For those who like to read about the war I am in the middle of "Gettysburg The Last Invasion" by Allen Guelzo. It is an excellent book describing the battle and events leading up to it. Having been to many of these areas it is, of course, easy for me to follow along in my minds eye. This is one of the fence lines near the famous "Angle" on Cemetery Hill.
Are there any US Civil War buffs here on the board?
- Thread starter Dave_W
- Start date
If it wasn't about slavery, what was it about? It seems to me it was about the fear of slavery being limited only to the existing slavery states and not in the newly acquired territory gained from the Mex-American war. That, and the worry that transporting a slave across a free state could potentially cause that slave to be free, or in other words, a loss of personal "property" that the southern states felt was unconstitutional. I know a lot of people have tried to say it was "states rights" but I'm not sure what states rights were being violated or could have the potential to be violated? At no point did the North demand an end to slavery, those calls only came from the extreme elements and not the mainstream political elements.
Our local PBS station just aired "The Gettysburg Story" and if you ever get a chance to watch it, do it. The time lapse photography and multiple night shots of the battlefields are stunning. The photographer received unfettered access to the park at all hours of the day and his starry shots and sunrises are amazing.
Gettysburg Story
Dave,
I agree. The only state right they were worried about was the continuation of slavery. With the loss of slavery would come the loss of the economic engine of the south. The people in power (most being slave owners) were able to convince the masses that the states rights to this economy were being violated thus allowing them to recruit the army needed. Most of the common soldiers were not slave holders but saw the war as protecting their state from the aggression of the federal Government. People need to understand the feelings at that time. You were not from the United States you were from Virginia, Pennsylvania etc. You really need to understand that mindset to understand the common soldier and what drove him. And even when Lincoln freed the slaves it was only in states in rebellion. That was a political attempt to get them to rise up against their owners and fight for the Federal government.
In all of this it is lost that there were free blacks that owned black slaves. In fact one of the first court cases in the colonies was a free black who was given back a "servant for life" who had claimed he could not be owned.
I agree. The only state right they were worried about was the continuation of slavery. With the loss of slavery would come the loss of the economic engine of the south. The people in power (most being slave owners) were able to convince the masses that the states rights to this economy were being violated thus allowing them to recruit the army needed. Most of the common soldiers were not slave holders but saw the war as protecting their state from the aggression of the federal Government. People need to understand the feelings at that time. You were not from the United States you were from Virginia, Pennsylvania etc. You really need to understand that mindset to understand the common soldier and what drove him. And even when Lincoln freed the slaves it was only in states in rebellion. That was a political attempt to get them to rise up against their owners and fight for the Federal government.
In all of this it is lost that there were free blacks that owned black slaves. In fact one of the first court cases in the colonies was a free black who was given back a "servant for life" who had claimed he could not be owned.
Phillydog1958
Senior Member
You're correct Alan. There were African-American slaveholders. There is a newly released movie, that addresses that matter. The movie is entitled, "12 Years a Slave," and is based on a book by Solomon Northrup who was a free man, living in NY, during the days of southern antebellum. He was kidnapped into slavery and eventually freed, after living in bondage for 12 years. Upon regaining his freedom, he wrote the book. The movie has a scene where a former female slave, who married her white, male slaveholder, had slaves. The book can be found on Amazon for Kindle and ibooks for under a dollar, since it was written in the 1850's. The movie is powerful and almost overwhelming, at times, but it captures the essence of slavery and it's told from a totally different perspective -- That of a free man who was kidnapped and placed into slavery, and freed again.
Nathan Lanni
Senior Member
Just watch an old rerun about this subject on the PBS 1st year series "Connections" on Netflix.
Basically, the industrial revolution was taking hold in Europe and in particular, in the UK. Individual Brits were becoming more affluent which drove the demand for goods. Individual Brits saw opportunity for great profits and created their vast colonial empire. To feed the need for cheap labor, they acquired black slaves from warring/rival black tribes in Africa --> black slave trade industry.
Well, about that time the earlier US colonies were getting established and looking for ways to develop their industries, for independence from the UK but just as important to generate much needed revenue by supplying products to Britain. This worked hand-in-glove, because not only did the Brits view US colonies as their own, but many US colonists though that way too. It was a natural progression for the UK Brits to initially supply the US colonies slaves to facilitate their production efforts. The US colonists then acquired their own slaves and the slave trade industry in the US developed from there.
Last edited:
Phillydog1958
Senior Member
There were many northerners who did not sympathize with the abolitionist movement. Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote a simple, little book that had a major impact on the gaining of momentum of the abolitionist movement. The book is entitled, "Uncle Tom's Cabin." Northerners started to read it and it shifted attitudes. It put pressure on the government to do something about the institution of slavery.
Let's keep in mind that the wealthy, southern aristocracy was a minute number of men. The average southern, white was poor, and were being exploited by the aristocracy. There wasn't much opportunity for upward mobility, for poor whites. They were given trivial jobs and treated as an underclass. In movies, their often depicted as overseers. Some of them managed to eventually earn enough to buy property and own a few slaves, but most didn't.
What I find interesting , is that rich, southern whites and politicians, concocted the notion of upward mobility for poor whites, and they convinced poor whites to buy into the war being about northern aggression and a violation of state rights. Why? Because they needed soldiers to fight. As far as what the true name of this war was, it's a matter of perspective. Southerners called it "Northern Aggression." Slaves called it the "Freedom War," while many northerners called it the "War of Secession." Everyone had their own name for it, but the bottom line is that it fits the dictionary definition of a civil war, and that's why the majority of Americans call it, "The Civil War."
Also, let's keep in mind that the south fired on Fort Sumter, which was a US Army installation. The south claimed that they had a right, due to their secession from the Union and that the supply ship that Lincoln sent into Charleston Harbor was an act of aggression. The war was started by the south. The Union justified it, by using the idea that no state has a right to secede from the United States and that they had a right to occupy any military base within the nation.
Phillydog1958
Senior Member
What's really interesting is that the British ended slavery in the 1830's. They sat back and capitalized from the US slave trade, while keeping their hands and consciences clean.
Last edited:
Very true, Phillydog. The North's position was that states could not secede from the Union but there is also truth in the statement that had this clause, never can a state leave the union" been written in the original articles of independence, not a single one of the 13 states would have signed on. So as much as I understand why it was impossible for the North to allow the South to leave, they were probably constitutionally correct when they claimed they had the right to.
Phillydog1958
Senior Member
I've always found the Civil War to be the most intriguing of ALL wars. The American Revolution was also an interesting war, but I think that the significance of Civil War on modern times, supersedes it, just a bit. Maybe it's because we have so many characters who were bigger than life -- Lincoln (The Great Emancipator), Stonewall Jackson, Tecumseh Sherman and his infamous, "March to the Sea." Let's not forget the 2 opposing leaders --Generals Robert E. Lee and Ulysses S. Grant, trying to outwit one another. Even a young George Custer made a name for himself, although he made a bigger name for himself and met his ugly fate when he foolishly attempted to beat the entire Sioux Nation at the Battle of Little Bighorn. What's funny is that there are still many people who chant, "Long live the South. Long live the Confederacy. " That tells me that the Civil War still has an influence on American society.
Last edited:
Phillydog1958
Senior Member
We are in agreement, Dave. You're right.
Philly - have you read much on the antebellum South and so-called "barnburners" secessionists of that time? I can't help but notice the similarity between the barnburners dialogue with that of the current day Tea party. Don't get me wrong, I'm not comparing their cause to that of slavery but their hyperbola and polemics do have some similar qualities that's hard not to miss.
And yes, this time period in US history still remains fascinating for a lot of us history buffs. I don't think there's any other war in which there are so many people willing to dress up and reenact specific battles. A quick measure of the number of books written about this war clearly outnumbers any other event in US history. It's interesting to note that history's retelling of this war has changed several times over the last 150 yrs and it seems the Southern revisionists story has run its ground and the pendulum has swung back again to slavery as the root cause again. With that in mind, I'm curious to read Shelby Foote's "Civil War narrative". But before I do, I'd like to have a very firm grip on the facts first. Have you read Foote's books yet, by chance?
And yes, this time period in US history still remains fascinating for a lot of us history buffs. I don't think there's any other war in which there are so many people willing to dress up and reenact specific battles. A quick measure of the number of books written about this war clearly outnumbers any other event in US history. It's interesting to note that history's retelling of this war has changed several times over the last 150 yrs and it seems the Southern revisionists story has run its ground and the pendulum has swung back again to slavery as the root cause again. With that in mind, I'm curious to read Shelby Foote's "Civil War narrative". But before I do, I'd like to have a very firm grip on the facts first. Have you read Foote's books yet, by chance?
On another note years ago when I was researching Lee's surrender I found a series of books on The War Of Rebellion. In there were copies of the letters between Grant and Lee. They are interesting to read and a look at the thoughts of these two men. I always find reading peoples own words much better than reading the history someone else wrote about them.
Another example is that Meade felt he was going to be defeated at Gettysburg. On the third day he pretty much fled Gettysburg when the bombardment began and when he returned was surprised to find the army had repulsed the attack. You don't find that much in the history books.
I digress...The Lee letters are now online here
Grant & Lee:
Another example is that Meade felt he was going to be defeated at Gettysburg. On the third day he pretty much fled Gettysburg when the bombardment began and when he returned was surprised to find the army had repulsed the attack. You don't find that much in the history books.
I digress...The Lee letters are now online here
Grant & Lee:
Well, as a matter of fact, I've a metal detector and a lot of time on my hands. Just give me the GPS coordinates and I'll be right out!
It was about Economics, slavery had a dramatic impact on the economy of the south, while the north relished and benefited from industrialization. Slavery or lack there of had little impact on the north, it became a unification of the North's cause. The act of slavery was a secondary effect of the South's economic need for cheap labor and their lack of industrialization of the farming industry. Yes we can say it was about slavery, but it was primarily about the economic structure in the south (which of course depended on slavery). I do not believe that the war started over slavery, it became a rallying catalyst after the fact.
Yes, the North certainly was more industrious but that was something the South was not ready to admit. In fact, the South believed themselves racially superior to the general population in the North. They came to believe the Southern half of the nation was primarily settled by descendants of the Normans (as in William the Conqueror) and were sophisticated and born leaders, whereas the Northerners came from a more Anglo-Saxon lineage and were basically a mongrel race of peoples. Not unlike the Nazi's, their superiority myth convinced them that a Southern man with all of his Norman breeding would have no problem fighting the North despite any industrial or manufacturing differences. The much used ratio was 10 to 1, one Southern man could easily take on 10 Northern men or more.
This is such a fascinating subject in so many ways. I can't help but wonder what would our mutual histories had been if the North had won the war early on and without the massive destruction of the South. Had this occurred early in the war there would not have been an emancipation proclamation or a 13th Amendment against slavery. And the moderates in the North would have happily have given slavery sanctuary in the new territories in deference to the South coming back into the Union and to help smooth over any remaining hurt feelings. But only by virtue of prolonged and enormously costly war could the Union rid itself of slavery. Anything other than total annihilation of the South would have kept slavery intact in one form or the other. It's thoughts like this that make this war such a fascinating thing to study.
I think if you read the Declaration of Immediate Causes of the secession of South Carolina you cannot but see that slavery was an overwhelming reason for SC to leave the Union. The Dred Scott case had gone their way in 1857 but Lincoln was hated and they feared what his presidency would do. Here is a small excerpt:
In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.
The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: “No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.”
For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
You can read the whole document here. Hard to say they were not arguing about the "States Right to Slavery" and not the economy.
Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union
In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.
The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: “No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.”
For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
You can read the whole document here. Hard to say they were not arguing about the "States Right to Slavery" and not the economy.
Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union