Replies

Ok, as a teacher of high school history, I have to weigh in here. Both sides have points. Let's go through them one by one.

1) Slavery was a major, though not the only, issue in the war. The series of compromises trying to keep the balance of slave states and free states was doomed to die as it was clear that most of the western states were obviously going to come in as free states and upset the balance in the Senate. It was a time bomb waiting to go off.

2) The South and the North/West had different ideas of what Federalism would be like under the Constitution. Many southern states bought into Federalism largely because of Virginian Washington's influence, and the series of Virginian presidents helped ease their fears. But even slaveholding Andrew Jackson went toe-to-toe with Calhoun over nullification, an early test of whether the South had to submit to the North's interpretation of federalism.

3) Regional issues had been an issue going back to the debate over the Declaration of Independence. Short periods of truce during the War of 1812 and the Mexican War were unable to survive the growing distrust between the regions going all the way back to the defeat of Clay's American system, which left the South without a federal infrastructure building program. Tariffs which engorged Northern textile manufacturers and raised costs in the South together with open abolitionism fed the Southern desire to withdraw from the union. The final nails in the coffin were the polarizing events of the death of the Missouri Compromise, the Dred Scott decision, and most importantly, the Brown raid's effect on the intensity of training in the Southern militias.

4) Basically, the Civil War established that with this union, there is no divorce. That seemed unreasonable to the South, and obviously still does to many Freepers, but it's a fact. I am so grateful that the Rebellion failed, as I value the contributions the South makes to this country. But to ignore the substantial importance of the issue of slavery on the war is to make the same mistake of saying that it was the whole reason for it.

In the end, it was about more than slavery...but it also probably does not happen without it. Wars require passion. 9/11 has given us the passion to eliminate Saddam. The stories around the Rape of Kuwait and the memory of gas lines and fear of $100 oil fed the Gulf war (along with memories of the ignominy of Vietnam, the need to "win one", and the shame of the Iranian hostage crisis).

The Civil War was fought by most Union soldiers to preserve the Union. Some had abolitionist sympathies, but weren't thinking of them as they fought and died. They felt they were fighting to preserve the country their ancestors had fought and died for in the War of Independence.

Most Southern soldiers felt they were fighting because the Union would not let them have their "divorce."

Later in the war, Lincoln made it more of a conflict over slavery, ostensibly timing the Emancipation Proclamation in order to deflect British and French recognition of the Confederacy.

It is easy to see why freepers fight so much over the causes and issues of the Civil War as we continue to struggle over these issues today. I would argue that we should appreciate both sides interpretation of their rights under the Constitution, but that the issues have been decided and with enough blood. The union remains. The struggle of dual federalism continues, and likely will forever. But there should be no disputing that the nation was better served by keeping the union together, it is simply up to us, the "posterity", to keep up a vigilance over the rights fought for in all American wars, because we have the kind of government we deserve, since we choose them. Good or bad.

NEXT DEBATER PLEASE...!

The Civil War was fought by most Union soldiers to preserve the Union. Some had abolitionist sympathies, but weren't thinking of them as they fought and died. They felt they were fighting to preserve the country their ancestors had fought and died for in the War of Independence.

Most Southern soldiers felt they were fighting because the Union would not let them have their "divorce."

I read this post to me after I wrote my Post 98.

It seems we are on the same wavelength.

The war also established that the rule of law can be overridden by a president who controls the military.

Wars require passion.

Very true. I think that gets left out of a lot of the arguments made here. The war was midwifed by the excited, irrational mood of the day. Just looking at it as a rational conflict of principles doesn't explain why it happened.

Keith, very well-reasoned and thought out post. Don't you know you aren't allowed to post those on a WBTS thread? :)

}:-)4

It is easy to see why freepers fight so much over the causes and issues of the Civil War as we continue to struggle over these issues today. I would argue that we should appreciate both sides interpretation of their rights under the Constitution, but that the issues have been decided and with enough blood. The union remains. The struggle of dual federalism continues, and likely will forever. But there should be no disputing that the nation was better served by keeping the union together, it is simply up to us, the "posterity", to keep up a vigilance over the rights fought for in all American wars, because we have the kind of government we deserve, since we choose them.

Thank you for your post. It's nice to have someone who's been properly trained come in and work with the new Black Republicans, the self-appointed successors of Thad Stevens and Ben "Beast" Butler, who are prosecuting the Marxist revision of the Civil War in these threads by extolling James McPherson and other "red diaper" historians.

I would point out that you contradict yourself, or appear to, when you write that "....that the issues have been decided and with enough blood. The union remains. The struggle of dual federalism continues, and likely will forever." The issues haven't been decided, if the struggle continues.

We may have chosen this government, as you say, but the South does not have its rights. Its people receive no respect, its symbols are banned, its speechways and folkways ridiculed, no matter how innocent. Southerners have been demonized often enough, and over widely enough separated issues and causes, to establish beyond any reasonable doubt that they are now the official national whipping boy.

You acknowledge the South's contributions to America's success -- but Northerners fastidiously do not, and jealously watch out for signs of any relaxation of hostility and contempt toward the South that they expect from their fellows.

The North got the development, the money, the prosperity, the success. Southerners were allowed to bleed in American wars and to come home to the Civil Rights Movement, obloquy, demonization, and Crow Jim. What Northern state is required to seek permission, every single time, from the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department before it can hold elections?

Southern states and municipalities cannot hold elections. This is a central fact of life under the Northern model of federalism. It's true, you can't blink it. You can argue for the Civil Rights Act of 1965, you can adduce historical reasons why it was true and good -- but you can't sweep under the rug the enormity of the fact that the South cannot hold elections. That power is reserved to the Executive Branch now. That fact alone is the elephant in the living room. The South is not like the North. The North is free; the South is not. Period.