Who Won The Civil War?

[Mountain Man]

While sitting at the dentists office yesterday, I picked up the most recent issue of U.S. News and World Report with the following Cover Story:

Story

Cover Story 9/30/02
The better angels
Why Americans are still fighting over who was right and who was wrong in the Civil War
BY ANDREW CURRY


Who won the Civil War? You'd have a hard time finding out at Gettysburg. Sure, there are plenty of artifacts in the dilapidated vistor center: cases full of gray and blue uniforms, fading regimental flags, and rows of shining rifles. Step outside, and you'll learn about the flanking movements and angles of fire, the storied charges and tactical gambits that decided the momentous three day battle. The 1,320 monuments, markers, and memorials that dot the fields of Gettysburg National Military Park pay special attention to troop movements and casualty lists, emphasizing the valor and courage of those who fought. Only a few mention the preservation of the Union; none celebrate the end of slavery.



For almost 2 million visitors each year, the Pennsylvania battlefield confirms everything they know from documentaries, Hollywood, and popular fiction: that the war was America's epic, a heroic conflict both sides fought for freedom. The same tale is told at battlefields across the country. And it's wrong.

In trying to honor the soldiers who died, Civil War battlefields have historically avoided referring to what the two armies were actually fighting about. As a result, say scholars and park service officials alike, the message of most Civil War parks is subtly pro-Confederate, alienating many people who should find the parks compelling. What's missing, they say, is a moral element, what Abraham Lincoln referred to as "the better angels of our nature." The Civil War was a fight over slavery. The South was for it, the North against it. Not talking about slavery, they say, erases right and wrong from history–not only in the parks but in the national memory itself.



With all of the discussions of the Civil War on this board...I was ondering what people thought about this...

 

[peachykeen]

Well, the thing is, it wasn't entirely just a war over slavery, that's kind of oversimplifying things in a rather convenient way, isn't it?

 

[Mountain Man]

Well, the thing is, it wasn't entirely just a war over slavery, that's kind of oversimplifying things in a rather convenient way, isn't it?

I don't disagree....but one of the major reasons was Slavery....

so not to mention it would be to simplify it as well

 

[Saint Peter]

We did.

 

[Mountain Man]

bump*

 

[sufisaint]

All modern wars are about one thing...Economics...which replaced Religion...

 

[A Desert Rose]

The Civil War was a fight over state's rights.

 

[Meltzer]

America won the civil war.

 

[Ferrophiliac]

What the war is over, When did that happen?

The civil war was fought over States rights and commerce at the beginning, it wasn't till the summer of 1863 that anything was said officially about slavery and it was made not by the President Lincoln of the USA it was a member of his cabinet that said it at a party in Washington in front of a newspaperman. And when it was printed by the news media President Davis of the CSA sent a letter to President Lincoln thru the British consul saying that the south while using slaves to harvest the cotton, did not seperate from the union for that reason and requsted a retraction. There was no retraction and since it seemed to inflame the people, it was further used and recommended to President Lincoln to make a speech about it.

 

[Mountain Man]

America won the civil war.

Did America also lose the Civil war?

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Well, the thing is, it wasn't entirely just a war over slavery, that's kind of oversimplifying things in a rather convenient way, isn't it?

No. Remove slavery and you don't have civil war, you have yelling in Philadelphia.

 

[A Desert Rose]

The union was perservered and some sort of freedom was granted for slaves. But it was not originally a war to free slaves. As I said before, it was a states rights issue.

Yes, American won the war.

 

[bknight2602]

Re: What the war is over, When did that happen?

The civil war was fought over States rights and commerce at the beginning.............

Well put except I would put economics in front, because it influenced the states right issues. Slavery was a part only in that the South through all the compromises continued to have representation, not equal though in Congress. When that began to sway towards the Abolitionists then the economic freedoms were in jeopardy.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Re: What the war is over, When did that happen?

The civil war was fought over States rights and commerce at the beginning, it wasn't till the summer of 1863 that anything was said officially about slavery and it was made not by the President Lincoln of the USA it was a member of his cabinet that said it at a party in Washington in front of a newspaperman. And when it was printed by the news media President Davis of the CSA sent a letter to President Lincoln thru the British consul saying that the south while using slaves to harvest the cotton, did not seperate from the union for that reason and requsted a retraction. There was no retraction and since it seemed to inflame the people, it was further used and recommended to President Lincoln to make a speech about it.

The slavery issue was coming for 100 years. It didn't arise in 1863. The war was about slavery (read: State commerce).

 

[Mountain Man]

The union was perservered and some sort of freedom was granted for slaves. But it was not originally a war to free slaves. As I said before, it was a states rights issue.

Yes, American won the war.

Everyone who says that slavery was not the reason for the Civil War, always mentions "States Rights" as the reason...

What States Rights were the Confereates fighting for exactly?

 

[Skibum]

The only thing states rights had to do with the Civil War was the right of certain states to keep slaves. Without slavery there would have been no war. The states rights arguement was only used by states that had slavery.

To the extent that slavery affected economics in slave states, economics was a factor, but in the end it always comes back to slavery.

 

[A Desert Rose]

Everyone who says that slavery was not the reason for the Civil War, always mentions "States Rights" as the reason...

What States Rights were the Confereates fighting for exactly?

Slavery was the issue in states rights, inhibiting the expansion of it was the issue. So, yes in that regard slavery was an issue.

However, FREEING slaves was the not original impetus of the Civil War.

 

[JazzManJim]

The only thing states rights had to do with the Civil War was the right of certain states to keep slaves. Without slavery there would have been no war. The states rights arguement was only used by states that had slavery.

To the extent that slavery affected economics in slave states, economics was a factor, but in the end it always comes back to slavery.

Looks like it's time for Captain History to jump in here.

The slavery issue was not a matter of governmental concern until the middle of the war and only then (with the Emancipation Proclamation) did it allow slaves to be free enough to fight as Union soldiers in the War.

The initial triggering mechanism was a dispute between certain southern states (such as South Carolina) that had a booming cotton industry. They were selling their goods to all sorts of places, including other countries. At the flashpoint, France was offering many of these states a premium price for their goods - a price that the Northern States could not match. So the raw goods the Northern States needed in their factories weren't going to them but were going overseas. They lobbied Washington. Washington then demanded that the southern states sell their goods to the Northern states at the lower prices before they sold them overseas. The southern states balked, saying that their right to act as an individual state to seek the best economic deal was being blocked by an overreaching Federal Government. The pressure mounted and there was harsh language flying badly on both sides. The nothern states upped the ante by saying that the only reason the sothern states could operate so profitably was because they had slaves. The southern states said (rightly) that, for this issue, that was completely uninimportant and that what was important was the Federal Government's heavy-handed edict which breached their individual rights.

From there things snowballed downhill until the firing on Fort Sumter.

So no, slavery wasn't a direct issue in starting the war, nor was it an direct issue in the early days of the war. It was a rather large direct issue as the war progressed, though.

So what was the war about? The right of a State to act in its own interest even if that interest worked counter to the interest of other states.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

FREEING slaves was the not original impetus of the Civil War.

Yes it was. Freeing the slaves was the issue, as it involved the Federal authority to define citizenry on a state level, and Federal authority to disrupt, irretrievably, commerce and society on a state level. The argument wasn't about whether we should give slaves a nice new pair of socks, it was about FREEING them.

This is silly. You're all arguing about the definition of the word "about". The Civil War was "about" states rights, commerce and sanctions, all of which were "about" the slave trade, which was "about" the United States of America abolishing slavery as an institution, which was "about" FREEING the slaves.

The Civil War was "about" slavery.

 

[Mountain Man]

However, FREEING slaves was the not original impetus of the Civil War.

Well...If you look at the Cessation documents of the Southern States..I would say that Slavery was THE REASON (highlights..links are at the botom)



Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union


The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852……

….This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

On the 4th day of March next, this party [Rebublicans in the North} will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States


A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.


In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.
The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.
The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.
The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.
It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.
It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.
It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.
It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.
It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.
It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.
It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.
It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.
It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.
It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.


Georgia

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war.



Texas

[Copied by Justin Sanders from E.W. Winkler, ed., Journal of the Secession Convention of Texas, pp. 61-66.]

A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union


We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.
That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.


Cessation Links

 

[Skibum]

I never said the goal of the U.S. government was freeing the slaves. I said the war was fought over the issue of slavery.

The Confederate States secceeded because they believed the election of Lincoln was going to lead to a freeing of the slaves.

The fact that Lincoln had no intention of doing so does not change the fact that Southern perceptions of his goal was the reason for seccession. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that southern paranioa over slavery was the cause of theCivil War.

 

[A Desert Rose]

Yes it was. Freeing the slaves was the issue, as it involved the Federal authority to define citizenry on a state level, and Federal authority to disrupt, irretrievably, commerce and society on a state level. The argument wasn't about whether we should give slaves a nice new pair of socks, it was about FREEING them.

This is silly. You're all arguing about the definition of the word "about". The Civil War was "about" states rights, commerce and sanctions, all of which were "about" the slave trade, which was "about" the United States of America abolishing slavery as an institution, which was "about" FREEING the slaves.

The Civil War was "about" slavery.

Yes, it is silly. It was about preventing the expansion of slavery to new states as they entered the Union. The Missouri Compromise ring a bell?

And yes, I agree it was about economics and commerce, too. No one factor is THE reason for it. But states rights was the catalyst.

In my opinion.....

 

[brokenbrainwave]

civ·il adj.
Of, relating to, or befitting a citizen or citizens: civil duties.
Of or relating to citizens and their interrelations with one another or with the state: civil society; the civil branches of government.
Of ordinary citizens or ordinary community life as distinguished from the military or the ecclesiastical: civil authorities.
Of or in accordance with organized society; civilized.
Sufficiently observing or befitting accepted social usages; not rude: a civil reply. See Synonyms at polite.
Being in accordance with or denoting legally recognized divisions of time: a civil year.
Law. Relating to the rights of private individuals and legal proceedings concerning these rights as distinguished from criminal, military, or international regulations or proceedings.


given the definition of the word civil, how can it be said it was about something other than slavery? It can be related to todays farmer using illegal's to harvest their crops, cheap labor.

 

[A Desert Rose]

given the definition of the word civil, how can it be said it was about something other than slavery? It can be related to todays farmer using illegal's to harvest their crops, cheap labor.

Now this is an entirely different issue. There is no comparison between slave labor/slave trade of 200 years ago and migrant workers today.

 

[brokenbrainwave]

Now this is an entirely different issue. There is no comparison between slave labor/slave trade of 200 years ago and migrant workers today.

was slave labor not really just about cheap labor for the plantation owners?