causes of the American War Between the States

[Art Eatman]

fistful, for all that I spent some dozen years booming around the world, in some twenty countries; and for all that I spent thirty years in Detroit, one winter , I've lived most of my life in the southern US.  Mostly, Texas.

To some extent, I agree with your comment about poor southern whites being concerned about hordes of negroes running loose.  A friend of mine has a page of an atlas from around 1850, with statistics on Georgia.  I recall one Georgia county with a population of some few hundred whites, and over 8,000 negroes.  (I can't be more exact, not having the page in front of me.)  Certainly the perception of such a problem had to exist.  I'm a bit dubious that it was that important.

Still, everything I've either read of or experienced in the South makes me believe that the overriding cause for non-owners to have a willingness to fight was in large part a stubbornness against being told what could or could not be done.  A fair number of sociologists have written of this apparently-Celtic trait that was much stronger in the South than in the North.  The willingness to fight still shows today, if you look at the demographics of our present military.  Even our college-degreed officer corps is predominantly southern.

Agrarian people have no choice but to buy retail and sell wholesale.  It doesn't take much to impact their purchasing power via ill-advised taxation polices.  The larger voting power of the industrialized north and the Congressional ideas about the financial structure of the country had large negative impacts on the South.  I dunno.  My own experiences in farming and ranching tell me that what looks trivial to those outside agribusiness isn't really trivial.  It's not that I know what were the specifics of the 1850s; it's that I know how little it takes to do economic hurt.  People whose billfolds get hit are more willing to fight.

Art

[CAnnoneer]

If national abolition is statism, then so would be local or state-level abolition.

Indeed. When the gov tries to grab more power for itself, it is statist regardless of its size, scale, or level of generality.

Some of you seem to think you've got some hidden knowledge about how the Civil War wasn't

You are going too far here and elsewhere. All we argued is that the shortened PC version unduly stresses certain PC aspects while ignoring more influential and more serious issues, which also happen to be of higher relevance to our contemporary world.

This is because "federal government" precisely refers to the relationship between the state governments and national, or central, government.

It seems we have moved far away from that model already. Today's federal congress passes nationwide laws without asking the state governments for anything. Modern senators do not represent the interests of their states at all. The powergrab is accelerating rather than diminishing. State govs are merely petitioners to be smugly ignored. We are joyfully marching along the way to empire.

There's nothing PC about saying that the White, Christian, capitalist, patriarchal North engaged in a noble, self-sacrificing struggle to free slaves from oppression.

Well, that is simply wrong. It becomes PC because it is politically convenient, and wrong. Some abolitionists at varying levels took their chance to forward their pet peeve, yes, but to say that any significant portion of northerners fought to free the slaves is simply incorrect.

No one is going to be offended by the idea that the Southern economy was "viable."

Except quite a few that argue that demolishing the system by an act of aggression was justified because it would have crumbled anyway, and so it made sense to prevent the waste of time and the needless suffering.

there was also an abolitionist element among Lincoln's cabinet.  Seward and Chase, as examples off the top of my head.  That is to say that some of the Republican leadership was more radically, morally anti-slavery than the base.

That's one of the important and scary parts. A group of elitists in gov decide to promote their own self-inspired agendas at the expense of sections of the population, by use of the power of the state. Sounds familiar?

How do you have all these details, yet lack a general knowledge of the situation?

I am not certain in what way I have shown myself ignorant of the general situation.

Worse, you're expecting that Lincoln would act according to one point of view, when he obviously did not hold that point of view.  You think Lincoln just accidently failed to recall his garrisons?  From Lincoln's point of view, and that of many observers, he was dealing with a munity.

I expect Lincoln to have acted wisely, equitably, in defense of freedom, and in the best interests of the American people. He did not. He had his own agenda, consistently made bad choices, precipitated the biggest blood-letting in American history (bigger than the losses of both WW and Vietnam all put together!), and then felt bad about it without realizing it was largely his fault. Some might say he was a tragic figure. I think he was just a fool.

[Perd Hapley]

fistful - what would recommend as reading material, something readable yet respected that covers the build-up and events of your civil war? Bear in mind that I've studied a bit of history, but no American history.

My "expertise" in this area is the result of a history course that covered the period from 1815 to 1860 and research for a couple of papers I wrote around the same time.  I regret to say I read parts of about forty different sources, and can't recommend a particular book about the causes of the war.  And of course, "readable" rules out any of the scholarly articles.    If you had asked me two years ago, in the middle of all that, I might have been able to recommend one or more of the books.  

Authors like Ken Stampp and Eric Foner are definitely on the respectable side, and I think their works were fairly readable.  I would look them up.  Although a thorough understanding of the Civil War would go back to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, at least, you could probably start out by just understanding the landscape as far back as 1824, 1828.  For that era, I can definitely recommend Liberty and Power: The Politics of Jacksonian America, by Harry L. Watson.  Good info, but not too long.

The main thing to keep in mind is that the causes for the war were many and complex, just as the different people and interests involved were many and complex.  While the states' rights issue and economic angle are perhaps even more important than slavery, to assign the blame or credit to one issue is to really miss the point.

Edit:  Boy, this is a long post to tell you I can't tell you anything.  I also can't help with any books about the war itself; never much interested me to study the military science angle.  If you've studied modern European history, it might interest you to know that parallels have been drawn between the American Civil War and the German wars of unification of the nineteenth century.  Can't recommend any books on that, either, I'm afraid.  Batting 0.  Sorry.  

[Gewehr98]

I just finished reading a series that was enlightening, yet interesting, in and of itself:

The late Shelby Foote's trilogy chronicle titled The Civil War: A Narrative, is considered by many to be a classic. The individual volumes include Fort Sumter to Perryville (1958), Fredericksburg to Meridian (1963), and Red River to Appomattox (1974).

Wikipedia notes that

Despite his Southern upbringing, Foote deliberately avoided Lost Cause mythologizing in his work. He considered Abraham Lincoln and Nathan Bedford Forrest to be the only two authentic geniuses of the war, a belief that raised the ire of Forrests' granddaughter. He also believed that the cause of the South was lost from the minute they declared war.

I could surmise that from reading the trilogy, and it definitely expanded my view of the opposing sides, their reasons for the conflict, and also shattered some myths I'd heard perpetrated over the years.  In particular, I'd be intrigued to see how some of the vaunted generals, purchased commissions or not, of either blue or grey side would handle the modern battlefield.

Not that I ever stood when they played "Dixie" at ballgames, anyway.

[mustanger98]

I read some on Shelby Foote, both interview and biography. His works on the War of Northern Aggression were novels published by Random House as they commissioned them.

[Perd Hapley]

Art, really good comments.

I wasn't trying to give a comprehensive set of reasons why po' white southern boys donned the rebel grey.  I was just pointing out that the question you described as "unasked" had been asked and answered many times and in many ways.  Or at least an answer has been attempted.  But maybe it's just been a long time since you looked into it, and there wasn't much available at the time.  

CAnnoneer also had a good point about Southern fears that their power at the national level was eroding.  This becomes clearer when one looks at the dominance enjoyed by the "Virginia Junto" that reigned from Jefferson to Monroe.  

I don't know why this bugs me so much, but I guess I was expecting the same level of knowledge that gun-board posters usually display about WWII.  For someone, like me, who's totally ignorant about that war, those discussions seem fairly sophisticated.  I guess they just don't have any Civil War footage to show on the History Channel.

[Perd Hapley]

CAnnoneer, you seem to think that the South should have been allowed to secede.  Do you think this would have prevented war?  The North and South were already in a vicious fight over western territory.*  This would have continued between the two nations.  And it did.  

*The Kansas Jayhawks used to shoot more than hoops.

[Perd Hapley]

I am not certain in what way I have shown myself ignorant of the general situation.

If you'd like to know:

There isn't one book to my knowledge that argues that, because it is so nonPC. "Everybody" knows it was about slavery....The real issue was the extent of power of the fedgov over the "provinces".

If you had read book one on the Civil War, or asked any history prof, or cracked open a college-level textbook, or looked it up on Wikipedia, you would have seen that this aspect of the struggle is commonly discussed.  If you grew up in America, you were probably taught about this in a high-school or college course.  

if it were simply slavery, there were a number of ways to handle the situation without warfare.

Such as?  If you think the South was prepared to give up slavery peacefully, or even refrain from securing Western territories for slavery, you are dreadfully ill-informed.  


I never said that slavery was the only or even the most important reason for the Civil War, did I?  I fully acknowledge the importance of other factors.  See post #53.

[Perd Hapley]

Some of you seem to think you've got some hidden knowledge about how the Civil War wasn't

You are going too far here and elsewhere. All we argued is that the shortened PC version unduly stresses certain PC aspects while ignoring more influential and more serious issues, which also happen to be of higher relevance to our contemporary world.

I'm not going too far.  But if you're willing to acknowledge that slavery was an important issue, then we are much closer to agreement than I thought.  However, you go too far when you claim to be the only one willing to look beyond the simplistic "War to End Slavery" narrative.  

There's nothing PC about saying that the White, Christian, capitalist, patriarchal North engaged in a noble, self-sacrificing struggle to free slaves from oppression.

Well, that is simply wrong. It becomes PC because it is politically convenient, and wrong. Some abolitionists at varying levels took their chance to forward their pet peeve, yes, but to say that any significant portion of northerners fought to free the slaves is simply incorrect.

And that's why I didn't say that.  I was merely characterizing the simplistic view that you and I both reject.  While it can be truthfully said that many Northerners were opposed to slavery, that doesn't mean they were ready to start up the NAACP.  Nor does it mean that they were committed to ending slavery where it already existed.  But it did mean they viewed the spread of slavery and the "Slave Power" as a threat to their way of life.  

On political correctness:  PC does not stand for Political Convenience.  It stands for political correctness, which specifically refers to leftist attitudes of multi-culturalism and an over-sensitivity to those who are or might be portrayed as a disadvantaged minority (Blacks, women, the handicapped, homosexuals, etc.)  I believe I have stated clearly enough already how such a point of view is fully on board with your argument that Abraham Lincoln and the North were evil, power-mad people, little better than their Southern counterparts.  

No one is going to be offended by the idea that the Southern economy was "viable."

Except quite a few that argue that demolishing the system by an act of aggression was justified because it would have crumbled anyway, and so it made sense to prevent the waste of time and the needless suffering.

Who would that be?

[Art Eatman]

fistful, I've never pretended to be a historian.  Most of my learning about the Civil War happened over a half-century ago.  In the Texas school system, part of our Texas History course included some commentary about taxation and economics, pre-Sumpter.  And, of course, the usual here-and-there snippets one encounters over time.

States' rights were always a big deal in Texas because of our entering the Union from independent status as a sovereign republic.  You might have run across a reference to the SCOTUS decision in Texas' favor about offshore oil rights to a three-league limit, not a three-mile limit.  1952?  Ike era.

One of my grandfathers served with Hood's Brigade; per my grandmother, the silver plate he had as a result of a Minie ball left him a bit goofy.  I really don't recall much of the conversations I had with some CW Vets (I guess maybe 1939/1940) at the Confederate Veterans' Home around the corner from my grandfather's, but for what generically might come under, "War Is Hell".

My years have given me an attitude about discussions of historic events:  Forget what the newsies said caused Bad Things.  Follow the money.  Even moreso, today.  Plus, today, with the power over us of the federal government, add "raw political power" to the equation.

I ain't a cynic; I'm just sorta observant...

, Art

[Perd Hapley]

I never served with Hood's brigade, but I did serve at Fort Hood.  Too hot down there, for me.  

You don't have to be a historian when you ARE history, old man.    I agree that money and power were big factors.  And I guess you probably understand the slavery was connected to both of those issues.  But if people think that slavery was a non-issue, it just shows they don't know the political landscape of the antebellum days and what slavery meant to either side.

[CAnnoneer]

CAnnoneer, you seem to think that the South should have been allowed to secede.  Do you think this would have prevented war?  The North and South were already in a vicious fight over western territory.*  This would have continued between the two nations.  And it did.

Indeed I believe that the war was avoidable if the south were allowed to secede.

My readings indicate that the two primary commoner motivations for fighting for CSA were to defend their particular state against what they perceived as aggression and to earn the respect of their buddies. The first reason also had some far reaching consequences in terms of the capability of CSA to wage war on the national scale, since many soldiers left the ranks to go back to the defense of their home state only. In addition, state governors were primarily concerned with their own state, often at the expense of the overall CSA war-effort.

Under such circumstances I find it extremely unlikely that CSA would have been able to fight an expansionist war for the potential new territories. Perhaps criminals, mercenaries, private parties, etc. could stir up trouble, but I do not believe anything would have been done on the national level. The territories would likely have been left to decide their own fate, meaning any violence would have been exported to them until they would settle internally on the thorny issues and then join one or the other union. Taking into account national demographics and the waves of European immigrants looking for land and jobs, most of the west would have been eventually north-like.

PC does not stand for Political Convenience.  It stands for political correctness, which specifically refers to leftist attitudes of multi-culturalism and an over-sensitivity to those who are or might be portrayed as a disadvantaged minority

I know the definition. Political correctness goes beyond that to include, among other things, an edited version of history to match those attitudes and modus operandi. So long as a concept is convenient in that respect, it is adopted in the politically correct worldview, even if it is otherwise wrong. The north heroically sacrificing en masse to end the evil of slavery is one such convenient fallasy. Most unionists when asked what they fought for answered "the old flag".

Finally, if a succinct answer must be given to the original question of the thread, states' rights vs federal centralism/statism in my opinion is the most correct answer. That is why I stated it initially. The logic is simple - the removal of which causal component would have made a critical difference to the system's pathway? In my mind, the answer is "states' rights vs centralism/statism".

[roo_ster]

Scots-Irish
Every once in a while I'll give my wife some grief (in jest) about the Scots-Irish causing trouble wherever they go: border between Scotland & England, Ireland, & the South.

The S-I do seem to be a fighting bunch. Fighting is not necessarily winning.

Technology
I often wonder about the folks who think technology would have killed off slavery.  Do they think technology has not only a soul, but the soul of an abolitionist?  

Eli Whitney's cotton gin revitalized cotton agriculture, making it much more viable...and in need of good field hands.  Many of the Old South's plantations were played out, the soil having been exhausted.  They were economically viable, however, since the increasing demand for labor cuased many to become slave-breeding plantations rather than cotton-producing plantations.

Saudi Arabia only "officially" abolished slavery in...1964 and slavery still exists in many parts of SA as well as many other countries.

The same technology that makes a free man more productive makes a slave more productive, in most cases.

South Was Doomed After Sumter
Lack of war industries in sufficient amounts and a navy insufficent to the task of breaking hte Union blockade doomed the South to defeat.  It was only a matter of time.

[Perd Hapley]

Finally, if a succinct answer must be given to the original question of the thread, states' rights vs federal centralism/statism in my opinion is the most correct answer. That is why I stated it initially. The logic is simple - the removal of which causal component would have made a critical difference to the system's pathway? In my mind, the answer is "states' rights vs centralism/statism".

CAnny, I think you are trying to answer a much different question than what is usually meant by the question, "What caused the Civil War?"  That question might be better phrased, "Why did North and South become so violently divided that it led to secession and war?"  You are focusing on the lesser, and simpler, question of why the North did not allow the South to secede peacefully.

I'd really like to know your sources for the information you presented.  As it is obvious you have not read widely on the Civil War, I fear you have let yourself be too much persuaded by one minority viewpoint.  You seem to have some idea what motivated the common white Southerner, but you don't know what motivated the Northerners (see below).

Under such circumstances I find it extremely unlikely that CSA would have been able to fight an expansionist war for the potential new territories.

Indeed they were not.  That didn't stop them from fighting the North, which is what they attempted to do.  

Perhaps criminals, mercenaries, private parties, etc. could stir up trouble, but I do not believe anything would have been done on the national level. The territories would likely have been left to decide their own fate, meaning any violence would have been exported to them until they would settle internally on the thorny issues and then join one or the other union. Taking into account national demographics and the waves of European immigrants looking for land and jobs, most of the west would have been eventually north-like.

Another indication that you don't know the history very well.  There is no reason to believe, and every reason to doubt, that this hypothetical Northern States of America would have ceded the national government's prior claim to the territories.  The widespread fear among Northerners that Western territories would become slave plantation country, instead of a land of promise for the small farmer, was one of the main reasons for the Northern opposition to slavery, which itself was probably more general than you think.

RE: Political Correctness - Just admit you were wrong.  Your tap-dancing is embarassing.

[Otherguy Overby]

How about the result of the Civil War?   A powerful central government we all love to hate and the progressive loss of "protected" rights and freedoms.

[CAnnoneer]

I'd really like to know your sources for the information you presented.

The two most recent installments are:

1) "The Complete Civil War" by P. Katcher
2) "Why the Civil War Came" by G.S. Boritt

On this specific topic, I saw several long documentaries on the war and Lincoln on the History channel, had some formal schooling on it through highschool courses, and have done sporadic readings in the past as part of extensive self-education in world history. As a hard-science egghead, I did not have much in terms of H&SS courses at the university and postgraduate levels.

In any case, looking through your posts I still do not see in what ways my understanding of the fundamental historical facts is lacking. It seems to me you disagree chiefly with my viewing angle and some of my conclusions, rather than anything I said that would be objectively wrong.

[Perd Hapley]

CAnny, my main reason for doubting your level of knowledge was and remains your notion that the struggle between national and state power is somehow unexplored.  As you put it:  "There isn't one book to my knowledge that argues that, because it is so nonPC."  And if your teachers haven't mentioned that issue, then they probably didn't instruct you very well, or you didn't listen.

Another reason is that you seem to think that slavery was some kind of excuse or merely an accident of a more substantial issue, or some sort of backdrop.  Slavery may not have been the most important thing going on, but it was inextricably bound up with what was going on at the time.

Oh, like I told Art, go to your local university library, and see what they have.  But don't just look at books on the Civil War.  Read about antebellum politics.  Read the Lincoln-Douglas debates if you can stomach it.  (Imagine what a senate campaign debate today would sound like a hundred years from now - a lot of incomprehensible details that only a contemporary would understand.)  Check out John Calhoun and John Taylor of Caroline, for their views on state sovereignty and compact theory.

[CAnnoneer]

CAnny, my main reason for doubting your level of knowledge was and remains your notion that the struggle between national and state power is somehow unexplored.  As you put it:  "There isn't one book to my knowledge that argues that, because it is so nonPC."

I continue maintaining that no book to my knowledge argues that the main cause of the war was the struggle between states' rights and federal centralism/statism. If I am wrong, please provide counterexamples.

[Perd Hapley]

Sorry.  This is from my earlier response to Iain.  I will try to drop by the library at school and see what I can find.  

My "expertise" in this area is the result of a history course that covered the period from 1815 to 1860 and research for a couple of papers I wrote around the same time.  I regret to say I read parts of about forty different sources, and can't recommend a particular book about the causes of the war.  And of course, "readable" rules out any of the scholarly articles.  If you had asked me two years ago, in the middle of all that, I might have been able to recommend one or more of the books.  

Authors like Ken Stampp and Eric Foner are definitely on the respectable side, and I think their works were fairly readable.  I would look them up.  Although a thorough understanding of the Civil War would go back to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, at least, you could probably start out by just understanding the landscape as far back as 1824, 1828.  For that era, I can definitely recommend Liberty and Power: The Politics of Jacksonian America, by Harry L. Watson.  Good info, but not too long.

[MechAg94]

fistful, you say what you say very well and do appear to be knowledgeable on the subject, but I find I don't agree with your conclusions.  I think you are forcing your facts to fit your conclusions, in general at least.  
But that is just my opinion.  

[Perd Hapley]

MechAg,

What conclusions have I reached?  

With which do you disagree?  

Where do you see me forcing facts to fit them?

[Perd Hapley]

 If slavery was "the cause", all the North had to do was buy the slaves and set them free.  The cost, based on the slave population and the value per slave, would have been much less than the actual cost of the war in dollar terms, and I think it's obvious that there would have been far fewer dead bodies.  But, as we all know, ego usually wins out over reality...

Reality?  Do you find it realistic to expect that Southern slave-owners would give up their labor force (field hands, supervisors, drovers, maids, cooks, butlers, skilled laborers such as black-smiths and wheel-wrights, often very experienced people) and their profit margins with it?  That itself would take a war - in fact it did.

[Art Eatman]

 Fistful, were it an overnight deal, yeah, a war.

Compare one-swell-foop with ooching.  If today's public education system had been proposed as an overnight deal in 1940, we'd have had a war.

Sure, it's just an academic exercise.  After all, Lincoln was far more interested in preserving the Union than in worrying about slavery or freedom for the blacks.  The North itself would not have voted in favor of buying-and-freeing.

I guess all wars have had the general equivalent notion to "We'll have the boys home by Christmas."

But I'll stand by "...ego usually wins out over reality."  Consider Enron; consider Iraq.

Art

[Perd Hapley]

CAnny, my main reason for doubting your level of knowledge was and remains your notion that the struggle between national and state power is somehow unexplored.  As you put it:  "There isn't one book to my knowledge that argues that, because it is so nonPC."

I continue maintaining that no book to my knowledge argues that the main cause of the war was the struggle between states' rights and federal centralism/statism. If I am wrong, please provide counterexamples.

The fistful has not forgotten you, O CAnny.  I haven't gotten to the libarry yet, but I did haunt the Barnsie Nobles a few days ago and found some books which may interest you.  The first is Lincoln Unmasked by Thomas J. DiLorenzo.  Right inside the front jacket, the book claims that Lincoln and the war destroyed the "voluntary union the Founding Fathers recognized."  I read the introduction, which proved to be a bibliography of books right up your alley.  After spending some paragraphs describing how "Lincoln worship" has kept historians from saying anything bad about Lincoln, and fancying himself most daring and ground-breaking for bucking the trend, this earnest dolt proceeded to cite a laundry list of books with anti-Lincoln or pro-Southern content that had somehow escaped the clutches of the Lincolnist cabal.  Not satisfied with this much self- impeachment, he also provided a final chapter and appendix with the names of similar books.

He is a professor of economics or some-such and it is clear that he is writing outside his area of expertise.  Even a lowly undergrad like myself is not so naive as to make a silly claim about the Whigs being "the party of the monied elite."  He apparently was encouraged in his scholarship (such as it is) by Mel Bradford, professor at U of Dallas, who the reader presumes must be a survivor of many Lincolnite purges.  Strangely, DiLorenzo's non-conformity doesn't stop him from keeping the modern, PC party line about colonization.  For whatever reason, the idea of helping freed slaves return to Africa is usually painted as an evil, xenophobic, racist scheme.  You might also find it interesting that he mentions that the abolitionist Lysander Spooner, during and after the war, said the war was caused by Northern "corporatism."

Anyhow, I jotted down the titles and authors of some the books that seemed relevant to your request.  

When in the Course of Human Events:  Arguing the Case for Southern Secession
Charles Adams

Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men
Jeffrey Hummel

A Constitutional History of Secession
John Remington Graham

From Union to Empiore
Clyde Wilson

The South was Right!
James and Walter Kennedy

Secession, State and Liberty
David Gordon, ed.
("contains essays by twelve scholars who all wrote favorably of the right of secession in a free society")

The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History
(A New York Times bestseller, no less!  Even with a defiant Confederate officer on the cover.)
Thomas Woods

[CAnnoneer]

Thanks for the bibliography. My point was technically valid but not anymore.

I think I will procure the Woods work shortly.