Posted on Jul 24, 2015
Who here read their history books and knows the real reason for the Civil War?
7.64K
51
26
9
9
0
I'm asking this because everytime I turn around another city or town is taking something down with the confederate symbol or flag....and blaming it on Slavery and the hurt/pain it's caused.
Why then was the Civil War fought?
As with most wars, there's no single answer. But the predominant cause was taxation.
Before his election, Lincoln had promoted very high tariffs (federal taxes on foreign imports), using the receipts to build railroads, canals, roads, and other federal pork-barrel projects.
The tariffs protected Northern manufacturers from foreign competition, and were paid mostly by the non-manufacturing South, while most of the proposed boondoggles were to be built in the North. Thus the South was being forced to subsidize Northern corporate welfare.
Certainly the Southerners were concerned about the future of slavery. But there was no threat in 1861 that the federal government would be able to outlaw it.
When Lincoln was elected, South Carolina saw a grim future ahead and seceded. Other Southern states quickly followed suit.
Lincoln asserted that no state had a right to secede from the Union — even though several geographical regions had considered secession before. Few people thought the Union couldn't survive if some states decided to leave.
Upon seceding, the Confederates took over all federal forts and other facilities in the South, with no opposition from Lincoln. The last remaining federal facilities were Fort Pickens in Florida and Fort Sumter in South Carolina. Lincoln at first promised to let the South have Fort Sumter, but then tried to reinforce it. The South moved to confiscate it — shelling the Fort for many hours. (No one was killed or even seriously injured.)
Why was Fort Sumter important? Because it guarded a major tariff-collecting facility in the harbor at Charleston. So long as the Union controlled it, the South would still have to pay Lincoln's oppressive tariffs.
Although there had been only scattered Northern opposition to the secessions, the shelling of Fort Sumter (like the bombing of Pearl Harbor almost a century later) incited many Northerners to call for war against the South. The South's seizure of Fort Sumter caused many Northerners to notice that the South would no longer be subsidizing Northern manufacturing.
As the war began, the sole issue was restoration of the Union — not ending slavery. Only in 1863 did the Emancipation Proclamation go into effect, and it didn't actually free a single slave — just like so many laws today that don't perform the purpose for which they were promoted."
The other biggest reason was STATE GOVERNMENT.
The North believed that the federal government should be much stronger than state government. The South felt that the states should have more power. The south believed that a strong central government would take away their right to decide if they should have slavery or not. For southerners the institute of slavery was a right that their state had picked to have, thus representing the freedom of states to choose their own laws. This was actually an argument that began before the Constitution was even ratified and continued until after the Civil War. Most Southerners did NOT own slaves, in fact it was a very small minority who did. Fact: Many from the North actually owned slaves...FACT: there were Black slave owners in the North..... Most of the people who fought for the South in the Civil War were fighting not to keep slaves (most didn't have any) but to keep the North and the Central Government from telling them what to do.
http://www.confederateamericanpride.com/whocares.html
Why then was the Civil War fought?
As with most wars, there's no single answer. But the predominant cause was taxation.
Before his election, Lincoln had promoted very high tariffs (federal taxes on foreign imports), using the receipts to build railroads, canals, roads, and other federal pork-barrel projects.
The tariffs protected Northern manufacturers from foreign competition, and were paid mostly by the non-manufacturing South, while most of the proposed boondoggles were to be built in the North. Thus the South was being forced to subsidize Northern corporate welfare.
Certainly the Southerners were concerned about the future of slavery. But there was no threat in 1861 that the federal government would be able to outlaw it.
When Lincoln was elected, South Carolina saw a grim future ahead and seceded. Other Southern states quickly followed suit.
Lincoln asserted that no state had a right to secede from the Union — even though several geographical regions had considered secession before. Few people thought the Union couldn't survive if some states decided to leave.
Upon seceding, the Confederates took over all federal forts and other facilities in the South, with no opposition from Lincoln. The last remaining federal facilities were Fort Pickens in Florida and Fort Sumter in South Carolina. Lincoln at first promised to let the South have Fort Sumter, but then tried to reinforce it. The South moved to confiscate it — shelling the Fort for many hours. (No one was killed or even seriously injured.)
Why was Fort Sumter important? Because it guarded a major tariff-collecting facility in the harbor at Charleston. So long as the Union controlled it, the South would still have to pay Lincoln's oppressive tariffs.
Although there had been only scattered Northern opposition to the secessions, the shelling of Fort Sumter (like the bombing of Pearl Harbor almost a century later) incited many Northerners to call for war against the South. The South's seizure of Fort Sumter caused many Northerners to notice that the South would no longer be subsidizing Northern manufacturing.
As the war began, the sole issue was restoration of the Union — not ending slavery. Only in 1863 did the Emancipation Proclamation go into effect, and it didn't actually free a single slave — just like so many laws today that don't perform the purpose for which they were promoted."
The other biggest reason was STATE GOVERNMENT.
The North believed that the federal government should be much stronger than state government. The South felt that the states should have more power. The south believed that a strong central government would take away their right to decide if they should have slavery or not. For southerners the institute of slavery was a right that their state had picked to have, thus representing the freedom of states to choose their own laws. This was actually an argument that began before the Constitution was even ratified and continued until after the Civil War. Most Southerners did NOT own slaves, in fact it was a very small minority who did. Fact: Many from the North actually owned slaves...FACT: there were Black slave owners in the North..... Most of the people who fought for the South in the Civil War were fighting not to keep slaves (most didn't have any) but to keep the North and the Central Government from telling them what to do.
http://www.confederateamericanpride.com/whocares.html
Posted in these groups: 
Civil War
Civil War
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 13
11
11
0
Not sure this is bait, or what. Background, I am a History Major at Charleston Southern University, in South Carolina. My U.S. History professor has a PhD in Southern United states History. He is originally from Arkansas, and is a decedent from Plantation owners. I will pass on what he passed on to us the first time we talked about the Civil War, in the "Old South" History class. The Cause of the Civil war was Slavery. The Southern States knew Lincoln was an Abolitionist and Republican, and assumed he would immediately go after slavery even though he had stated he wouldn't because he knew of the controversy it would cause, so they seceded. To really understand why they seceded you need to read some of the original documentation that accompanies each states secede convention.
I am enclosing a link that pretty much refutes what you said with quotes from source documentation. Its not a perfect article but its better than most. https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/07/01/why-do-people-believe-myths-about-the-confederacy-because-our-textbooks-and-monuments-are-wrong/
I am enclosing a link that pretty much refutes what you said with quotes from source documentation. Its not a perfect article but its better than most. https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/07/01/why-do-people-believe-myths-about-the-confederacy-because-our-textbooks-and-monuments-are-wrong/
Why do people believe myths about the Confederacy? Because our textbooks and monuments are wrong....
False history marginalizes African Americans and makes us all dumber.
(11)
(0)
MSgt Robert Pellam
Sgt Kelli Mays Again, I am going to disagree with you...sorta... Slavery is the problem but its something that was never taken care of early. Slavery was ignored by the founding fathers up until 1790's because it was a dieing out. The first generation of American politicians, like Washington, and Jefferson (Both Slave Owners) didn't push for anything about slavery to enter the Constitution because they honestly thought it was dying. Tobacco market was saturated and the Rice market was just not big enough. Many had slavery gone by the 1800's. That changes in 1793 with Eli Whitney's invention of the Cotton Gin. Before, Cotton could grow, but the man power it required to pick it then remove the tiny seeds from it was just not economical. Once the Cotton Gin is introduced, Cotton becomes King. This increases the need of Slaves and textile manufacturing. Cotton, only grows in the South, and so as the North industry grow to process the Cotton, the South Spreads out to make more cotton.
Problems this cause was now the government could not ignore slavery. The Southern States, wanted to continue to have a voice in the Government, so they pushed to make sure any states entering the union always preserved the Senate balance of power. (See Missouri Compromise of 1820) And while this was in place, most of the presidents elected were either pro slavery or indifferent. This leads to problems later under the Kansas -Nebraska Act of 1854. This is where in my opinion, the Civil war actually starts with the "Bleeding Kansas" incidents. Again, my opinion.
Taxes and Tariffs. These are a large part of the problem too, and its something I do agree with you on. The Nullification Crisis of 1832-1833 is the poster child for this. After federal Tariffs of 1828 and 1832 were enacted. While the Nation was on an economic down turn, these bills were in motion to promote American manufacturing over European. Remember, most of the industry is in the North at this time, so South Carolina took this hard. they actually convened a session of the state legislature and "Nullified" the Tariffs as Unconstitutional and Unenforceable in South Carolina. In return President Andrew Jackson, ( A Kentucky Slave Holder) put in place the "Force Bill, authorizing the use of military forces against South Carolina.
It ends with both sides came to the table and renegotiation the Tariffs. And both sides claimed Victory. From then on the Tariffs rates stayed low to the satisfaction of the South until the Civil War.
So while taxes and money, were a part of the reason the South seceded, it was something that had already been played out on the national stage.
Problems this cause was now the government could not ignore slavery. The Southern States, wanted to continue to have a voice in the Government, so they pushed to make sure any states entering the union always preserved the Senate balance of power. (See Missouri Compromise of 1820) And while this was in place, most of the presidents elected were either pro slavery or indifferent. This leads to problems later under the Kansas -Nebraska Act of 1854. This is where in my opinion, the Civil war actually starts with the "Bleeding Kansas" incidents. Again, my opinion.
Taxes and Tariffs. These are a large part of the problem too, and its something I do agree with you on. The Nullification Crisis of 1832-1833 is the poster child for this. After federal Tariffs of 1828 and 1832 were enacted. While the Nation was on an economic down turn, these bills were in motion to promote American manufacturing over European. Remember, most of the industry is in the North at this time, so South Carolina took this hard. they actually convened a session of the state legislature and "Nullified" the Tariffs as Unconstitutional and Unenforceable in South Carolina. In return President Andrew Jackson, ( A Kentucky Slave Holder) put in place the "Force Bill, authorizing the use of military forces against South Carolina.
It ends with both sides came to the table and renegotiation the Tariffs. And both sides claimed Victory. From then on the Tariffs rates stayed low to the satisfaction of the South until the Civil War.
So while taxes and money, were a part of the reason the South seceded, it was something that had already been played out on the national stage.
(0)
(0)
LTC Bink Romanick
Wonderful article. I had a major in history as an undergrad. That article nails the truth. Thanks for posting.
(1)
(0)
SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S.
MSgt Robert Pellam Thank you for you insightful words. I have long maintained that the succession was inevitable with the Emancipation Proclamation as it was equal to 100% economic warfare on the South.
(1)
(0)
MSgt Robert Pellam
SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. LTC Bink Romanick You're both welcome and I appreciate the compliment. I am an undergrad History major currently and I love it. SPC Allbright, Winfield Scott's Anaconda plan was just that. Total economic war on the South. While Lincoln wanted the direct approach, the elder General knew the weakness of the South. And it was the slow strangling of the South along with U.S. Grants tactics as a General that ,in my Opinion, led to the demise of the Confederate Army.
(1)
(0)
8
8
0
1. Who here has read the succession statements of the confederate states? They make it pretty clear.
http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/secession/
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/csapage.asp
2. The cause of the war was slavery.
3. The only reasons tariffs mattered was that the economy of the south would have been crippled by them. The only reasons it would be crippled by them was because they depended on exporting unrefined agricultural products and trading those for European refined goods. The only way this was possible was slavery.
4. The only reason self government was raised as an issue was the choice to keep slaves.
5. The fact that some slave states chose not to secede does not mean the war wasn't about slavery, it means they thought the best bet to keep their slaves was to stay in the union. (They were probably right-note how much longer it took for them to be freed than the slaves in the states in rebellion.)
6. The cause of the war was slavery.
The only argument to the contrary that I'd be willing to entertain would be that the true cause of the war was geography. That because the rich, fertile lands of the South so clearly lent themselves to massive monoculture and export compared to the less agriculturally and more wooded and mineral rich north which forced first a diverse economy and then industrialization. This made a Fast burn economy which produced hugely uneven wealth in the South and required slavery (paying labor for agricultural work at that scale was not competitive) and a slow burn, diverse and robust economy in the north with more tendency toward free(ish) labor. So... maybe the ultimate cause was geography and maybe the proximal causes were tariffs and state government, but the enormous, fundamental, horrible, monstrous, foundational sin of our United States, the ownership of human beings, the denial of our founding principals that all men are created equal... THAT is the intermediate cause. The one that can't be denied. To deny it is to refuse to recognize our original sin and founding flaw, for which we as a nation paid a horrible price, and must resolve never to stray toward again.
The cause of the war was slavery.
Kudos to MSgt Robert Pellam for beating me to the punch on most of this. And to MAJ Carl Ballinger for saying it more concisely.
http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/secession/
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/csapage.asp
2. The cause of the war was slavery.
3. The only reasons tariffs mattered was that the economy of the south would have been crippled by them. The only reasons it would be crippled by them was because they depended on exporting unrefined agricultural products and trading those for European refined goods. The only way this was possible was slavery.
4. The only reason self government was raised as an issue was the choice to keep slaves.
5. The fact that some slave states chose not to secede does not mean the war wasn't about slavery, it means they thought the best bet to keep their slaves was to stay in the union. (They were probably right-note how much longer it took for them to be freed than the slaves in the states in rebellion.)
6. The cause of the war was slavery.
The only argument to the contrary that I'd be willing to entertain would be that the true cause of the war was geography. That because the rich, fertile lands of the South so clearly lent themselves to massive monoculture and export compared to the less agriculturally and more wooded and mineral rich north which forced first a diverse economy and then industrialization. This made a Fast burn economy which produced hugely uneven wealth in the South and required slavery (paying labor for agricultural work at that scale was not competitive) and a slow burn, diverse and robust economy in the north with more tendency toward free(ish) labor. So... maybe the ultimate cause was geography and maybe the proximal causes were tariffs and state government, but the enormous, fundamental, horrible, monstrous, foundational sin of our United States, the ownership of human beings, the denial of our founding principals that all men are created equal... THAT is the intermediate cause. The one that can't be denied. To deny it is to refuse to recognize our original sin and founding flaw, for which we as a nation paid a horrible price, and must resolve never to stray toward again.
The cause of the war was slavery.
Kudos to MSgt Robert Pellam for beating me to the punch on most of this. And to MAJ Carl Ballinger for saying it more concisely.
The Civil War Trust's history article analyzing the reasons for secession as set forth in the Articles of Secession and Declarations of Causes issued by the Southern states.
(8)
(0)
3
3
0
I have done extensive reading, and research, and first of all... history books for schools... are not necessarily the truth...
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
You didn't have to post this lengthy diatribe. You could have just told us that you don't know and we would have accepted that.
The factual answer is that the Civil War was initiated by the South in response to their fears that the election of President Lincoln was a clear threat to their interest in keeping their slaves. Their fear wasn't unreasonable. Lincoln's party, the Republicans, was founded for the purpose of ending slavery. Their declarations of secession clearly state this fact. Property rights were mentioned only in support of their assertion that they had a right to keep slaves. There is no mention whatsoever of taxation.
Yes, there are history books that have been written to obfuscate this fact. They were written by authors whose purpose is to continue the argument that African-Americans are unworthy of full citizenship and should either be kept or sent back. They attempt to garner sympathy for those who fought for this end.
There are many good reasons for "Southern Pride". Southern children have always been the first to step up for their nation. They fight valiantly and effectively albeit misguided in that one instance. And, of no little importance, Southern Cooking is by far the best regional cuisine of this nation (although not always the healthiest). You can count me among those most proud of the South although not for the misguided efforts to prolong slavery...
The factual answer is that the Civil War was initiated by the South in response to their fears that the election of President Lincoln was a clear threat to their interest in keeping their slaves. Their fear wasn't unreasonable. Lincoln's party, the Republicans, was founded for the purpose of ending slavery. Their declarations of secession clearly state this fact. Property rights were mentioned only in support of their assertion that they had a right to keep slaves. There is no mention whatsoever of taxation.
Yes, there are history books that have been written to obfuscate this fact. They were written by authors whose purpose is to continue the argument that African-Americans are unworthy of full citizenship and should either be kept or sent back. They attempt to garner sympathy for those who fought for this end.
There are many good reasons for "Southern Pride". Southern children have always been the first to step up for their nation. They fight valiantly and effectively albeit misguided in that one instance. And, of no little importance, Southern Cooking is by far the best regional cuisine of this nation (although not always the healthiest). You can count me among those most proud of the South although not for the misguided efforts to prolong slavery...
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
To keep the Union intact as is stated in Abraham Lincoln's letter to Horace Greeley.
Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.
Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.
I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.
As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to 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. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
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 every where could be free.
Yours,
A. Lincoln.
Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.
Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.
I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.
As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to 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. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
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 every where could be free.
Yours,
A. Lincoln.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Kelli Mays
WOW...this letter just made my head hurt. If I could I would but I wouldn't but I would. Thanks for sharing.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Yes, slavery and its effect on the cash flow and effect on the southern economy. The expansion of slavery to recently admitted states.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
What I learned in school is different from what I know now. The issue of slavery could not be resolved by previous administrations. And slaves did not get there freedom to the 14 and 15th amendment were ratified. The emancipation proclamation only freed slaves in the south. If you want one reason. Then I would say states rights.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Kelli: besides the states' rights issue, which was part of the whole picture, there were other things such as a cultural split, not completely the cause, but contributing. Because of less favorable climate and growing times, the North tended to develop toward commerce, banking, industry, etc. The South's longer growing times lended it to rural pursuits of farming. Part of it lay deeply in the decades before it. Also, research the Nullification Crisis of 1833, in which SC arguably fired the 1st shot.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
People forget there were many slave owners in the north. The Civil War was about states' rights.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google