American Civil War (resp. Secession War) - your opinion

What do you, especially the American guys, think about the Secession War?

Who was wrong, who was right? Did the Confederate States have the right to break from the Union? Did they have justified reasons? What exactly were they?

Why did the South start by capturing Fort Sumter violently? Was it necessary?

What was the role of slavery? What were other reasons?

 

Though I live in Texas, and have enormous pride in living in the south, I have to say that I think it was a terrible decision to secede, though I don't think either side was wrong. The South seceded for several reasons:
1.) (often mistakened for the biggest reason) Slavery.
2.) Their want for new slave owning states in new American territories.
3.) (the main "reason") Their rights

Because cotton and tobacco were the major indulstrial providers in the south at the time, I can understand that their need for slavery was great as well as their need for state's rights, but it was no excuse at all to start a civil war. As for your question about Fort Sumter, I can't really say (it's been a while since I've opened some "Civil War" books). So, in conclusion, the CSA had justified complaints, but not justified enough to make war against their own country.

 

I want to hear Carl's opinion on the matter...Carl?

 

Do ya really?

As a Southerner, and someone who had many descendants who fought on for the Southern cause including a Colonel of Cavalry, the South was justified in ceceeding from the Union.

Ike is correct though, protecting slavery was not a main cause for the cecession--the individual States Rights were one of the if not THE main reason to breakaway from the Union.

In a nutshell:

How would you feel if you and your descendants had lived on a huge tract of land which most definately was totally and legally yours, for (at that time) about 100 years, and someone you never met that came from hundreds of miles away, just to tell you that you were not allowed to do certain things on your land. Such as, growing Corn, Carrots, Apples and such to eat and Cotton or Tobacco to sell and make a livving with--all the while you paid any taxes that might have existed to the Federall Govt, and they butt in and try to make yoiu follow their rules on your land.

I would have been EXACTLY like tham and would have said that it was BS, and to get off and stay off, my land.

Of all the ancestors I had that lived in the South, fought for the south and or who agreed with the southern policies. Not a one, ever owned a slave. SO on their part, they simply wanted to keep the Yankees off their land and to live in peace.

The Yankees came onto their land and my ancestors fought to keep them off the land. Nothing more, nothing less.

Also, believe it or not, I did have one ancestor of note who served in the Yankee Army in the name of U.S.Grant. He is a blood relative of our on my Mothers side of the family.

I almost forgot to add this and will do so in BOLD to make it stressed and really stand out.

Thousands of slaves got their freedom because they wanted to fight on the side of the Confederacy. This was because they felt the same way and felt that strangers had no right to come onto their lands and to disrupt their lives as was happening. There were about 1 colored person serving under Confederate Arms, to about 2 who served under Union Arms.

[ 20. November 2003, 03:07 PM: Message edited by: C.Evans ]

 

Nothing strange here... even Blanche Deborrow had Yankee ancestors. Mankind DOES stir over time, nothing is able to prevent this.

 

But whats scary is that everyone knows that Yankees have tails.

(Just an old joke)

 

Carl, I dont remember anything about southerners being prevented to grow corn, carrots, and apples as well as cotton and tobacco. that doesnt make any sense!! Cotton was a major resource for the north, the only problem was that it could not be grown there. they depended on the south to provide them with cotton so they could send it to their factories and sell it as shirts and what-not. As for why the confederates were fighting, I have to disagree. some of them did think that, and were told this was happening. but I believe that most of them were fighting the same reason Lee was: He was a citizen of the south, and the south needed him. I do agree about the slaves however, but for entirely different reasons. The slaves had been living under masters for so long, they did not have a taste for freedom. I really dont think that those slaves would fight for masters that would beat them...so they were fighting pretty much to maintain their source of food and shelter in exchange for hard work in the fields, they weren't territorial at all. But of course, this is probably the most controversial subject we will talk about in this forum...we're probably never going to end this. Haha

 

Hi Ike, I was just citing those crops off the top of my head just for examples. At any rate, there were probably many mnay reasons they had to fight the Yankees. I know for a fact that at least for my ancestors was that they hated the fact that someone from so many miles away was trying to basically tell them how to live, and they did not like that. I know we would not like that either today.

 

I'm not sure if it was the government that was telling them how to live...if anyone was telling them it was the consumers for all the products coming out of the south: tobbaco, cotton, etc. But like I said before, the south had very good arguments that could very well have been settled in a government fashion. Therefore, secession was not the south's only and best choice. I'm not saying the Civil War was a total waste of lives and time, look at the country we have today. The only real trouble we're having is the missing WMD in Iraq and the media (speaking of which, I hear they're allowing "f***" on prim-time tv now...heard about that?). I think the Civil War might have solved a lot of problems that would have risen.

 

Yup, the Gov was basically trying to tell them what they could and could not do. I don't think that they would have started a shooting warover nothing.

 

Well, how would the USA react TODAY if some states decided to split apart?

The question why they started by taking Fort Sumter violently is still open.

 

I'm not sure of the exact reasons for taking Fort Sumpter than that they could have been:

1) A Union Fort in the middle of the Confederacy with hundreds of armed Union Soldiers left untouched would not have been a smart thing to do.

2) It was probably a show of force--meaning that they wanted to make sure the Yankees knew they could fight well enough.

I'm sure you can figure out other reasons too but, I would bank on the two I posted as feasable reasons enough to take that fort.

 

Carl is correct on the main point about Fort Sumter.

The fort was on Confederate soil and South Carolina requested that Major Robert Anderson and his command at Fort Moultrie to leave Charleston. Fearing possible attack, Anderson moved his men to the as yet unfinished Fort Sumter. After several parlays, Anderson remained steadfast in his determination to hold Sumter. Therefore, the fort was fired upon.

The bloodiest war in American history had a bloodless beginning. Not one casualty occurred except for a Confederate horse that was killed.

In regards to slavery...despite the "current" view of history, Lincoln' Emancipation Proclamation was a move to try to end the war, not necessarily end slavery. If the text is read in the Proclamation it becomes evident.

""That on the 1st day of January, A.D. 1863, all persons held as
slaves within any State or designated part of a State the people
whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free..."

Only those states still in rebellion would have their slaves freed. As it was, the border states and the parts of Confederate states currently occupied by Federal forces would be allowed to retain their slaves.

Yes, it was a bold move to make for Lincoln. Enacting a "law" upon a foreign land seems ridiculous. But Lincoln said shortly after taking office that "if I could save the Union by keeping slavery, I would do that; if by freeing the slaves would preserve the Union, I would that; and if I could save the Union with some free and others in bondage, I would do that."

BTW, Carl, I had several ancestors that fought in butternut as well. And I also have an uncle that was Vice President of the Confederate States, Alexander Hamilton Stephens!

 

Herr Kaulen,

While the emancipation proclamation only freed slaves in rebellious states there are many reports of slaves walking away from their plantations, and some slave holders even freesd their slaves. While the proclamation really couldn't be enforced when slaves heard of it many of them simply took it upon themselves to leave their plantations.

 

Wait a sec...

so you say that the purpose of the Emancipation Proclamation was only to give a stimulus to Confederate States to rejoin the Union, so they could keep their slaves, while States maintaining rebellion would be 'punished' this way???

[ 23. November 2003, 01:39 PM: Message edited by: KnightMove ]

 

Thank you for the explanation Ivan, i'm rusty on Civil War history.

And, woah, related to Hamilton eh? you have one upped me. I don't think most people ever knew who the VP of the CSA was.

Especially for you Ivan, there in the For Sale section by a Mr. Perun (SP?) in the MC forums, he has "Rooney" Lees Colonels Frock coat for sale for I think $25,000. I was considering trading my Mauser Prototype Rifle for it but--nah.

 

I do believe that you gents aren't looking at the big picture. One of the biggest reasons for the emancipation proclamation was so England would not ally itself with the Confederacy. I'm sure the North did not want a 2 front war. England would not have joined up with the CSA because they were VERY anti-slavery. Making the emancipation proclamation was almost nothing more than political.

 

Good thread, but as Ike says, you are not looking INTO the MAIN frame of dispute which was (surprise!) mostly economical!

The northern industrialised states were growing very fast in industries and international trade, so they needed the southern states to do the same so the USA as a whole could expand even more, but it was not possible because there were two contradictory economical systems inside the same country, one of the XIX century and another from the ancient world...

The southern aristocracy lived quite well by selling their raw materials produced by slaves. This means that slaves do NOT eran money and CANNOT expend it, so capitalism CANNOT work here. There are no investments, no currency circulating and no consumption. Capitalism is based on that. So, northern bankers and trade men can't exploit the southern markets or richess and if the legislation changes, the southern aristocrats would lose their source of economical prosperity.

That is why the Union wanted to force radical changes in southern state constitutions by using the 'right' of a federation and a nation. The southern sates didn't like the north to try to tell them what their laws could be and even less, to take their sources of income away!

 

What you guys seem to not be discussing is was secession necessary? Everything we've discussed so far is not a reasonable excuse for secession.