[jmosmith]

A week or so ago, the discussion somewhere drifted into the question of the causes, or the "issue" of the American Civil War.

Same old camps as always: Slavery, and State's Rights.

Vote as you please in the pole, and please vote.

Add your POV, discuss, debate. Simple as that.

For my POV, it was Slavery no matter how you slice it! There may have been a question of State's Rights, but it was their right to OWN SLAVES!!! And as for the question of their "Right to sucede from the Federal Union", it would not have come to an actual "Act of Sucession", without the driving divissiveness of the slavery issue. NONE of the heated rhetoric of the day was over the quesiton of this right, rather it was over the political ballance of power over the slave issue, to which the "right of sucession" was added as a threat! Nothing more.

It's this simple: remove slavery from the American scene at the end of the American Revolution, and there is NO American Civil War in 1861.

QED



Opinions?

[EDIT] ...hope the pole was sufficient for the discussion; thanks. J[/EDIT]

[linskyjack]

It was the combination and of them both with slavery being the most powerful variable. The VAST majority of historians believe this to be the case. Only some revisionist historians (particularly attractive to the radical right) thing that it was all about state's rights.

[dixiebookworm]

Can I change my vote? I voted "other" but I really meant to vote "states rights" (it's late for me y'all & I'm easily befuddled).

[dixiebookworm]

Originally Posted by jmosmith

It's this simple: remove slavery from the American scene at the end of the American Revolution, and there is NO American Civil War in 1861.

Disagree.

[linskyjack]

Absolutely---this is just another attempt by southerners to redeem themselves when it comes to a rather sordid history of slavery.

[valis]

my understanding of it was a combo of slavery, and the election of Lincoln which effectively ended Southern control over the government. However, I know that the south were bitterly opposed to the federal government meddling in their right to marry their cousins (j/k), and as a result, attempted to secede, which in turn led to the war.

As with so many of world shaping events, narrowing it down to one specific cause can be a gargantuan task, even for you, jmo.

v

[jmosmith]

Originally Posted by valis

my understanding of it was a combo of slavery, and the election of Lincoln which effectively ended Southern control over the government. However, I know that the south were bitterly opposed to the federal government meddling in their right to marry their cousins (j/k), and as a result, attempted to secede, which in turn led to the war.

As with so many of world shaping events, narrowing it down to one specific cause can be a gargantuan task, even for you, jmo.

v

That's why Linsky is better at it than I am!

I have to agree that it was a combination of events, but I would argue (and do) that slavery was the "lynch pin" of them all -- the key-stone if you will, without which, all those other confluence of events alone would not have been sufficent to spark the War. And many of those events would not have existed without slavery.

thanks all,
J

(sorry Dixie, I don't know how to change a vote, but your opinion is noted)

[linskyjack]

Without slavery, there was no civil war---The south wouldn't have been as dependent on the cash crop of cotton and probably would have developed in an entirely different way.

[Littlefield]

Ah, the "War of Northern Agression" being born in SC I know about the Civil War .It is complicted and was about economics.The South was being raped by over taxation and trade practices by the North and after much debate the South decided to withdraw.The North was going to lose it main sorce of revenue so it decared war on the South.The North when it begn to lose changed the issue to slavery.
The Confederate Army was made up of 95 percent of people that did not own slaves.Yes, slavery was a big issue but not the main one.Even Lincoln said he would allow slavery to exist if the Union could be held.

[valis]

Originally Posted by Littlefield

The Confederate Army was made up of 95 percent of people that did not own slaves.Yes, slavery was a big issue but not the main one.

I had heard that too. However, I've NEVER heard about Lincoln claiming that he would own slaves......you got a link to that?

[Littlefield]

I do not have a link it is well known though. Also did you know Robert E Lee wrote Slavery is a moral andpolitical evil and freed his slaves before war I think 5 years before and then Grant still had slaves after Civil War because Emancipation Proclamation cleverly only outlawed slaves in the South.Grant said he would not fight if war had to do with slavery.It is complicated the Civil War.

[valis]

It if is well known, then I am sure there is a link somehwere. Again, I do not consider myself an expert on civil war history, but I've never heard anything even remotely like that comment attributed to Lincoln.

[Littlefield]

He did not mean himself owning slaves he meant allowing the South to keep the Union .

[Littlefield]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo44.html

As Lincoln wrote to Horace Greeley on Aug. 22, 1862: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it"
This is a link I learned it before this one though


Since you asked full letter

http://www.swcivilwar.com/Greeley.html

[valis]

I think he is stating that the importance of the union comes before any man, there, littlefield.