The civil war that wasn't

[alan1]

I posted this stuff on another message board a few years back. I have neither the time nor inclination to contact the people that responded and ask for permission to quote them here, so I will only post my comments on the discussion.

Take the "civil war" for example.
We are all taught that the second war for independence was a "civil war", when in actuality, it wasn't.
A civil war is a war between to factions fighting for control of the government. The war of 1861 was actually a war for independence from an oppressive federal government. The south had no intention of trying to take over the federal government, their point was to secede from the union, not take it over. The north was trying to take over in an aggressive manner.Of course, that's a other topic, probably worthy of a thread in and of itself.

The US war of 1861 was the second war for independence. The history books erroneously call it a civil war. By true definition of a civil war, the war of 1861 was not a civil war at all. A civil war is when 2 or more factions attempt to take over a central government. Confederate President Jefferson Davis had no intention of taking over Washington D.C. The true fact of the matter is, the confederate states were seeking independence from Washington D.C. It was a war for independence, no more and no less. The final outcome was a more powerful and more restrictive federal government that has been riding rough shod over states rights ever since. Every state in the union has suffered a loss of freedoms since that unsuccessful war for independence.

Historical revisionism is always written by the victors of a war.
States rights are not unlimited (that is true), but according to the Constitution, the federal powers are supposed to be limited to those specific powers enumerated. After the second war for independence that changed. Additionally, originally, every state had the right of secession. After the war of 1861 that changed also.

When I was in grade school, 90% of what I was taught about this dark point of our countries history was that it was a war about slavery. It wasn't. It was a war about states rights and an encroachment by the federal government upon those states rights. Was slavery part of the reason for the war? Of course it was. I'm not going to deny that. Was it the only reason for the war? Absolutely not. But, as I said, 90% of what I was taught (and probably most everybody else) was that that was what it was all about.
The initial point of the federal government was to provide a means and method of protecting the new United States from foreign hostility. Either militarily or economically. Additionally, to regulate inter-state commerce. It was when the southern states started having the shit end of the stick handed to them in inter-state commerce that they decided to secede from the union. Most states entered into the union with the agreement that they could back out later if they wanted to. We all know what happened as soon as they tried. I maintain my position that it was a war for independence from a federal government that was getting too powerful and too restrictive. And since that war, the federal government has continued to eat away at the states rights that were clearly granted in the constitution and continued to exert more and more force to impose it's own ideas of control over the states. Control that is not specifically enumerated in the constitution.

Will the next war for independence be brought about by another president from Illinois?

 

[alan1]

Hmm, 27 views and no comments.
I'm not sure if that means people are afraid to address the issue or if they just think I am crazy.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'm not sure how I missed this thread. At any rate, I agree with your views on the war for southern independence. I don't, however, think Obama is going to spark any real secessionist movements around the U.S.

 

[Hammerhead]

I agree with you,

I watched the movie Gods and Generals with my son who is 11
and when Lee is giving his speech about Virgina not allowing
Federalist soldiers onto their land.
And how Stonewall Jackson was such a religious man who pondered
every move through his faith.
My son looked at me and asked me 'I thought the war was nothing more
then slaves, is this movie true or is my history book"

I told him that slaves were a issue but nowhere near as important as what
the History books note.
and I also told him that slaves were owned in the North as well
and that the Civil War was more about power of Washington D.C.
controlling everything and the states of the South tried to secede
from the Union

 

[alan1]

I'm not sure how I missed this thread. At any rate, I agree with your views on the war for southern independence. I don't, however, think Obama is going to spark any real secessionist movements around the U.S.

While my initial post was pointing a finger in that direction, it would take more than just Mr Obama to cause it. It would also take the congress, but Mr Obama just might be the catalyst.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'm not sure how I missed this thread. At any rate, I agree with your views on the war for southern independence. I don't, however, think Obama is going to spark any real secessionist movements around the U.S.

While my initial post was pointing a finger in that direction, it would take more than just Mr Obama to cause it. It would also take the congress, but Mr Obama just might be the catalyst.

I think the idea of secession is so universally reviled thanks to Civil War propaganda that it just simply won't gain any serious foothold here.

 

[alan1]

I'm not sure how I missed this thread. At any rate, I agree with your views on the war for southern independence. I don't, however, think Obama is going to spark any real secessionist movements around the U.S.

While my initial post was pointing a finger in that direction, it would take more than just Mr Obama to cause it. It would also take the congress, but Mr Obama just might be the catalyst.

I think the idea of secession is so universally reviled thanks to Civil War propaganda that it just simply won't gain any serious foothold here.

Another side effect of Mr Lincolns war and the revisionist history that we have been taught.

 

[Sunni Man]

In the south it is refered to as "the War of Northern Aggression"

 

[Annie]

Mr. Lincoln successfully turned the war to preserve the Union to the war to end slavery, through judicious use of a document that freed no one. But all's fair in love and war, and he won.

 

[alan1]

Mr. Lincoln successfully turned the war to preserve the Union to the war to end slavery, through judicious use of a document that freed no one. But all's fair in love and war, and he won.

Annie,
of all the people on this board, you are one that I respect more than most, and, as I understand, you are also a teacher. In your opinion, was it a civil war, or a second war for independence?

 

[Annie]

Mr. Lincoln successfully turned the war to preserve the Union to the war to end slavery, through judicious use of a document that freed no one. But all's fair in love and war, and he won.

Annie,
of all the people on this board, you are one that I respect more than most, and, as I understand, you are also a teacher. In your opinion, was it a civil war, or a second war for independence?

First, thank you. My guess is there are more passionate voices available. In my take it started out originally as independence for the South, but when push came to shove, Abe said, no go. The beginning of the war. All about independence. Unlike the colonies and England, the South lost that war. Why? Because Abe was able, at the first opportunity to turn it into the issue of slavery. Without that, the South's plan of wearing down the North may have worked. The Emancipation Proclamation was a paradigm change. Though it accomplished nothing at the time.

 

[Old Rocks]

Hmm, 27 views and no comments.
I'm not sure if that means people are afraid to address the issue or if they just think I am crazy.

 

[Old Rocks]

Mr. Lincoln successfully turned the war to preserve the Union to the war to end slavery, through judicious use of a document that freed no one. But all's fair in love and war, and he won.

Annie,
of all the people on this board, you are one that I respect more than most, and, as I understand, you are also a teacher. In your opinion, was it a civil war, or a second war for independence?

First, thank you. My guess is there are more passionate voices available. In my take it started out originally as independence for the South, but when push came to shove, Abe said, no go. The beginning of the war. All about independence. Unlike the colonies and England, the South lost that war. Why? Because Abe was able, at the first opportunity to turn it into the issue of slavery. Without that, the South's plan of wearing down the North may have worked. The Emancipation Proclamation was a paradigm change. Though it accomplished nothing at the time.

The choice was to accept what would have become the Balkanization of the North American continent, or go to war. Lincoln wisely chose war. Yes, the Emancipation Proclamation was the paradigm shift of the war. But it also pointed out the terrible hyprocrisy of the South's stand for "freedom".

We are the nation that we are today because of Lincoln's choices. I suppose if you despise our nation, then you despise those choices.

 

[editec]

This issue has been debated to death, that's why.

A civil war usually means a war fought within a nation between various popular factions of that land.

So, this was a civil war.

And yes, it was a war for indpendence, too.

They are not mutually exclusive terms.

Many civil wars are fought when one area of a nation seeks indpendence from the other.

As to the motivation for those war?

Primarily, it was about economics.

The economics of slavery feudal economic system and the economics of tariffs designed to advance American industrialization in the North which was paid in large part by the feudal agricultural Southern states.

However, had there been no slaves, I content that they'd have been no war. Tariffs alone was not the major problem. In fact, I think I recall that tariffs had been going down before the war.

The South, quite rightly felt that if slavery was limited to the current slaves states, then the value of their slaves would inevitably decrease over time, and their feudal system of a slave based economy couldn't expand into the territories, either.

And since the vast majority of the capitalization of the Southern economy was in the form of human beings owned as property, that steady erosion of slaves' value as an economic asset would also result in the steady erosion of the southern economy.

The emancipation of the slaves after the war did lead to the destruction of the Southern economy, too, didn't it?

It took the South a century to recover from that loss of capital.

To some extend many of the Southern former slave states still haven't recovered from that enormous loss of its former capital.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

To slave or not to slave was a self determination issue. The right to self determine is expressly laid out. As WAS the right to leave the union.

What we had here was the Federal Government imposing its will. Which is exactly the criticism of the US abroad in modern times. The Federal Government did not give the southern states the right to self determination. It's pretty easy from that to make the "illegal war" argument for the Civil War, like lots of folks do with most every other war the US has been involved in. The CSA didn't attack the US. The US invaded.

But as to the OP, it is spot on. Slavery was NOT the main issue of the Civil War, even though kids are taught that it was. Self determination was the main issue.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

This issue has been debated to death, that's why.

A civil war usually means a war fought within a nation between various popular factions of that land.

So, this was a civil war.

And yes, it was a war for indpendence, too.

They are not mutually exclusive terms.

Many civil wars are fought when one area of a nation seeks indpendence from the other.

As to the motivation for those war?

Primarily, it was about economics.

The economics of slavery feudal economic system and the economics of tariffs designed to advance American industrialization in the North which was paid in large part by the feudal agricultural Southern states.

However, had there been no slaves, I content that they'd have been no war. Tariffs alone was not the major problem. In fact, I think I recall that tariffs had been going down before the war.

The South, quite rightly felt that if slavery was limited to the current slaves states, then the value of their slaves would inevitably decrease over time, and their feudal system of a slave based economy couldn't expand into the territories, either.

And since the vast majority of the capitalization of the Southern economy was in the form of human beings owned as property, that steady erosion of slaves' value as an economic asset would also result in the steady erosion of the southern economy.

The emancipation of the slaves after the war did lead to the destruction of the Southern economy, too, didn't it?

It took the South a century to recover from that loss of capital.

To some extend many of the Southern former slave states still haven't recovered from that enormous loss of its former capital.

Actually, Lincoln ran for President on a platform of higher tariffs. That's the reason all of his support was in the north, and particularly in Pennsylvania, but hardly any in the south at all.

I would say the emancipation of the slaves did hurt the southern economy to an extent, though many slaves remained slaves after the war and many more stayed on as extremely cheap labor. However, many believed slavery to be on it's way out regardless, such as Confederate President Jefferson Davis and General Robert E. Lee. Also, slavery was safer within the Union than without. I would say a bigger blow to the southern economy was the fact that the north waged total war against the south and destroyed and stole so many crops, killed so many people, and burnt so many towns.