Controversy surrounding the motivations that drove the Civil War. West Point History Professor gives his take on the issue.

2015-08-13T03:43:12-04:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqfLr2XtXf0

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Aug 13 at 2015 3:47 AM

2015-08-13T03:47:19-04:00

Many would argue with that opinion; it is the view of the North.

While slavery was indeed an evil institution, many Southern soldiers fought to protect their homeland from what they saw as the "War of Northern Aggression".

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Aug 13 at 2015 3:49 AM

2015-08-13T03:49:14-04:00

The civil war was more about state's rights than anything. There were many slave owners in the north as well

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 13 at 2015 4:09 AM

2015-08-13T04:09:16-04:00

I really like this video. The war was fought over rights but it was only the rights of slavery. The south stood to lose a good bit and their way of life by it. They didn't think it would really be much of a war so they gambled with it. The question that I wonder is would they have seceded anyway if they knew would have been a prolonged conflict or would they have just gave up slavery.

Response by MSgt C Madd made Aug 13 at 2015 6:32 AM

2015-08-13T06:32:40-04:00

First thing that should be discussed is what type of governance that the USA is. We are not a democracy, we are a Republic of democratic states. The civil war was truly started for the reasons of, in the eyes of the south, an overreaching federal government interfering in state governance. To say it was only slavery is not entirely true. Although the south was heavily dependent on the cheep slave labor in agriculture, only 10-20 percent of total population of the south were wealthy enough for slave ownership. I believe the majority of the southern states just did not like the north telling them what they had to do and pushing their policies and agendas on them.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Aug 13 at 2015 10:06 AM

2015-08-13T10:06:35-04:00

States rights first, slavery second.

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made Aug 13 at 2015 10:14 AM

2015-08-13T10:14:51-04:00

Yes it was!

Response by SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. made Aug 13 at 2015 10:27 AM

2015-08-13T10:27:30-04:00

I find it interesting that the secession of the 1st seven states and the formation of the Confederacy occurred between the time that Lincoln was elected and his Inauguration. So Lincoln could never have stepped on anyone's "State Rights".

Response by MSgt Robert Pellam made Aug 13 at 2015 10:29 AM

2015-08-13T10:29:00-04:00

Despite how you spin it. The Civil Wars root cause was slavery.

Good video, excellent attention to detail, and exceptional use of source material to support the conclusion.

Response by SGT Kristin Wiley made Aug 13 at 2015 11:06 AM

2015-08-13T11:06:01-04:00

So if the civil war was about slavery, and the South succeeded, why was there a war? We 'had' to preserve the Union? Really, who decided that? Why couldn't the North and South live in peace with their respective choices?

Response by COL Ted Mc made Aug 13 at 2015 11:35 AM

2015-08-13T11:35:49-04:00

MAJ Bryan Zeski - Major; An interesting video.

Unfortunately the professor seems to ignore the fact that the "Northern Propaganda" was "Preserving the Union." and the fact that the "Southern Propaganda" was "Preserving States Rights". [Primarily because "Smash Slavery" and "Long Live Slavery" simply didn't sell.]

He also appears to ignore the fact that the federal government had, in fact, treated various areas of the United States of America as if they were independent countries immediately prior to the Civil War.

He also appears to ignore the fact that Mr. Lincoln simply didn't care if slavery continued or not as long as "the Union was preserved". [Admittedly Mr. Lincoln, personally, didn't like slavery, he had no real opposition to it as a "national issue" if allowing slavery to continue would result in the preservation of the Union.)

He also appears to ignore the fact that Jefferson Davis was actually in favour of emancipating the slaves using a program similar to the ones that the Northern states had used while the Southern slaveholders were opposed to the immediate emancipation without compensation that many Northern "Abolitionists" (some of whose families had received financial compensation for emancipating their slaves) were demanding and/or believed that the economy of the Southern states would be ruined without slavery.

He also appears to ignore the fact that many of the "Abolitionists" were equally in favour of shipping all the "freed" slaves back to Africa (but weren't actually very keen on providing them with the assistance they would need to establish themselves in "their new country" - a country in which there wouldn't be a single literate or educated person).

He also appears to ignore the fact that - if "abolishing slavery" was what the Civil War was ACTUALLY about then - the Union would have completely abolished slavery within its own boundaries (which it didn't do).

I won't say that "slavery" didn't have something to do with the American Civil War, but it most certainly was NOT the sole causus belli that some people would have you believe it was (and might not even have been the major one).

Response by SPC S Meeder made Aug 13 at 2015 11:39 AM

2015-08-13T11:39:39-04:00

How can this topic be covered without bringing up the Union generals keeping personal slaves through the war, or the fact that Lincoln and many others wanted to ship the slaves off to Central / South America after they were freed? Way to feed the stereotypical view of all southerners being slave owning black hating racists while the Union was the light that brought forth the slaves freedom.

Response by SPC David S. made Aug 13 at 2015 1:31 PM

2015-08-13T13:31:23-04:00

Do you think we would have had a war if slavery wasn't used in the generating wealth? The real reason is money - procured via slavery.

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made Aug 13 at 2015 2:26 PM

2015-08-13T14:26:28-04:00

Yes it was slavery, no matter how they try to reWrite history

Response by MAJ Keira Brennan made Aug 13 at 2015 5:33 PM

2015-08-13T17:33:31-04:00

Great impassioned and articulate lecture by a SME! Thanks for posting!

Response by CDR Terry Boles made Aug 13 at 2015 6:07 PM

2015-08-13T18:07:47-04:00

History is written and slanted by the winner/conqueror as we all know. Southern history is constantly being changed, much like our US history in general, by any concerned group or individual who opposes the viewpoints of their opponents.

I am quite sure there were many reasons, back in the day, for the Civil War to include States Rights as you will note that the war on States Rights continues to this very day....…just turn on your TV or read the newspaper (if anyone does that these days). I am sure the definition of States rights are very different in those times when compared to today, but it is undeniably a theme that has resonated from the Civil War. Since history is changed as time goes by, like campfire tales, by those who do not agree or yell the loudest there are certainly issues of that day that were more concerning than others and its quite possible that today our PC world continues to slant history to meet the PC objectives of today…something to consider…stop and think. Slavery existed on both sides of the border, this was not the primary reason for the Civil War, I am certain of that.

The reality is I do not know the truth any more than anyone else today, but wouldn’t it be refreshing to really know what are history truly is vs. the slant written by the winner or the group who shouts the loudest or the PC police?

We are fortunate to be a forgiving nation. The North and the South had its share of bad history during the days that led up to and during the Civil War. Forgiving and forging relationships long after brother killed brother to heal this nation is something both the South and the North did…and yes it did preserve the Union…and yes we still fight over State’s rights to this day, albeit a battle of words and Federal vs State laws.

Interesting topic...thank you!

Response by SPC John Decker made Aug 13 at 2015 7:57 PM

2015-08-13T19:57:09-04:00

It was about states rights and a blatant violation of Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1