Slavery; the root cause of Secession & War

[BorderRuffian]

I am actually very well acquainted with the documents in question. But, because I see no evidence in them of Confederate aggression, I was asking if the offending passages could be identified. Apparently they couldn't. Cue collapse of argument. 

Yes, where is the declaration of war in those documents?

Oops...not there...

Now back to why the North went to war-

[Johan Steele]

Civilized... well yes but please do not call the CS anything but a step backwards.  Thank you, at least, you didn't stoop to calling me a gentleman.  I have standards, just a blue collar guy that works for a living.  I call a spade a spade; if I think a position is based upon either fradulant research or ignorance I will say so.  Dealing w/ the Lost Cause and its modern disciples has given me a thick skin.

I had no intention of insulting you, if you wish to take it as so that's up to you.  I have now given you several points upon which you might broaden your knowledge.

I specifically mentioned Apostles of Disunion because it is one of the titles that opened my mind and educated me to the real CS instead of the polished golden child of the Lost Cause.  To be honest I rather doubt you will read it as it draws conclusions so totally at odds w/ your own.  The CS was based upon slavery as it's very foundation; the words of the men of the time have to be ignored, buried or distorted to say otherwise.

I think the tragedy of the CS soldier is how he was treated by his govt.  While having nothing to do w/ the ACW I think Orwell's words are spot on when it comes to the CS and its fighting men.

"Your name and your deeds were forgotten before your bones were dry.  And the lie that flew you is buried under a deeper lie."

[Johan Steele]

Come now Border Ruffian; at what point is an attack upon your country a decleration of war?  Would it be a seizure of your mints and monies destined to pay your troops?  Perhaps the seizure of arsenals, ships and forts?  Or perhaps the imprisonment of your soldiers?  No?  It wasn't even the firing on of ships showing your flag.  The straw that finally broke the back was the pre meditated bombardment of US soldiers.  That was a distinct and clear decleration of War made by the CS not the US and it was not a sudden decision by Old Bo, but a clearly and carefully thought out action under the direct orders of Davis.  You have to try real hard not to look at Ft Sumter as a clear decleration of war.  It was a hands down win win in the eyes of Davis.  Lincoln would have to call up volunteers to suppress the Rebellion.  If he didn't... he would look weak and nobody knew how to exploit weakness, or an opportunity, like Davis.

Mr. Davis' call for 100,000 volunteers was to do what? Pick cotton perhaps?  Something like 30,000 were under arms before Ft Sumter was fired upon and many of those were posted in polling places during various Secession votes... w/ several of those states already acting as though the Secession vote was decided; frankly I'm always suprised to see anyone bothered to even count the votes... bean counter habit I suppose as it's quite clear the vote was decided before the first ballot was cast.  There was no US military force to defend these polling places against, no marauding groups of pro US men threatening to hang any who dared oppose.  Remember a large chunk of that Army was conveniently in prison.  So why were those soldiers in polling places?  I think it's fairly obvious they weren't there to help the elderly fill out the ballot.

The Secession Declerations and various documents clearly show the CS viewed slavery as the reason for Secession.  Hostile intent was shown and proven wherever the US flag was flown and a call for 100,000 men and the weapons to arm them were not intended for a Sunday Parade, except perhaps down the streets of Washington.  The CS had already looted every bit of govt property it could lay its hands upon... why not NYC.  After all it's quite easy to see what degree the CS viewed the decleration of Neutrality by Kentucky.  It wasn't convenient and neither was the US Constitution.

If you want to know why the US went to war... two words: Ft Sumter.
If you want to know why the CS went to War, they needed a war to protect their property and give legitimacy to their fledgeling govt... not to mention 100,000 men to protect their necks should they discover the rest of the country wasn't interested in their game.  Frankly, I think the US would have been better served had a few of those necks been introduced to a tall tree and short rope.

The tone and sides were set w/ the beating of an unarmed man in the halls of power w/in Wasington DC.  It takes quite a man to beat on an unarmed man w/ a cane while he is safely seated behind a desk... of coarse having your Cousin calmy pointing a loaded pistol at anyone who dared object only helps.  That is how the slaveocracy operated and what their defenders are so proud of.  That is the kind of "courage" the Lost Cause defends.  The courage of stay behinders and those who lacked the courage of their conviction.

Civilized?  Good Christ I hope not.

[mobile_96]

I am actually very well acquainted with the documents in question. But, because I see no evidence in them of Confederate aggression, I was asking if the offending passages could be identified. Apparently they couldn't. Cue collapse of argument. 

Why would it be the collapse of the argument on the cause of the War?
Those documents are explanation of Why they were leaving, Not a declaration of War.
The declaration of war came with the firing on the American Flag and troops of the American Army.

[Timotheus]

It is interesting to see that the American Civil War/War Between the States lives on, even to this day, in this forum.  147 years of argument and still no resolution?  Such heated arguments about who started what remind me of children squabbling about who started it.  Or, in business, of the finger-pointing game played when something goes wrong. 

To me, it seems obvious that there were many causes of the war. 
1. The south and north had only formed an imperfect union from the beginning due to the question of slavery.  They viewed themselves as citizens of their respective states first, not citizens of a distant and mainly weak central authority.  And they were fiercely independent about that. 
2. As time passed, the two sides grew more estranged as the north grew progressive, industrial, romantic, and abolitionist, while the south grew conservative, large-scale agrarian, traditionalist, and ultimately slave-dependent.  In today's terms, the north would be the "progressive democrats" while the south would be the "true conservatives." 
3. Due to slights both real and percieved, passions were enflamed on both sides.  The press of the day railed against the opposition without much regard for checking facts, or concern about lawsuits for libel.  (The yellow press did not begin in or end in 1895.)  Editors pushed their own "patriotic" and war-hawk opinions. 
4. Southerners and northerners adopted the us and them opinions of their neighbors long before bleeding Kansas.  They were, in reality if not in political fact 2 separate nations living uneasily under one roof.  Sharing power by compromise makes for an uneasy marriage, especially when the 2 spouses don't like each other. 
5. Slavery was the primary, though not the exclusive difference between them.  There was also the cavalier plantation system, not far removed from European aristocratic convention.  This was so alien to the Connecticut yankee's idea of practical individuality.  And yet, it was the same plantation aristocracy that furnished Henry, Washington, Jefferson, Monroe, Madison, and many other founding fathers and early leaders.  There was the south's fierce defense of state's rights, while the north was more willing to see a cooperative union. 
6. The abolitionist movement galvanized many in the north who would otherwise have remained neutral, or at least ambivalent.  It also raised fears in the south about slave uprisings (which had happened before) and - ultimately - the loss of their entire economy.  No matter what lip service come southerners paid to freeing slaves, the fact was that many were dependent on them for their very livelihoods.  (How would this country react now if a car-abolition movement arose, threatening the automobile industry with extinction?) 
7. The war, in my opinion, really started in Kansas.  The fight over the territory brought the whole system of compromise to an end.  When people are angry and dying, it is hard to call for peace.  Kansas was in miniature what the entire country was soon to become.  Fighting for "the cause," whichever flavor of cause you picked. 
8. So both sides were picked, neither was willing to bend for the other any more, both were spoiling to get their way, and only a spark was needed to light the powder keg of long-suffering anger.
9. The most radically conservative southern states opted to secede - something they felt they were legally entitled to do.  Other, less radical, states followed down that path only after Lincoln branded their brother states as rebels and called for troops to put down the rebellion.  Like Lee, they faced the hard choice of fighting for Lincoln and the Union or fighting for Home and State. 
10. Most of the southerners of the time, if asked, would say they were fighting for their state, for states' rights, and to repel the yankee invaders from their homeland.  All of which is correct.  What poor non-slave-owning sodbuster would have fought for slavery?  Slavery was the underlying cause of the war, but not the cause they fought for. 
11. Most of the northerners, before 1863, would have said they fought to preserve the union and put down the rebellion, to save a nation they saw as the greatest and grandest country there ever was.  Though there were many abolitionists, what ordinary poor free white sodbuster would have left home and hearth and died for the freedom of some stranger of another race and another state?  Again, slavery was the underlying cause of the war, but not the cause they fought for. 
Many many wars have been fought for little or no reason.  Isn't it enough that this one had many? 

[Johan Steele]

Very well said Timotheus... darned if I can argue w/ much of that.

[Catherine Hopley]

"One had legitimate (if overstated) reasons for Rebellion & Revolution bringing into a being a Nation superior to most others."

"superior to most others ". As modest as ever.    If a German was to say that,  people would look decidedly queasy.

"Desert and face a firing squad, hanging party or charge of cowardice... oh yes the CS Army was an army of the willing."

My point, and it really was a very mild one, was that the overall performance of the Confederate private soldier belies the contention that he was a sullen conscript doing the bare minimum.

"Then why did it take four years to defeat it?
G E O G R A P H Y. "

The capitalization really isn't necessary. My grasp of geography tells me that it shouldn't take anyone four years to march from Washington to Richmond.

"All the way up into WW2 the success of Armies was judged upon miles marched, flags, guns & prisoners captured & victory.  The ANV comes up short."

From the Mexican War onwards the United States has never had to fight an enemy which outnumbered it. To destroy or capture an army which was larger than one's own was, by this period, an impossibility.

"If one disagrees with the contention that the main cause of the war was slavery - as I do - it is entirely legitimate to draw attention to what one believes to have been the main cause. That necessarily involves talking about something else, but that isn't a case of "hijacking".

You're quite right, it's also sometimes referred to as "drowning the subject" to draw attention away from it; a very common tactic."

I am simply disagreeing with you. You seem to find this intolerable.

"I thought it less galling than calling such an idea ignorant.  Your position shows a complete lack of knowledge of warfare from antiquity to the 1940's.  Whether willing or not I don't know. "

I raised the issue of what I called "proportionality of response". If I understand you correctly, you are asserting that all wars "from antiquity to the 1940s" have been fought to the point where one nation or the other (or combination thereof) is completely destroyed. But, as this is demonstrably untrue, I must have misunderstood you. Your grasp of vernacular suggests that English is your first language; your grasp of grammar & syntax suggests otherwise. I'm sorry, but understanding you is quite hard work. 

"I've seen these same arguments and assertions over and over again.  The US was sooo mean; more brutal than anyone in history! "

Who has made that assertion on this thread?

"That was the regrettable reality of mid-19th century American life...and it applied as much in the rest of the country as it did in the South.

And you bring it to the 21st Century... greatly appreciated I'm sure. "

This is where it ceases to be funny. You appear to be accusing me of racism. If that is not the case, I would welcome your clarification. Otherwise I shall refer the matter to the moderator.

[Catherine Hopley]

On second thoughts, don't bother clarifying the "racist" slur.

People don't log onto this forum to witness a personal squabble. I want it to end as quickly as possible, so I won't respond to any further posts from you.

[Johan Steele]

"One had legitimate (if overstated) reasons for Rebellion & Revolution bringing into a being a Nation superior to most others."

"superior to most others ". As modest as ever.    If a German was to say that,  people would look decidedly queasy. I think it can be legitimately claimed so.  The US is the richest, most free nation upon Earth.  One can judge a nation by how many people are trying to get in don't you think?
"Desert and face a firing squad, hanging party or charge of cowardice... oh yes the CS Army was an army of the willing."

My point, and it really was a very mild one, was that the overall performance of the Confederate private soldier belies the contention that he was a sullen conscript doing the bare minimum. I think I could agree w/ that the CS soldier accomplished herculean tasks w/ little appreciation from his govt.
"Then why did it take four years to defeat it?
G E O G R A P H Y. "

The capitalization really isn't necessary. My grasp of geography tells me that it shouldn't take anyone four years to march from Washington to Richmond. The march wasn't just from Wasington to Richmond, the CS was broken up and it's armies destroyed or captured in the field.  I was once told it takes two years to make a competant Infantryman; I can see that.    I've done the marching, a good amount actually and if someone is doing his solid best to kill me to prevent me from getting to Richmond... four years is neither out of line or frankly odd.

"All the way up into WW2 the success of Armies was judged upon miles marched, flags, guns & prisoners captured & victory.  The ANV comes up short."

From the Mexican War onwards the United States has never had to fight an enemy which outnumbered it. To destroy or capture an army which was larger than one's own was, by this period, an impossibility. What?  No, the US Army has frequently fought battles and campaigns where it was grossly outnumbered.  Again also looking at military history of the day and throughout history your premise has no bassis in fact.  History & the ACW was more than just 1861-65.  Look how armed rebellions have been put down throughout history; never been friendly or nice but decidedly ugly.

"If one disagrees with the contention that the main cause of the war was slavery - as I do - it is entirely legitimate to draw attention to what one believes to have been the main cause. That necessarily involves talking about something else, but that isn't a case of "hijacking".

You're quite right, it's also sometimes referred to as "drowning the subject" to draw attention away from it; a very common tactic."

I am simply disagreeing with you. You seem to find this intolerable.
No, I find it irritating when a thread is purposefully hijacked or drowned because some don't like the premise.

"I thought it less galling than calling such an idea ignorant.  Your position shows a complete lack of knowledge of warfare from antiquity to the 1940's.  Whether willing or not I don't know. "

I raised the issue of what I called "proportionality of response". If I understand you correctly, you are asserting that all wars "from antiquity to the 1940s" have been fought to the point where one nation or the other (or combination thereof) is completely destroyed. But, as this is demonstrably untrue, I must have misunderstood you. Your grasp of vernacular suggests that English is your first language; your grasp of grammar & syntax suggests otherwise. I'm sorry, but understanding you is quite hard work.  Not all but more than enough.  From Antiquity look to Jeruselum, the Mongols in Russia & Persia there are a host of examples where annexation of counquered territory was the result of an armed conflict w/ plenty being upon US soil; how many Kiowa are there today?  How many dead languages are there throughout history?  How many dramatic changes to maps due to war?

Yes, English is my second language; I'm also quite fluent in Bad English and Drunkanese w/ a smattering of Lakota and Korean thrown in for flavor.

"I've seen these same arguments and assertions over and over again.  The US was sooo mean; more brutal than anyone in history! "

Who has made that assertion on this thread? I'm just waiting for the South is/was victim rhetoric and the quotes from DiLorenzo and Kennedy.  Perhaps I have become to jaded; the arguments all boil down to the same base premise.
"That was the regrettable reality of mid-19th century American life...and it applied as much in the rest of the country as it did in the South.

And you bring it to the 21st Century... greatly appreciated I'm sure. "

This is where it ceases to be funny. You appear to be accusing me of racism. If that is not the case, I would welcome your clarification. Otherwise I shall refer the matter to the moderator. Is it not a racist opinion and position to conclude or imply that four millions of darker skin have no bearing?  Or meant nothing to the argument simply because of the shade of their skin?  I contend that it is.  Yes, racism was the way of the land and culture in 1860 all the way up into my lifetime.  Black men, Indians, whites all have one thing in common; there are good, bad and indifferent folks among their ranks and they absolutely do not deserve to be dismissed out of hand.  While it may be convenient to do so when studying the period it's purposefully ignoring a large part of the equation.  No different now than 1860.  If I misconstrued your position I most humbly apolgize.

[Johan Steele]

On second thoughts, don't bother clarifying the "racist" slur.

People don't log onto this forum to witness a personal squabble. I want it to end as quickly as possible, so I won't respond to any further posts from you.

As you wish; I will continue to point out errors, fallacy and junk history when I see it.

Slavery; the Root cause of Secession.  Secession the cause of the US civil war.