[Lightknight]

Was the main issue that caused the war about slavery? If not, what was the main issue?

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by Lightknight

Was the main issue that caused the war about slavery? If not, what was the main issue?

The South (officially) maintained they were fighting for States' Rights. For most of the war this was the rhetoric that people used (unionism/federalism vs. states' rights). Most people leading up to the war completely avoided talking about slavery, including Lincoln ... in the Lincoln Douglas debates both him and his opponent completely skirted the issue, and in his first innaugural (before the war broke out) he only talked about how it was his duty to preserve the union. In his second inaugural he brings up the slavery question, "Everyone seemed to know the conflict was about slavery" and wonders out loud how men can ask assistance from God for "wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's foreheads" ... but then says it's not his place to judge and puts the war back into the union/state perspective.

That said, I think most everyone knew it was about slavery. The governments of both sides made a huge effort to sidetrack the rhetoric so it concentrated on the constitutionality of enforcing no-slave states; but there were plenty of pamphlets from slavers and abolitionists that addressed the slavery issue directly.

[Lightknight]

Originally Posted by Qingu

The South (officially) maintained they were fighting for States' Rights. For most of the war this was the rhetoric that people used (unionism/federalism vs. states' rights). Most people leading up to the war completely avoided talking about slavery, including Lincoln ... in the Lincoln Douglas debates both him and his opponent completely skirted the issue, and in his first innaugural (before the war broke out) he only talked about how it was his duty to preserve the union. In his second inaugural he brings up the slavery question, "Everyone seemed to know the conflict was about slavery" and wonders out loud how men can ask assistance from God for "wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's foreheads" ... but then says it's not his place to judge and puts the war back into the union/state perspective.

That said, I think most everyone knew it was about slavery. The governments of both sides made a huge effort to sidetrack the rhetoric so it concentrated on the constitutionality of enforcing no-slave states; but there were plenty of pamphlets from slavers and abolitionists that addressed the slavery issue directly.

But where do you draw that from? I mean, you're asking me to view somehting that wasn't on the surface.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by Lightknight

But where do you draw that from? I mean, you're asking me to view somehting that wasn't on the surface.

Well, you should read the inaugural addresses and (skim) the Lincoln Douglas debates!

There is a lot of slaver/abolitionist pamphlets at the Library of Congress "American Memory" site (you can probably just google all these things and find them) -- the pamphlets are in the collection called "African American Pamphlets." I think most of them are in the subheading "Abolitionists" ... it's been a while.

My assessment is: The government was hesitant to bring slavery to the forefront; almost everyone else who was writing, however, was talking about slavery's ills/justifications.

(by the way, most of those pamphlets are about what the Bible says about slavery)

[Nathanael]

It was about economics.

Dissention reached a feaver pitch after Lincon was voted into office without a majority in a single southren state. He backed policies against slavery, which the south couldn't sustain itself without, and they tried to justify their refusal of fedral authority by questionioning the integrity of the union. Which was questionable. However, mostly it was about emotions stirred up over regionalism and the economy of the south being founded on an unethical institution.

[Lightknight]

What do you mean? The south could certainly sustain themselves without slaves. Only a very small percentage of people even owned slaves.

[Nathanael]

However, the economy of the region relied on the export of the cotton... if plantation owners were forced to pay slaves or hire white workers, they wouldn't have been able to produce as much and would have had higher expenses, cutting down on their income which would fuel the local commercial industry. Meanwhile, poor white workers would demande higher wages and eventualy open their own, smaller plantations and farms, fragmenting the system of import/export and setting it back a hundered years.

that's my theroy.

[Lightknight]

Originally Posted by Nathanael

However, the economy of the region relied on the export of the cotton... if plantation owners were forced to pay slaves or hire white workers, they wouldn't have been able to produce as much and would have had higher expenses, cutting down on their income which would fuel the local commercial industry. Meanwhile, poor white workers would demande higher wages and eventualy open their own, smaller plantations and farms, fragmenting the system of import/export and setting it back a hundered years.

that's my theroy.

Yes, it is your theory. Believe it or not, but slave owners had their own two arms and feet (usually anyways)

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by Lightknight

Yes, it is your theory. Believe it or not, but slave owners had their own two arms and feet (usually anyways)

I think he's right and he's wrong. On one hand, the Southern economy was based on slavery. Removing slaves from the economy would be (and was) catastrophic, since their whole commerce was modelled after the institution, like a currency.

On the other hand, some Northern writers argued that the reason the North was more prosperous than the South was because of free industry, saying that slavery encouraged laziness and idleness. They were probably also correct.

There definitely was an economic background to the Civil war ... of course, there's an economic background to pretty much everything in history, since economics distills into self-interest, which is universal.

[Lightknight]

Originally Posted by Qingu

I think he's right and he's wrong. On one hand, the Southern economy was based on slavery. Removing slaves from the economy would be (and was) catastrophic, since their whole commerce was modelled after the institution, like a currency.

On the other hand, some Northern writers argued that the reason the North was more prosperous than the South was because of free industry, saying that slavery encouraged laziness and idleness. They were probably also correct.

There definitely was an economic background to the Civil war ... of course, there's an economic background to pretty much everything in history, since economics distills into self-interest, which is universal.

The north wasn't always better off than the south. I seem to remember a time when each state had war debts. But the south could pay for their debts while the North could not. So several acts were put into place which paid for all of the northern state's debts. That helped them substantially. Then there were a bunch of other factors. Like the trade embargo of 1807 that made it illegal to export anything. It brought down exported goods by 80 percent in 1808 I believe. Embargos didn't hurt the north, but they sure as heck hurt the south. The south coudn't export their goods because it was illegal to do and they couldn't buy machinery at a good price because no trade ship was willing to come all the way here and then go back to Europe with its storage facilities empty. So where did they have to buy it from? The north. They had no competition when England was out of the game. It was a huge boost for them and a terrible attack on the farmers. Heck, since they couldn't export their goods, they had less moneys to buy machinery anyways.

It was those acts that determined how each side fared.

[Nathanael]

History can usualy be distilled down to economics. If I don't know what I'm talking about when I mention details of the Civil War, the general princible remains the same.

{sp}

[mlqurgw]

Actually it was a combination of many things. Slavery was an issue but not the only one. The south feared that a strong federal Gov. would impose its will on the sourthern way of life. Also the North tended, as it even does today, to believe that it knew better than the south how to do buisnesss. Slavery would have died on it's own eventually in the South. Also keep in mind that most Northern rich families gained their wealth from the slave trade. Abolitionists wrote propaganda such as "Uncle Tom's Cabin" to incite those against slavery. Of course it depends on the region of the country you are from how you view the war. The winner always gets to write the history. The main issue was states rights. That is what Lee, Jackson and others of the South fought for.

[sabertooth181]

Originally Posted by mlqurgw

Actually it was a combination of many things. Slavery was an issue but not the only one. The south feared that a strong federal Gov. would impose its will on the sourthern way of life. Also the North tended, as it even does today, to believe that it knew better than the south how to do buisnesss. Slavery would have died on it's own eventually in the South. Also keep in mind that most Northern rich families gained their wealth from the slave trade. Abolitionists wrote propaganda such as "Uncle Tom's Cabin" to incite those against slavery. Of course it depends on the region of the country you are from how you view the war. The winner always gets to write the history. The main issue was states rights. That is what Lee, Jackson and others of the South fought for.

that is exactly what i was fixing to post

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by mlqurgw

The main issue was states rights. That is what Lee, Jackson and others of the South fought for.

I disagree. I think the main issue was slavery; however, the only way the governments on both sides could talk about the issue legally was via states rights. In other words, the states rights debate was the means, not the end.

Slavery was the only issue that the South thought the North was infringing upon their autonomy. The issue is analogous to, say, Brown vs. Board of Education. The issue was plainly segregation; however in order to argue the issue the Court had to talk about it in legal and constitutional terms (which are definitely important on their own, but were secondary in both cases).

That said, I think the states' rights issue was a major rallying cry that the slaveowning aristocracy used to rally up the non-slaveowning Southerners (the vast majority) ... and Unionism was a major rallying cry that the Northern government used to rally up the vast majority of Northerners who could care less about the plight of African slaves.

[jfahler03]

Not really Civil War related regarding research, but more reenactor-related, but I found this site interesting:

http://www.christianreenacting.com ; it's got plenty of photos of reenactments... I'm not into CW or much before the 20th century at all as far as reenacting goes, but I've always enjoyed reading about the daily lives of the soldiers... personally, while I realize they're important, I say the heck with the politics, they've been hammered into my head since right around the 5th or 6th grade... while the actual military part of it hasn't been.

---edit: sorry if that was off-topic...just thought there would be some interested---