving Blacks rights and raising tariffs. Southerners simply fought to keep political power.

I think the best view is the Southern loss of political power. However, all the main views have some good points to them though the slavery and state's rights views are probably the weakest.

While this is pretty generalized, and is by no means the whole story on any of the reasons, I'd say that this guy gets it closest. Props. And I especially like the states rights and slavery being the weakest. State's Rights was the rally cry, but it was merely the end of a means. It was the fear of an oppressive majority usurping the rights of states to protect their interest, etc etc. The easiest way to "Sum up" the civil war is to use the big two, but it's entirely misleading.

But overall, good general picture. To the guy wondering about the war, I'd say this is your closest one. In a nutshell, the two parts of the country thought that they knew what was best for the country. Unfortunately, for one to prosper, the other had to suffer, and one of them basically quit and went home as opposed to fighting a battle that they couldn't win in the legislature. Both the North AND the South had terrible ideas of legislature at some point, but both sides also had very valid points. I for one actually believe in their Secession, but by no means am I mad that we lost. In the end, it turned out for the best. But I do feel angered that certain things were forgotten. On the flipside, had the South won the war, there would not be as strong and centralized a government, and both of our nations would be second world, as opposed to one big superpower.

[BarnesBL0278]

that's why it said perpetual union right?



by which they had no legal right to do so in the first place.

The Articles of Confederation listed a "Perpetual Union." The constitution mentions the right of citizens to throw off a government should it be necessary. The Constitution also says in the tenth amendment that non-enumerated rights fall to the state, and secession is not enumerated, and does not in any way violate any of the other articles of that said constitution, therefore, it is, quite frankly, a legal non-enumerated right.

Given that the secession was acknowledged until Lincoln took office, I'd venture to say that the US government had no right to retain troops on the soil of a country that didn't want them.

As well, the U.S. Government CANNOT quarter troops in a state that doesn't want them, even if they ARE part of the Union. By extension, the troops of that state can therefore be raised, as the threat of invasion, albeit by the national government, is therefore imminent, and the protection of the state's citizens usurps the authority of the Federal Government, which the Federal Government usurped when it stationed troops on the soil of a state that didn't want them, and openly requested their leave.

So they did therefore have every right-even if they WERE still part of the union-to request their leave.

I would advise you to refer to the very laws you quote before you quote them. Assumption and acceptance can only go so far, and I flatly refuse to presume that something is right merely because somebody told me so.

[Last Roman]

The Articles of Confederation listed a "Perpetual Union." The constitution mentions the right of citizens to throw off a government should it be necessary. The Constitution also says in the tenth amendment that non-enumerated rights fall to the state, and secession is not enumerated, and does not in any way violate any of the other articles of that said constitution, therefore, it is, quite frankly, a legal non-enumerated right.

Given that the secession was acknowledged until Lincoln took office, I'd venture to say that the US government had no right to retain troops on the soil of a country that didn't want them.

As well, the U.S. Government CANNOT quarter troops in a state that doesn't want them, even if they ARE part of the Union. By extension, the troops of that state can therefore be raised, as the threat of invasion, albeit by the national government, is therefore imminent, and the protection of the state's citizens usurps the authority of the Federal Government, which the Federal Government usurped when it stationed troops on the soil of a state that didn't want them, and openly requested their leave.

So they did therefore have every right-even if they WERE still part of the union-to request their leave.

I would advise you to refer to the very laws you quote before you quote them. Assumption and acceptance can only go so far, and I flatly refuse to presume that something is right merely because somebody told me so.

fair enough, But even if they were in the legal right, i refuse to give them the moral right.

[Anduril248]

Emancipation Proclamation, really does not realease any slaves, contrary to popular belief.

[Barry Goldwater]

It did...in the South, where it obviously couldn't be enforced

It made Lincoln look like the good guy though.

[Gelgoog]

wow good thread so far, I can not disagree with anyone ......yet

[Sphere]

In a nutshell, the war was fought over states rights. The Southern states saw themselves as sovereign nations bound together in a legal compact (union). As such, the states should have the right to freely leave the union if they so desired. The North saw states as not much more than territories (parts of a single nation) that could never leave the union. So when the states seceded, they saw this as treason. But the southern states saw that as merely their right. They entered the union freely, and should be able to leave freely.

You have to ignore the ~80 years leading up to the Civil War to believe this.

The South showed in decades before the War that it was all for using the power of the Federal Government to advance their agenda when it came to slavery, even if it meant trampling over "States Rights" (3/5 Compromise, Fugitive Slave Act).

Over the years the delicate balance in the US Congress between Slave States and Free States had been maintained by only allowing in 1 free-state if a 1 slave-state could also be added (Missouri Compromise, Compromise of 1850). This happened twice, but when the Kansas-Nebraska territory wanted to join, there was no other new state to balance things out.

The first fighting (not officially part of the War) actually broke out in "Bleeding Kansas", because the US congress had decided to let the people of the terroritory decide for themselves whether to join as a free or slave state. Two militia forces and two competeing governments were formed and the fought it out in very brutal skirmishes and raids. The conflict was unresolved when the Civil War officially began.

There was also the Raid on Harpers Ferry in 1859 which was a direct attempt by a northern anti-slavery advocate to insight a slave-rebellion in Maryland and Virginia. This caused huge controversy, agitation and fear. This incident was fresh in the public conciousness when the 1860 election came around.

When the Republican (a Party recently founded out of the anti-slavery movement) candidate won the 1860 presidential election, the southern states were appalled and feared the economic and social institution of slavery was under threat, and sucseeded.

The Confederate States formed their own nation under a Constitution that was practically identical to the US Constitution, except that the institution of slavery was enshrined.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The Confederate Constitution contains little evidence of an agenda to advance the cause of states' rights.[5] The constitution contained many of the phrases and clauses which had led to disagreement among the states in the original Union, including a Supremacy Clause, a Commerce Clause (albeit a more restrained version than in the U.S. Constitution, which itself had not been construed nearly as broadly as it is today), and a Necessary and Proper Clause. The Confederate Congress had powers almost identical to the US Congress, however all the minor differences added together amounted to a much more constrained federal government than the US government of the times and of today. The Confederate Constitution contained clauses which increased the powers of the Executive Branch, such as the line item veto power given to the president. However, they also granted essentially a line item veto to the Senate and Congress by limiting each bill to one issue written in the name. By making both the executive and legislative branches of government more powerful they did more to tie the hands of the Federal government over all--enhancing the planned ineffectiveness of the central government, one of the founding premises of the US Constitution. The Confederate Constitution also provided for a Supreme Court, which, through the supremacy clause, could acquire all the powers claimed for the U.S. Supreme Court by John Marshall. The Confederate Constitution was to take effect upon ratification by five states, like the U.S. Constitution, which took effect after nine states ratified it. This had been a major point of contention in the Anti-Federalist Papers. The framers of the Confederate Constitution, having studied the various constitutional crises which had arisen in the United States between 1787 and 1860, tried to revise the constitution to eliminate the grievances which had been raised in that period.

In short, control over the future of slavery was the key issue. The South would have happily contiuned to stay in the Union if there wasn't a threat to their institution of slavery, all the historical evidence points to it. The south knew if it lost control over the federal government, slavery would no longer be safe (which proved true with the 13th Amendment passed 5 months after the fighting ended. Some have tried to frame the war as a clash between two ideas about government (States Rights vs Federalism), but nothing in the events leading up to the war, or the government the Confederates States actually created backs up the idea that this was the main cause of conflict, or even a major one. There were other minor grievences between North and South (mainly tarrif levels) but this was never something that could have caused the fighting that started first in Kansas, continued at Harpers Ferry, and that eventually spread across the entire nation.