The American Civil War

[WSUCougar]

If possible (heh), I’d like to exchange a little intellectual discourse on the Civil War.

At the risk of starting a raging flamefest – at which point I would put on my cool Mod Squad robe and wizard hat and starting dealing out lightning bolts – I’d like for people to explore their sentiments about this watershed event in American history. Be as honest as you can, and as respectful as you can to other opinions.

To start things off, I’d like to toss out the following questions:

1. Almost 150 years after its ending, what’s your personal stance on the Civil War as a key event in American history? The question is intentionally open-ended. If you are African American I'd be particularly interested in hearing your opinion.

2. Why do you think there are many Americans who still deny that slavery was the principal cause of the war? This is not meant to anger those of you who feel that way, but from a scholarly perspective that viewpoint is definitely now in the minority.

3. What, if anything, do you think Americans can learn from the Civil War?

4. Do you visit Civil War battlefields and related sites, and if so, why?

5. Can you give a brief explanation of Reconstruction and its implications on American history?

[wade moore]

I don't want this to die a slow death. I intend to respond, just have to take some time with it.

[albionmoonlight]

1. As someone with connections to two prominent antebellum cities--New Orleans and Charleston, I sometimes wonder if there was anyway to avoid the War, though I don't know if that was possible. I also tend to think more about the effects of reconstruction than about the effects of the War itself--since Reconstruction caused so much damage to the areas which I use to define myself.

2. Residents of Charleston, SC like to joke that they are like the Chineese--they eat lots of rice and worship their ancestors. To point out an obvious point, for anyone who lives in the South or who had ancestors who lived in the South, the slavery dynamic causes one to view the War as the good Northerners who believed in freedom fighting the evil Southerners who beleived in human bondage. No one likes to think of themselves and their ancestors as evil. That natural instinct, coupled with the fact that the war was, in fact, motivated by a complex combination of factors, leads many to dismiss the importance of slavery as a motivation.

3. You cannot force people to agree to a government. People need to have faith that the majority will as exercised by the instruments of government will protect their minority rights. When people stop believing that their basic rights will be protected, they have no reason to submit their soverignity to a larger governmental unit. We should note this as we try to form a government in Iraq. Better to have a government that does not do much in the early stages--but one which people get used to trusting, than a government that makes 55% of the people happy in the hopes that the other 45% will just lie there and take it. They won't.

4. No. I'm more of a natural beauty person than a history person.

5. Had we had Lincoln's wisdom and compassion during Reconstruction, the South would have been a lot better off.

[albionmoonlight]

dola--those are just my uneducated off the cuff responses. I look forward to reading wade, Bucc, etc.'s more edcuated and enlightening views.

[JonInMiddleGA]

1. Almost 150 years after its ending, what’s your personal stance on the Civil War as a key event in American history?

Umm ... err ... oddly worded question or at least I'm not grasping what you're looking for here. Obviously it was a "key event in American history", but I don't think that's in dispute so agreement on that point isn't likely what you're looking for here. Are you looking for thoughts/feelings about the outcome? Or something else?

2. Why do you think there are many Americans who still deny that slavery was the principal cause of the war? This is not meant to anger those of you who feel that way, but from a scholarly perspective that viewpoint is definitely now in the minority.

Because it wasn't. That lie is as good an example as any of history being written by the victors. I'm not going to cry about the latter, but I'm not the least bit apologetic about not falling for it either.

3. What, if anything, do you think Americans can learn from the Civil War?
Well, it's a critical moment in the expansion of Federal power beyond what was intended.

4. Do you visit Civil War battlefields and related sites, and if so, why?


Yes, although not as an obsession or anything like that. I've been to several sites through the years but I've also been to the Alamo & want very much to visit Normandy as well (among others). I think seeing the sites adds a level of understanding to the particulars of the given era of combat and it's something I enjoy learning more about. As I've gotten older though, I've found the War of Northern Aggression battlefield sites less appealing due to the feeling of great sadness they bring to me; basically there's enough things in life to depress the hell out of me without intentionally adding another to the pile.

5. Can you give a brief explanation of Reconstruction and its implications on American history?
Occupying force descends upon its victim. Sets stage for more than a century of continued conflict (albeit one without much gunfire).

[moriarty]

:cheesy:
2. Why do you think there are many Americans who still deny that slavery was the principal cause of the war? This is not meant to anger those of you who feel that way, but from a scholarly perspective that viewpoint is definitely now in the minority.


I know I'm not answering your question, but I am one that thought slavery was not the principal cause of war. In fact, I recall being taught that by 'scholarly' sources (granted some time ago). When did the scholarly perspective change on this, and what is the general reasoning?

[Warhammer]

:cheesy:

I know I'm not answering your question, but I am one that thought slavery was not the principal cause of war. In fact, I recall being taught that by 'scholarly' sources (granted some time ago). When did the scholarly perspective change on this, and what is the general reasoning?

It changed over the last 10 or so years. Primarily because the factors that people were listing always were traced back to slavery. If it was economics that cause the war, what was the main difference in economic systems? Slavery. Was it social issues? What were the social differences? Slavery.
Why did the South vote for everyone but Lincoln? His views on, you guessed it, slavery.

Now, that was the reason for the South seceeding from the North. Lincoln did not go to war to free the slaves, he wanted to preserve the Union. However, had the South not seceeded, the war would never have been fought. Therefore, since the South seceeded due to slavery issues/fears, etc., the war would never have been fought.

[WSUCougar]

Jon: The first question is open-ended to encourage a wide range of possible responses. For example, my response would be that I find the Civil War a fascinating treasure-trove of military, social, and political themes that resonate so much it can make your head spin.

As to the second question, you clearly disagree with slavery as the principal cause of the war, to put it mildly. :D So let me ask you this: what role do you feel slavery had in the relationship between the North and South between 1787 and 1861?

moriarity: I don't want to aggravate anyone's sensitivities on this point, but let's just say for now that the Civil War has been wreathed in a great deal of interpretive direction and misdirection over the years.

[NoMyths]

1. Almost 150 years after its ending, what’s your personal stance on the Civil War as a key event in American history? The question is intentionally open-ended. If you are African American I'd be particularly interested in hearing your opinion.

The Civil War opened up the national discourse to something larger that provincial lawmaking and culture. It was the birth of America as a country, rather than a collection of competing regions. Also got hundreds of thousands of Americans out walking the land and visiting different parts, which was vastly different. Also resulted in America finally embracing (or starting to) it's most critical beliefs about human rights and freedom.

2. Why do you think there are many Americans who still deny that slavery was the principal cause of the war? This is not meant to anger those of you who feel that way, but from a scholarly perspective that viewpoint is definitely now in the minority.

Because slavery wasn't the principal cause of the war. It played a large and important role, but don't underestimate how things like tax rates and local vs. national power played out. South Carolina had been led for years by the rhetoric of John C. Calhoun (whose statue still towers above town), and his was a fight for political power. In most ways it was a war over culture and economics, with an incredibly critical side pot.

3. What, if anything, do you think Americans can learn from the Civil War?

That America shouldn't have to fall apart and murder half a million of its citizens in order to rediscover its virtues and cause. That an argument can begin about one thing and end considering something more important.

4. Do you visit Civil War battlefields and related sites, and if so, why?

Yes. I'm a Civil War buff.

5. Can you give a brief explanation of Reconstruction and its implications on American history?

Sure, but very briefly. The South turned into Iraq, the north's equivalents of Halliburton came in to reestablish infrastructure, and the south became financially dependent on their enemies for help. It didn't bring the cultures together -- it underlined their differences and focused attention on class (as most things do). Lots of corruption and pocket-lining. Lots of fortunes wiped out. Lots of shadiness and crime.

On thestrong other hand, Lincoln extending the olive branch to the rebels was critical, and certainly steered things in the right direction.

[moriarty]

It changed over the last 10 or so years. Primarily because the factors that people were listing always were traced back to slavery. If it was economics that cause the war, what was the main difference in economic systems? Slavery. Was it social issues? What were the social differences? Slavery.
Why did the South vote for everyone but Lincoln? His views on, you guessed it, slavery.

Now, that was the reason for the South seceeding from the North. Lincoln did not go to war to free the slaves, he wanted to preserve the Union. However, had the South not seceeded, the war would never have been fought. Therefore, since the South seceeded due to slavery issues/fears, etc., the war would never have been fought.

Ahh, good insight (safe to say it's been 10 years since I've been in school).

[flere-imsaho]

What I find interesting is that if you look at any Presidential election results from after the Civil War until the present day you'll see that the "Old South" pretty much votes in opposition to "The Union" ( + California). This suggests to me that there continues to be a great difference in thinking between these two parts of the country. Maybe that's obvious, but....

[moriarty]

moriarity: I don't want to aggravate anyone's sensitivities on this point, but let's just say for now that the Civil War has been wreathed in a great deal of interpretive direction and misdirection over the years.

Not aggrivating me anyways - i was just genuinely curious. I've read a lot about WWI and WWII, but have never read any of the recent material on the Civil War. Sounds like I should go to the library.

[scooter]

I've often wondered at what age can kids start to really grasp the ideas and implications of the War Between the States. I went to a middle school in IL that had a whole year course of study about the Revolutionary War and the WBTS (7th grade). It really turned me on to learning about history and the history of the birth of our nation in particular. The school year culminated in a 2 week trip to VA, PA and DC to visit some of the important sites there. It is one of my most life-changing experiences.

I enjoy walking the battlefields and reading the books. It gives me an appreciation for what others before me went through. I can see both sides of the conflict. And at the time, neither side thought of themselves as evil (they definitely saw the other side as evil). I try to keep that in mind when I try to get my head around why they fought this war.

[WSUCougar]

I would encourage everyone to jump in comment in this thread. Don't be put off by my questions or be in anyway shy or intimidated. I'm genuinely interested in hearing more opinions on this subject.

[Dutch]

What I find interesting is that if you look at any Presidential election results from after the Civil War until the present day you'll see that the "Old South" pretty much votes in opposition to "The Union" ( + California). This suggests to me that there continues to be a great difference in thinking between these two parts of the country. Maybe that's obvious, but....

That may be more due to the more obvious ubran/rural split.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Jon: The first question is open-ended to encourage a wide range of possible responses.

Fair enough. I just thought I was missing some otherwise obvious direction or something.

So let me ask you this: what role do you feel slavery had in the relationship between the North and South between 1787 and 1861?

It was more symptom than cause IMO. For slavery to have been the root cause, it would have had to have been enough to start the war without any economic impact. I don't believe it would have been, i.e. in the absence of economic implications, slavery in & of itself isn't an issue worth the cost of war.

Further, I don't believe that economics were the sole/primary cause of the War either. Ultimately, I believe that comes down to a much simpler or baser issue: Who has the power to make the rules.

[GoldenEagle]

I guess others have said it, but I am going to elaborate a bit more on it. The initial cause of the war was not slavery. The succession of the Union is what caused the war to begin with. Slavery was certainly an issue, but it was not the principal cause of the war. The South’s political beliefs were more of what the United States was originally founded on. Slavery certainly became a battle cry toward the end of the war, but I would have to disagree with it being the reason why the war was started.

Warhammer and others make good points. Slavery was the biggest issue. However, slavery did not start the war. I also disagree with the theory that the South is in denial over why the war was started.

[GrantDawg]

I don't believe it would have been, i.e. in the absence of economic implications, slavery in & of itself isn't an issue worth the cost of war.



Just to be clear on that statement, you do not believe the South would have fought a war just to keep slavery?

[st.cronin]

In broad perspective, it was a war which determined whether America would be an Imperial power or a Marginal power; the North winning meant that America was bound to be an Imperial power (although there are those, even today, who still resist and deny this destiny).

Had the South won (or had the North's victory been less than total), America would be a marginal power, without even regional hegemony.

[wishbone]

1. It happened a long time ago and I don't understand why anyone would be proud of what happened. I respect the people of the time for defending what they thought was right but don't like what happened.

2. I was tought and agree that slavery was a major issue, but I think even if slavery had been outlawed there would have been another issue at some point that would have caused a state to want to withdraw from the United States. Scholar schmolar, they change their minds so often I could care less what the academic community thinks about any issue.

3. In order to win a war, you must have both the tools/weaponry and the leadership. Once the Union had adequate leadership they started winning. I think it's also another example of people fighting without understanding why they are fighting and the limitations they have. Americans and it's troops need to know why they are fighting and how they need to fight.


4. No, I live in Oregon. If I was to go cross-country to visit historical sites, Civil War sites would be a low priority.

5. All I know is what was in Gone With the Wind


Is this a homework assignment or what?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Just to be clear on that statement, you do not believe the South would have fought a war just to keep slavery?

Not in & of itself (trying to differentiate between the institution itself & the right to determine its own institutions)

[albionmoonlight]

Not in & of itself (trying to differentiate between the institution itself & the right to determine its own institutions)

I still don't think that most people really care about who makes the rules--except as an intellectual matter. Once you get to issues that really matter to people--abortion, slavery, taxes, gun control, etc., etc., etc., it seems that people care more about the rules being imposed on them (or the governmental decision not to impose rules) than they do about who is imposing the rules.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I still don't think that most people really care about who makes the rules--except as an intellectual matter.

Sometimes that last bit there is plenty enough.


it seems that people care more about the rules being imposed on them (or the governmental decision not to impose rules) than they do about who is imposing the rules.

Again though (and more back to where I was at originally), what might be ... unpalatable (pick a word) if your government did it becomes intolerable if another government did it.

And that probably takes us back to a core issue that led to the war -- the feeling was that "us" = the sovereign states while "them" = the federal government. That's an issue that proved to be quite troublesome for the C.S.A. as well (and is something tackled in a book I just picked up but haven't had a chance to start yet Dixie Betrayed: How the South Really Lost the Civil War).

[albionmoonlight]

Sometimes that last bit there is plenty enough.




Again though (and more back to where I was at originally), what might be ... unpalatable (pick a word) if your government did it becomes intolerable if another government did it.

And that probably takes us back to a core issue that led to the war -- the feeling was that "us" = the sovereign states while "them" = the federal government. That's an issue that proved to be quite troublesome for the C.S.A. as well (and is something tackled in a book I just picked up but haven't had a chance to start yet Dixie Betrayed: How the South Really Lost the Civil War).

OK, I see your point now. The idea wasn't (as it is today) the issue of how to divide responsibility between two soverigns (the state and the fed) that the vast majority of people agree have the legitimacy to rule. The issue was whether one of the soverigns was, in fact, legitimate (or--if it was legitimate, whether steps should be taken to divest it of that legitimacy).

I agree that that is a very different issue.

[lungs]

I'd have let them go their own way.

[Honolulu Blue]

What I find interesting is that if you look at any Presidential election results from after the Civil War until the present day you'll see that the "Old South" pretty much votes in opposition to "The Union" ( + California). This suggests to me that there continues to be a great difference in thinking between these two parts of the country. Maybe that's obvious, but....

Your conclusion is all right, but the facts are off.

From the end of Reconstruction through 1960, the Southern states all pretty much went for the Democratic candidate. I think we all understand why.

Between '60 and '64 the Democrats started to get serious about civil rights and desegretation. With the '64 election, the South shifted toward the Republicans, where they remain to this day.

This site (http://www.presidentelect.org/) tells the Electoral College story.

[flere-imsaho]

That may be more due to the more obvious ubran/rural split.

In that "The North" is more urban than "The South"?

[flere-imsaho]

Your conclusion is all right, but the facts are off.

No they're not. Look at any contested election since 1860. The "Old South" votes for one candidate, the "Union" votes for the other. Regardless of the party.

There are some exceptions, but generally it's the rule: http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/

[st.cronin]

Had the South won, its fair to say slavery as an institution would have continued for many year, and its debatable as to what the status of civil rights today would have been.

That may or may not be true, but I maintain that American global hegemony only became possible because of how the Civil War was resolved.

[Crapshoot]

In broad perspective, it was a war which determined whether America would be an Imperial power or a Marginal power; the North winning meant that America was bound to be an Imperial power (although there are those, even today, who still resist and deny this destiny).

Had the South won (or had the North's victory been less than total), America would be a marginal power, without even regional hegemony.

Had the South won, its fair to say slavery as an institution would have continued for many year, and its debatable as to what the status of "civil rights" would have been.

Its also interesting to think about the connatations of WW II in this scenario (if you assume a WW II would still have happened, which seems to me a reasonable expectation) - the South would have been more natural Axis allies in their quest to create a second front on the American mainland - more so than Japan.

[Arctus]

Had the South won, its fair to say slavery as an institution would have continued for many year, and its debatable as to what the status of "civil rights" would have been.

I don't think its fair to say that at all.

And for the record, I'm a transplanted northerner living in Richmond, VA.

[Crapshoot]

I don't think its fair to say that at all.

And for the record, I'm a transplanted northerner living in Richmond, VA.

Okay, let me first state that I don't think that a 100 years down the line, slavery would have still continued. I assume that the idea of basic human rights would have dawned in the South eventually. Nonetheless, I do hink its likely that it would have continued for some time, if only because of the attitude that JIMGA pointed out - that getting rid of slavery was a "Northern" idea, and upholding slavery may have had as much to do with a "rebuk" to the north as with Southern beliefs on the issue.

[Grunthos]

Wow, I just lost a nice, long, well-crafted response because the server decided I wasn't logged in even when I had to be to start the post in the first place. Nice.

I'm not composing that one again. Sorry.

[GrantDawg]

Had the South won, its fair to say slavery as an institution would have continued for many year, and its debatable as to what the status of "civil rights" would have been.

Its also interesting to think about the connotations of WW II in this scenario (if you assume a WW II would still have happened, which seems to me a reasonable expectation) - the South would have been more natural Axis allies in their quest to create a second front on the American mainland - more so than Japan.

I don't think that slavery could have continued for much longer. The South were rapidly losing trading partners because of slavery, and eventually it would have become economically inviable. It would have eventually ended, but you are right on the civil rights front. The rights of Blacks and other minorities would have been "slave-like" forever if the "states-rights" agenda would have continued. I've always been torn on the states right/ federalization issue. I think in todays world, states rights no longer is even a viable option.

[st.cronin]

I don't think slavery would have lasted long in the South, had they won the war. Maybe a generation, at most - there was already significant abolitionist thinking among the intelligensia of the CSA, for a variety of ethical and economic concerns.

It's certainly possible that it would have lasted; it's also possible that it would have been abolished in such a way that racism would not be an issue in this continent. I don't really think anybody has any way of knowing.

[Crapshoot]

I don't think slavery would have lasted long in the South, had they won the war. Maybe a generation, at most - there was already significant abolitionist thinking among the intelligensia of the CSA, for a variety of ethical and economic concerns.

It's certainly possible that it would have lasted; it's also possible that it would have been abolished in such a way that racism would not be an issue in this continent. I don't really think anybody has any way of knowing.

Can we concede that as of 1865, given a Southern victory, slavery would have continued in the South ? You cite a generation as a short term prognosis - is it then fair to see slavery would in all likelyhood have continued up until the start of the 20th century (30 years roughly, one generation?) ?

[Honolulu Blue]

Look at any contested election since 1860. The "Old South" votes for one candidate, the "Union" votes for the other. Regardless of the party.

There are some exceptions, but generally it's the rule: http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/

Thanks for the site.

I think we're arguing about the same thing. I say the South supported Democrats until '64 and Republicans after that - which is absolutely true, with the exceptions of locally appealing independents. You say there's a split between what the "Old South" does and the "Union". This is less true:

* Both North and South voted for FDR in all four elections
* Both North and South voted for Tricky Dick in '72
* Both North and South voted for Reagan in '80 and '84

[JonInMiddleGA]

Can we concede that as of 1865, given a Southern victory, slavery would have continued in the South ?

I'm not sure I'd say it had a 30 year timeline left in it (I'd probably be more of a mind to argue that it would have varied from state-to-state, as little as 5 years to as many as 25 or 30), but FWIW, I wouldn't take issue at all with stipulating that it wouldn't have ended immediately at the conclusion of the war.

[GrantDawg]

Can we concede that as of 1865, given a Southern victory, slavery would have continued in the South ? You cite a generation as a short term prognosis - is it then fair to see slavery would in all likelyhood have continued up until the start of the 20th century (30 years roughly, one generation?) ?

I don't. I'd say no more than 10 years.

[st.cronin]

Can we concede that as of 1865, given a Southern victory, slavery would have continued in the South ? You cite a generation as a short term prognosis - is it then fair to see slavery would in all likelyhood have continued up until the start of the 20th century (30 years roughly, one generation?) ?

I will concede that if you like, simply because I think it's a moot point, but I can think of any number of scenarios under which it would have gone away faster (or slower) than that.

I think the Civil War was our counter-Revolution; and that it's implications were American Empire. Slavery was the issue of the day, it could as easily have been about immigration or taxation, but it was an inevitable conflict (although not inevitably a war).

[Tigercat]

The Civil War was part II of the American Revolution. It was not intially dedicated to slavery, but to deciding under what conditions the union could be devided under.

Thankfully, the union decided it was not right for division after an election loss or over the desire to continue slavery indefinitely.

Slavery was the fuel for the Civil War, but it was NOT the engine that drove it into motion. That engine was the nature of our federal government. An issue that Lincoln states himself in more speeches than he talks about slavery being important to the war.

[Tigercat]

I think the Civil War was our counter-Revolution; and that it's implications were American Empire. Slavery was the issue of the day, it could as easily have been about immigration or taxation, but it was an inevitable conflict (although not inevitably a war).

Dola, I much agree with this.

[tanglewood]

As a non-American European...

1. Almost 150 years after its ending, what’s your personal stance on the Civil War as a key event in American history? The question is intentionally open-ended. If you are African American I'd be particularly interested in hearing your opinion.

The US Civil War irrevocably changed the political landscape of the US. As flere pointed out it is the root of the essential North/South divide still present in US politics to this day. Ultimately howver, beside that somewhat minor point, the US Civil War ultimately changed very little, as Black Americans moved from literal slavery to merely technical slavery. It was the lack of Federal intervention in the South immediatley after the Civil War that caused the collapse of reconstruction and then the sheer incompetence of decisions such as Plessy vs Ferguson that lead to very little changing for Black Americans in the United States until at least the Civil Rights Act, and realistically the sentiment still lurks in the deepest channels of the American psyche. It has taken 150 years of gentle progress since the abolition of slevery for Black Americans to attain anything even resembling equality in US society. It could be argued that the ACW was the ultimate cause of such progress, but I believe that such a shift would have eventully occured regardless. In the end it has been Black American's own efforts in the 1950s-present that has caused improvement in their situation, not any federal bill or decree.

2. Why do you think there are many Americans who still deny that slavery was the principal cause of the war? This is not meant to anger those of you who feel that way, but from a scholarly perspective that viewpoint is definitely now in the minority.

I can only attribute it to denial. I agree with whoever said that people don't want to see their ancestors as 'the bad guys' (although modern Germany has shown this certainly is possible). Any argument over what lead to the US Civil War other than slavery ultimately leads back to slavery any case. Economics? The main, indeed almost sole, economic difference was that the South was so structured around slave-driven plantations and the North was on the way to industrialisation. Federal power? The federal power that the South was attempting to resist was the North's (percieved) effort to ban slavery! Essentially, if the rich white slave owners, who dominanted the politics of the South, had not felt threatened by the possibilty of slavery being removed from them there would have been no impetus for a civil war.

3. What, if anything, do you think Americans can learn from the Civil War?

I think that the still present pride in Confederate history is bizzare and to a large extent, most repugnant and would hope it would dissapear as the event becomes more removed and disassociated from present Southerners. I would also hope that Americans can finally accept that slavery and persecution of Black Americans is an integral part of their history and an intrinsic part of what it is to be American. Only by universal recognition of this fact can the subversive strains of society who, conciously or otherwise, draw upon it for their dangerous means be eradicated.

4. Do you visit Civil War battlefields and related sites, and if so, why?

No I never have, and not sure if I ever would. I find battle sites generally uniteresting and not necessarily educationally worthwhile visiting them. A part of me also finds the fetishising of such sites, especially those of Nazi, Confederate or other 'bad guy' victories, disconcerting.

5. Can you give a brief explanation of Reconstruction and its implications on American history?

Reconstruction governments were no more or less efficient or corrupt than the White governments before the Civil War. However they were infinitley more desirable as they were more representative of the population, ergo more democratic. However as they were of an entirely artifical construction they could never have hoped to survive without federal support, which was of course almost non-existent and in any case promptly removed. That a few reconstruction goverments lasted almost 30 years is a testament to how succesfully popular democractic goverments can resist in the face of attack. The blatant lies, both in academia and in popular society, that shaped the American public's view of reconstruction are nothing short of disgraceful and among the lowest point of American history.

[Jas_lov]

Thanks for the site.

I think we're arguing about the same thing. I say the South supported Democrats until '64 and Republicans after that - which is absolutely true, with the exceptions of locally appealing independents. You say there's a split between what the "Old South" does and the "Union". This is less true:

* Both North and South voted for FDR in all four elections
* Both North and South voted for Tricky Dick in '72
* Both North and South voted for Reagan in '80 and '84


Not to get between you guys, be he did say every contested election. the elections you have mentioned were landslides where one candidate (Hoover, Carter) was substantially weaker than the stronger candidate such as FDR and Reagan. I think it's hard to argue that they don't vote differently in cases where it's somewhat of a question as to who will win, to this day even as the Union plus California voted for Gore and Kerry and the South and Midwest voted for Bush.

[Tigercat]

Anyone who thinks that slavery didn't play a large role in the Civil War is crazy.

The problem comes with the implications that the Civil War was intiated and meant to be a war of moral correction against the evils of slavery. Which is just plain wrong, and puts both sides and the entire war into the wrong historical perspective.

[Honolulu Blue]

Not to get between you guys, be he did say every contested election. the elections you have mentioned were landslides where one candidate (Hoover, Carter) was substantially weaker than the stronger candidate such as FDR and Reagan. I think it's hard to argue that they don't vote differently in cases where it's somewhat of a question as to who will win, to this day even as the Union plus California voted for Gore and Kerry and the South and Midwest voted for Bush.

Fair point. I could split hairs and say that every election was "contested" because there was a Democrat and a Republican in each of them, but I won't.

I hereby withdraw my criticism. I still think we're saying the same thing two different ways.

[MrBigglesworth]

It was more symptom than cause IMO. For slavery to have been the root cause, it would have had to have been enough to start the war without any economic impact. I don't believe it would have been, i.e. in the absence of economic implications, slavery in & of itself isn't an issue worth the cost of war.

Further, I don't believe that economics were the sole/primary cause of the War either. Ultimately, I believe that comes down to a much simpler or baser issue: Who has the power to make the rules.
I don't understand this at all. Slavery's economic impact is WHY the south wanted to keep it. They weren't keeping slaves around for kicks, they were keeping them around because they could make more money with them. Of course, if you divorced slavery from economics, it wouldn't cause a war. Similarly with your second paragraph, the decisions that the South had problems with were economic (slavery, tariffs, etc).

"Who has the power to make the rules" is so general that it can be cited as the cause for nearly every war ever conducted.

[GrantDawg]

I don't understand this at all. Slavery's economic impact is WHY the south wanted to keep it. They weren't keeping slaves around for kicks, they were keeping them around because they could make more money with them. Of course, if you divorced slavery from economics, it wouldn't cause a war. Similarly with your second paragraph, the decisions that the South had problems with were economic (slavery, tariffs, etc).

"Who has the power to make the rules" is so general that it can be cited as the cause for nearly every war ever conducted.

But the cost of keeping up slavery was quickly catching up with the cost ending slavery. European powers were growing more and more anti-slavery, and without trading partners the South would have had to give up slavery in order to survive.

[st.cronin]

I am always amazed at the contradiction between the Revolutionary War and the Civil War (or the War Between the States; War of Northern Aggression.)

No where in the constitution was it written that once a member of the Union you could not leave it. Repugnant as the reason for the South's wanting to succeed was (slavery, pure and simple) the principle that allowed the New England colonies to split from British rule was pretty much the same one the South used as its model to split from the north and one the north deemed fit to deny for its own interests.

Yes. On the other hand, the war's been fought, and the issue decided.

[Bubba Wheels]

I am always amazed at the contradiction between the Revolutionary War and the Civil War (or the War Between the States; War of Northern Aggression.)

No where in the constitution was it written that once a member of the Union you could not leave it. Repugnant as the reason for the South's wanting to succeed was (slavery, pure and simple) the principle that allowed the New England colonies to split from British rule was pretty much the same one the South used as its model to split from the north and one the north deemed fit to deny for its own interests.

[SFL Cat]

While slavery in and of itself wasn't the single cause of the war, it was what ignited the conflict and was used by the North as a basis for the "morality" of its actions. Obviously economic factors were involved as well, but one can't deny that the South's economy was built on the backs of slave labor.

I think the war between the states came down to this question: "who utlimately makes the rules," a centralized federal government or individual sovereign states. It was a case of the South telling the Union, "you can't dictate to us how to conduct our personal and business affairs within our borders."

[MrBigglesworth]

I am always amazed at the contradiction between the Revolutionary War and the Civil War (or the War Between the States; War of Northern Aggression.)

No where in the constitution was it written that once a member of the Union you could not leave it. Repugnant as the reason for the South's wanting to succeed was (slavery, pure and simple) the principle that allowed the New England colonies to split from British rule was pretty much the same one the South used as its model to split from the north and one the north deemed fit to deny for its own interests.
Difference is that the colonies beat Britian, while the South could not defeat the North.

[MrBigglesworth]

But the cost of keeping up slavery was quickly catching up with the cost ending slavery. European powers were growing more and more anti-slavery, and without trading partners the South would have had to give up slavery in order to survive.
I agree, but that is not necessarily how the South saw it at the time. I don't think there is any doubt that they wanted to continue slavery as long as possible, and didn't think Lincoln was on that same wavelength.

[SFL Cat]

The battle over the "morality" of slavery was a major and divisive issue at the time. To deny this is ludicrous.

[st.cronin]

I agree, but that is not necessarily how the South saw it at the time. I don't think there is any doubt that they wanted to continue slavery as long as possible, and didn't think Lincoln was on that same wavelength.

I have heard of evidence that the C.S.A. government, if they won, planned to abolish slavery. I don't really know, and I suspect nobody does; obviously one spark for the war was slavery, and the possibility that it could be outlawed in one state by voters in another state. But another spark for the war was our westward expansion. Had America maintained her borders, would the conflict have been inevitable? I think not. I think, even though the parties involved didn't realize it, that the war was really about whether America was to be a world power or not.

[Tigercat]

The battle over the "morality" of slavery was a major and divisive issue at the time. To deny this is ludicrous.

Wasn't one of the major causes of the Civil War, however. The South didn't succeed because they disagreed with the Norths moral beliefs. The North wasn't ready for war because of a moral stance.

[DaddyTorgo]

aargh. I love this thread but I refuse to read it all on my phone to comment intelligently. oh nuts!!

[MrBigglesworth]

2. Why do you think there are many Americans who still deny that slavery was the principal cause of the war? This is not meant to anger those of you who feel that way, but from a scholarly perspective that viewpoint is definitely now in the minority.
I think it is because everyone is anti-slavery now, and it's kind of embaressing to say you helped start a war because you wanted to keep slaves.

4. Do you visit Civil War battlefields and related sites, and if so, why?
I visit Gettysburg fairly often. It looks mostly like how it looked in the early 1860's. It's a very powerful place to be, you can feel the history there.

[SFL Cat]

Wasn't one of the major causes of the Civil War, however. The South didn't succeed because they disagreed with the Norths moral beliefs. The North wasn't ready for war because of a moral stance.

Yes, it was one of the major issues that launched the war. "Anti-slavery" was one of Lincoln's major campaign issues. When he was elected, many in the South felt it was only a matter of time before the federal government outlawed slavery. It was Lincoln's election that immediately spurred South Carolina to convene its state assembly and vote to withdraw from the Union.

Even those in the South who felt slavery wasn't a "moral" institution viewed such a move by the federal government as a "slippery slope" that would elevate Washington to imperial status, dictating policy and law to the states on all matters. In one sense, they were correct in this assumption.

[Dutch]

I visit Gettysburg fairly often. It looks mostly like how it looked in the early 1860's. It's a very powerful place to be, you can feel the history there.

I will be visiting Vickburg again in a couple of weeks. That's a pretty remarkable battlefield to visit. The confederate cannon line was so close to union trenches that they could probably see the whites of each others eyes...two months of hell, no doubt.

[Bubba Wheels]

Well, while slavery was the 'economic model' that powered the South, the heart of the conflict was the land owning agricultural southerners wanting no part of becoming like those 'wage slaves' working in the industrial north. Even though only 1 in 10 southerners actually owned slaves most realized industrial expansion would threaten their life-styles. Folks will fight for a life-style, even those that didn't own the slaves.

[GoldenEagle]

I know this is going off on a tangent from the original post, but I think the most fascinating point of the war to me was how the Southern Generals managed to hold on for as long as they did. This was the classic David vs. Goliath episode. The Union had just about every advantage available at the time. There is a plausible theory going around that if the South would have received supplies from Europe, it would have won the war.

I think the Southern Generals did make mistakes. I think going into the North was a mistake, particularly at Gettysburg and Antietam. I read something once (and I do not have the source) that said that if the CSA would not have fought these two battles, it would have had the resources to hold out for up to three more years.

So, what in your mind sticks out the most about the Civil War?

[SFL Cat]

The South was going for a quick victory by invading and capturing Washington DC. And why not? Up until Gettysburg, the South had pretty much been kickin' the Yankee's butt. I think most Southern generals realized that in a protracted conflict, the North would ultimately win by attrition, especially since the North had an advantage in 1) Navy; 2) Equipment; 3) Manpower

[JonInMiddleGA]

The South was going for a quick victory by invading and capturing Washington DC. And why not? Up until Gettysburg, the South had pretty much been kickin' the Yankee's butt. I think most Southern generals realized that in a protracted conflict, the North would ultimately win by attrition, especially since the North had an advantage in 1) Navy; 2) Equipment; 3) Manpower

WYS.

[MrBigglesworth]

I have heard of evidence that the C.S.A. government, if they won, planned to abolish slavery. I don't really know, and I suspect nobody does; obviously one spark for the war was slavery, and the possibility that it could be outlawed in one state by voters in another state. But another spark for the war was our westward expansion. Had America maintained her borders, would the conflict have been inevitable? I think not. I think, even though the parties involved didn't realize it, that the war was really about whether America was to be a world power or not.
The major issue over expansion was slavery. The north wanted to expand in the north to create more free states, the south wanted to expand in the south to create more slave states. Who are you saying were the isolationist ones? I'm assuming the South since the North ended up expanding, but you are forgetting about the fillibusterers.

[Crapshoot]

Well, while slavery was the 'economic model' that powered the South, the heart of the conflict was the land owning agricultural southerners wanting no part of becoming like those 'wage slaves' working in the industrial north. Even though only 1 in 10 southerners actually owned slaves most realized industrial expansion would threaten their life-styles. Folks will fight for a life-style, even those that didn't own the slaves.

Agreed - I think we all agree that many of the southerners, as has been discussed here, fought for the right to do it their way. I understand that, but it still strikes me as morally repugnant to argue that their right to do it their way superceded the Southern black's rights to basic human rights.

[GoldenEagle]

The South was going for a quick victory by invading and capturing Washington DC. And why not? Up until Gettysburg, the South had pretty much been kickin' the Yankee's butt. I think most Southern generals realized that in a protracted conflict, the North would ultimately win by attrition, especially since the North had an advantage in 1) Navy; 2) Equipment; 3) Manpower

That is an interesting proposition. The South could have marched right into Washington D.C. after the first battle at Manassas had they wanted to. They elected not to, and the scholarly interpretation of why they did not makes sense. It goes something along the lines that the army the South had they day was too unorganized to march into D.C. I am sure they would have met some resistance eventually, but could holding Washington D.C for the first couple of weeks of the war make a difference?

[sabotai]

*wonders where Buc is....*

[flere-imsaho]

Thanks for the site.

I think we're arguing about the same thing. I say the South supported Democrats until '64 and Republicans after that - which is absolutely true, with the exceptions of locally appealing independents. You say there's a split between what the "Old South" does and the "Union". This is less true:

* Both North and South voted for FDR in all four elections
* Both North and South voted for Tricky Dick in '72
* Both North and South voted for Reagan in '80 and '84

We are arguing the same thing. Note that I said contested elections (i.e. ones that weren't a landslide). I think we're on the same page.

Edit: Yeah, should have read the rest of Page One first, clearly. :)

[clintl]

What I find interesting is that if you look at any Presidential election results from after the Civil War until the present day you'll see that the "Old South" pretty much votes in opposition to "The Union" ( + California).

California was part of "The Union". It became a state in 1850.

[flere-imsaho]

I am sure they would have met some resistance eventually, but could holding Washington D.C for the first couple of weeks of the war make a difference?

I think this can be overstated. For one, Washington had been, at that point, the capitol for about 50 years. It had a symbolic significance, sure, but not a massive one.

Two, Washington didn't have a big economic or military importance, compared to other Union cities. The Union government could just have regrouped in New York and kept on fighting.

To use a historical precedent, note that Henry V of England captured and occupied Paris for years (as did his successor Regent government), and even had a couple of coronations there, yet the French eventually regrouped and won the 100 Years' War.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

I think the war between the states came down to this question: "who utlimately makes the rules," a centralized federal government or individual sovereign states. It was a case of the South telling the Union, "you can't dictate to us how to conduct our personal and business affairs within our borders."

This really doesn't seem to track. There have been intense and heated debates and conflicts over federalism since before we even were the United States. But the only time it's come to violence (or anywhere near it) was over slavery (and subsequently over the civil rights of blacks in the South). It seems like the political processes of the United States were really quite capable with regards to solving the problems of federalism as they emerged (and for the most part have continued to be so). It is just this one particular issue, slavery, that was incapable of resolution through political means. It seems that slavery was more the problem than the political structure...

[-Mojo Jojo-]

We are arguing the same thing. Note that I said contested elections (i.e. ones that weren't a landslide). I think we're on the same page.


So, in other words, when the North and South vote together it's a landslide, and when they don't it's contested, and, truly it's remarkable that when elections are contested the North and South vote on different sides. :p

But I know what you're saying... :)

[st.cronin]

The major issue over expansion was slavery. The north wanted to expand in the north to create more free states, the south wanted to expand in the south to create more slave states. Who are you saying were the isolationist ones? I'm assuming the South since the North ended up expanding, but you are forgetting about the fillibusterers.

No, I'm not saying it was a conflict between imperialism and isolationism. I'm saying that without the expansion, it's possible the war could have been avoided, because there wouldn't have been the same pressure on the various institutions..

[JonInMiddleGA]

It is just this one particular situation, which was tantamount to the economic destruction of an entire region that was incapable of resolution through political means.

I didn't really "fix that for ya", but I edited it to be a better description IMO.
And could probably throw in "the unlawful denial of property rights" for good measure to boot (although that really probably boils right back down to economics).

[Buccaneer]

Oh great, we finally get another Civil War thread going and I have to get ready to leave on a vacation. :(

[Thomkal]

My background is Social Studies Education, and the 1800's America have been one of major areas of interest. So I have studied the Civil War and the events leading up to it a great deal. There were multiple causes to the war, and to say that slavery was not a major cause or even the cause of the war is not an opinion I can agree with.

If you look back to the 1820's and even earlier, slavery was tied into many a political discussion as the young country tried to determine its future. The Missouri Compromise dealt with it, and so 30 years later did the Compromise of 1850 and other political debates and laws in between. Clearly politically the country was coming to head on a decision over slavery. And the discussion began to turn more and more violent with "Bloody Kansas" and John Brown. Religion/morality began to gain more of an importance in the slavery question with the rise of the abolitionists and the gradual turn away from slavery by Europe.

Economics was certainly a cause of the Civil War-but the economy of the South was largely based on slave labor. The North was happy to reap the benefits of that early on, but then they soon began to develop their own economy, a more industrial one, and that helped the two sides to grow apart.

State vs Federal control of the government was certainly a cause of the Civil War, and was likely the inital spark. But slavery was certainly behind that as well as many of the Southern politicians were slaveowners. They were trying to hold on to their power at the time of the Civil War, and that power was gained in large part through slavery. The election of Lincoln sent shockwaves through the Southern leadership because they knew that he would continue to push for slavery limits.

Slavery was intertwined into all the causes of the War. Events like Bloody Kansas and John Brown were the signs that a major conflict could erupt at any time over the issue of slavery. Slavery was a major cause of the War and I'm not sure how anyone can deny that.

What would have happened had the South won the Civil War? I think slavery would have continued, but its time was short. European objections to slavery would have led to blockades and other economic sanctions. The abolitionists wouldn't have gone away. It would become economically, morally, and politically more and more difficult to keep the "peculiar institution" going after a long drawn out war that exhausted both sides, but more so the South. Eventually yet another political compromise would have ended slavery.

For those who like alternate history, you might take a look at Steven Barnes Lion's Blood, a novel about what it would have been like had the Africans and Europeans had their roles reversed-the Africans were the power of the day, the explorers-the Europeans living more tribal existences and ending up becoming slaves to the Africans in the New World. A fascinating what if? type of book.

[JW]

It is easy to mix up immediate causes and background causes, or proximate and longterm causes. It is also easy to oversimplify.

The proximate cause of the US entry into World War II was the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor. But there is much more in the background, enough to write books about.

If we want to focus on the proximate causes of the Civil War, I think we have to start with the election of Lincoln. The election of Lincoln triggered the secession of Southern states and a sequence of events that led to war.

But why was the election of Lincoln so important? It goes back to slavery. The election of Lincoln was seen by Southerners as a direct attack on the future of slavery.

If you want to verify that, just read what the major players were saying at the time. I have always believed that they knew better than we do why the Civil War happened.

Lincoln himself said in his first inaugural: "One section of our country believes slavery is right, and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong, and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial difference."

James Buchanan believed the same thing, thinking that secession could be prevented only by easing Southern fears about slavery.

And Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens pointed out days after his inauguration that the Confederacy "rests upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition."

If you read what others said at the time, it is clear that the slavery question was central to secession in 1860 and 1861. A good book to read on that is Days of Defiance by Maury Klein.

I think it is clear that slavery was the central dividing question in 1860 that led to the war. Someone explain why South Carolina and then other Southern states seceded in 1860 if not because of the election of Lincoln, and what they feared about Lincoln and the new Republican Party other than the fear that slavery was endangered.

Nevertheless, there were other longterm divisions between North and South over issues related to states rights and other issues that contributed to the inability to resolve their differences peacefully. It is wrong to ignore those differences, which made it harder for men to compromise during the crisis following Lincoln's election.

But central to all this was slavery.

BTW, my great-great-grandfather whose name I bear fought for the South as a captain of Alabama cavalry in the campaigns in the West. And a cousin died a Antietam and one was wounded and captured on the 2nd day at Gettysburg. I take great pride in that heritage. I do not believe those men were fighting to preserve slavery. But I am not foolish enough to think that slavery was not the catalyst that brought about the war.

[WSUCougar]

Finally had a chance to spend some time and address this.

Great post by JW, and Thomkal made some good points as well.

I started this thread not as a homework assignment, as somebody asked (I haven’t had to do homework in almost 20 years), but because the Civil War and American perceptions of it as an integral part of our history continues to fascinate me. I am a student of it, both professionally and as a hobby. And it strikes me that 140+ years later we still are so divided on basic interpretations.

I want to pull some quotes from the thread and comment on them. I have done so without the names of the original posters, but you can track backward if need be to see who said what. The quotes are listed chronologically.

It was more symptom than cause IMO. For slavery to have been the root cause, it would have had to have been enough to start the war without any economic impact. I don't believe it would have been, i.e. in the absence of economic implications, slavery in & of itself isn't an issue worth the cost of war.
I think this is a case of trying to paint the key issue with a different brush. The southern economy was fully intertwined with slavery. That’s what made it such a pivotal point of contention.

Further, I don't believe that economics were the sole/primary cause of the War either. Ultimately, I believe that comes down to a much simpler or baser issue: Who has the power to make the rules.
I would counter this with a snide rephrase: “Who has the power to make the rules about specific things.” If individual states were able to dictate whatever they deemed appropriate or inappropriate federal authority, the federal government would cease to exist. That’s a central purpose behind a representative congress.

The initial cause of the war was not slavery. The succession of the Union is what caused the war to begin with. Slavery was certainly an issue, but it was not the principal cause of the war. The South’s political beliefs were more of what the United States was originally founded on. Slavery certainly became a battle cry toward the end of the war, but I would have to disagree with it being the reason why the war was started. Slavery was the biggest issue. However, slavery did not start the war. I also disagree with the theory that the South is in denial over why the war was started.
Ack! First of all, it’s spelled “secession” and “secede” folks. ;)

But I think this argument is quibbling with the details. Secession directly caused the war, yes, because President Lincoln refused to acknowledge the Confederacy and their right to secede. Yet the southern states seceded either because of Lincoln’s election or his response to other states’ secession. Why did his election prompt secession? Slavery, or more specifically that his election represented the last straw in a matter of irreconcilable differences over slavery and its expansion.

Scholar schmolar, they change their minds so often I could care less what the academic community thinks about any issue.
What an absolutely hilarious statement.

All I know is what was in Gone With the Wind
EEEEEEK!

I think the Civil War was our counter-Revolution; and that it's implications were American Empire. Slavery was the issue of the day, it could as easily have been about immigration or taxation, but it was an inevitable conflict (although not inevitably a war).
I disagree that another issue, such as immigration or taxation, could have had such a long, deep, divisive influence on the nation to the point of driving it into civil war.

Slavery was the fuel for the Civil War, but it was NOT the engine that drove it into motion. That engine was the nature of our federal government. An issue that Lincoln states himself in more speeches than he talks about slavery being important to the war.Interesting way to put it, and I don’t disagree.

The problem comes with the implications that the Civil War was initiated and meant to be a war of moral correction against the evils of slavery. Which is just plain wrong, and puts both sides and the entire war into the wrong historical perspective.Agreed.

the principle that allowed the New England colonies to split from British rule was pretty much the same one the South used as its model to split from the north and one the north deemed fit to deny for its own interests.
This argument is used quite often and it just doesn’t float for me. How can you compare a colony’s relationship with a constitutional monarchy – one with indirect, at best, representation and a long laundry list of one-sided abuses ultimately amounting to military occupation, with the disenchantment of one region in a representative democracy which, despite seemingly endless attempts at compromise over the divisive issue, refuses to abide by the results of a lawful election and chooses to take its ball and go home?

I think the war between the states came down to this question: "who utlimately makes the rules," a centralized federal government or individual sovereign states. It was a case of the South telling the Union, "you can't dictate to us how to conduct our personal and business affairs within our borders."See my comments above with the first quote. Selective determination of what rules to abide by negates the very essence of representative government. In short, yo ucan’t have your cake and eat it too.

This really doesn't seem to track. There have been intense and heated debates and conflicts over federalism since before we even were the United States. But the only time it's come to violence (or anywhere near it) was over slavery (and subsequently over the civil rights of blacks in the South). It seems like the political processes of the United States were really quite capable with regards to solving the problems of federalism as they emerged (and for the most part have continued to be so). It is just this one particular issue, slavery, that was incapable of resolution through political means. It seems that slavery was more the problem than the political structure...Agreed.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Selective determination of what rules to abide by negates the very essence of representative government.

But that avoids the most basic question of secession: Whether you are compelled to remain a part of said government regardless of any circumstance.

Obviously, history shows us that you can be compelled by force, but that's still different than whether such compulsion was the intent of the founders and different than whether such compulsion was understood by those who originally consented.

[WSUCougar]

Perhaps, but can you see the fallacy of that argument from the flip side, if a state can pick and choose which rules are the domain of the federal government and which are not? It becomes a paradox if the representational process is not used to determine the rules that govern the whole.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Perhaps, but can you see the fallacy of that argument from the flip side, if a state can pick and choose which rules are the domain of the federal government and which are not?

Actually (or at least theoretically), I believe the Constitution answered that question.

Remember too, the states that seceeded weren't saying "we want the benefits but won't play by your rules", they were saying "to hell with you, we'll go on our own". Point being, the states weren't looking to pick & choose to follow some of the rules but not others, they wanted shed of the whole damnable mess.
(To the degree that many didn't care much more for the CSA government than for the USA government).

[WSUCougar]

This is just a sampling:

Slave-holding states got a 3/5ths clause for representation in Congress at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. They got a compromise in 1820 to divvy up the new territories among slave and free for the sake of representation. They got the concept of Popular Sovereignty that tore Kansas to pieces in the 1850s. They got bolstered fugitive slave laws. Even the despised presidential candidate in 1860 avowed that he had no interest in touching slavery where it existed. Thus did the whole entity struggle to work with the regional interest to resolve its differences.

[kcchief19]

1. Almost 150 years after its ending, what’s your personal stance on the Civil War as a key event in American history?
Two thoughts: (1) The Civil War was essential in creating the American superpower we see today and keeping North America from becoming divided like Europe. Assuming the question is the war and not seccession (that is, I'm assuming the question stems from the point of view that Lincoln let the south secede and did not pursue reunification), I think that the United States as we know it would be very similar to Europe -- there would have been more secession, more nation building among states and greater military conflicts between the multiple nations and Canada and Mexico. I don't think that we would stand today with simply the USA and CSA -- I think there would have been additional fragmentation. Even if the USA and CSA had stood alone, I don't believe either would be the superpower that the US is today -- the strength of this nation is too dependent on its various natural resources. Both are stronger together than they would be apart. If you take that idea to its conclusion, think about how much this impacts other world events. Would the CSA have defended Europe against Hitler? Would the USA have had the manpower and strength to fight World War II at all? In that sense, the reunification of the states is a watershed moment in history that oddly has nothing to do with slavery.

2. Why do you think there are many Americans who still deny that slavery was the principal cause of the war?
I don't know if "deny" is the word I would use as much as "dispute." To define the Civil War as being about slavery implies to a certain degree that the North were all abolitionists and the South wanted to maintain slavery at all costs. As for the prime motivation, neither statement is true. Even if you subscribe to the theory that the motivation behind the Civil War was largely financial (which I do), it still doesn't necessarily trace its way back to slavery. One of the leading economic causes of secession was that the North did not want to be caught off from its supplies of natural resources from the South such as cotton and from warm water ports. The South felt financial victimized that it was providing the resources for Northern factories was but was not sharing in the wealth of the North. There was a large gap in prosperity between the two regions, and that economic tension was largely to blame and it had nothing to do with slavery. States rights were also a key part of the equation, and while that to a certain degree led back to slavery, it did not entirely. In short, you can't boil down the Civil War to the notion that the North wanted to abolish slavery and the South didn't -- that is certainly not true and the answer wasn't that simple.

3. What, if anything, do you think Americans can learn from the Civil War?
I don't see any lasting lessons learned, especially compared to other wars. Certainly there were lessons learned in the areas of military strategy, technology, medical care and the like, but I don't see any significant truths learned that have made the world a better place, other than that we know hold that slavery in all forms is wrong. That's a lesson we could share with greater humility, though.

4. Do you visit Civil War battlefields and related sites, and if so, why?
No, not really. I have visited battlefields in the past and will probably visit some in the future. I don't go out of my way to visit them, but if I'm vacationing near one and it's a site of interest I might visit. I think there is something historic about the sites that certainly should be preserved if for no other reason than memorials to the people who died there. But for me it's not a hobby where I get a thrill from visit the sites -- I get more edification from reading and research on the topic.

5. Can you give a brief explanation of Reconstruction and its implications on American history?
This ties back to the first question for me. After Lincoln's death, reconstruction turned into a punitive mission designed to hurt the south. Reconstruction set the region back decades. You can certainly still see the scars of reconstruction across the South. I also think Reconstruction played a key role in the state of race relations in this country today -- again, I think Southerners blamed blacks for the Civil War and the punishment that followed, and that hatred became institutionalized over the generations. Things are certainly better than they were, but I think there is certainly more racism in this country than in other nations where there was no civil war purportedly over the issue of slavery.

[kcchief19]

I think this is a case of trying to paint the key issue with a different brush. The southern economy was fully intertwined with slavery. That’s what made it such a pivotal point of contention.
I don't disagree with this argument, but to me that was the economic issue at question. The question was not "Where would we be without slavery?" but rather "Why don't we have as much prosperity as the North?" Much of the South felt that, essentially, they supplied the materials and resources for wealth-building, but the North reaped the rewards.

What I find utterly fascinating is the number of Southerners -- particularly among the military leadership -- who were either opposed or indifferent to slavery yet fough for the South anyway. That tells me that and underlying cause of the war had nothing to do with slavery.

To me, there is absolutely no doubt that Lincoln did not pursue the Civil War to end slavery -- he pursued the Civil War to preserve the Union. As noble as many of Lincoln's actions were, there were strategic decisions to them as well, The Emancipation Proclaimation chief among them.

[WSUCougar]

I think it's imperative to any discussion like this one to acknowledge that saying "slavery was the primary cause of the Civil War" by no means implies that it was about abolition or that Northerners was united against slavery. While many abolitionists could claim the moral high ground in their opposition to slavery, most Americans were full-blown racists in the modern sense.

I think much of the lore associated with the period, whether it's Lincoln as The Great Emancipator or the image of Union soldiers proudly marching forth to "The Battle Hymn of the Republic," has given a false resonance to the issue of slavery as it relates to the war. Much as southerners must cope with the spectre of slavery's legacy, northerners often get draped in an inaccurate robe of goodness. Even in this thread there was a reference to "bad guys" with the implication that the northerners were "good guys."