[JustBill]

It seems war was about succession; the South separating from the Union. That is according to the Union.

The war was about State's Rights. The South was not going to have anything to do with the North telling them how to run their lives; plantations in particular. That is according to the South as I understand so far.

This is rather general. But this it's how I understand the difference in how both sides look at this.

It was slavery that initiated the entire thing; or at least, it was the North's dislike of slavery and also the dislike in how the South reacted to the push against slavery.

If slavery did not exist, would there have been a Civil War?

This is not a loaded post. I live in Washington State. I find the Civil War era to be fascinating and I am truly interested in understanding the whys.
Thx.

 

[Jimmym1296]

Your assumption about there not being a civil war if slavery didn’t exist is probably a pretty good guess. A million books written about it from numerous points of view. It is interesting to read both sides and compare the arguments. If you get east, the civil war battlefields such as Gettysburg and Antitem are worth checking out. Enjoy the journey.

 

[JustBill]

I just retired last June, and doing those battle fields is on my list.
You know, today if a change like removing an industries method of manufacture were taken away, the government would most likely have either a replacement...like machines to do the work as opposed to people, or some kind of compensation. That probably wasn't a consideration back then.
Fossil fuel would be a modern day analogy. To take it away without a replacement in place, would destroy this nation.
Seems possibly the North had no concern because, well, it wasn't them. Politicians seemed rather short sighted back then.
Thanks.

 

[Alaska682]

Politicians seemed rather short sighted back then.

"Back then"...

 

[TheCapt]

I just retired last June, and doing those battle fields is on my list.
You know, today if a change like removing an industries method of manufacture were taken away, the government would most likely have either a replacement...like machines to do the work as opposed to people, or some kind of compensation. That probably wasn't a consideration back then.
Fossil fuel would be a modern day analogy. To take it away without a replacement in place, would destroy this nation.
Seems possibly the North had no concern because, well, it wasn't them. Politicians seemed rather short sighted back then.
Thanks.

What I have studied reveals slavery as the primary cause of the war, but not because of some moral issue; it was about money. Cotton more specifically. The south was making a fortune selling cotton produced by slave labor. No one in the world could compete. The North was well into the industrial age of manufacturing items sold abroad. To get the U S. to cease its unfair practices respecting cotton, country after country imposed huge tariffs on American manufactured goods. The only cure to help the north was to end slavery in the south. When sanctions and other federal prods didn't work, and when the south was sick and tired of Washington's intervention, war was the natural outcome.

 

[JustBill]

It seems to me as I read commentaries on the tariffs from that time, that the Tariff’s were started as protections for newly started Northern industries; that they would be able to compete globally. The harm came from other countries raising their taxes on our exports, as a response to higher tariffs. Also, the tariffs were beneficial to Northern industry. But not to Southern raw materials.
In the end, there were a couple of new tariff bills that were passed that also didn't help the South. But as it was explained, those bills only passed because the South had already started succeeding from the Union. If they had still filled their seats in Congress, they would have had the votes to kill these tariff bills.
Yes. Great point. Some of my reading says that it is a myth that tariffs were the cause of the war. But as I read, it doesn't seem possible to eliminate them from the cumulative effect on the decisions that caused the war to start.
Appreciate your comment. That is an area I had not known about...at all. Still much reading to do.

 

[The Hayman]

I have my Great Grandfather's letters from the Civil war. To him the war was about ending slavery, and he died trying to achieve that goal.

 

[JustBill]

Cool story. Those letters must really give you a vision of what it might have been like to be there.
I'll bet many felt that way at a personal level.
I think there wasn't just one thing that caused it. At least many things happened that led up to the final thing that kicked it off.
It's easy to simplify it to an individual act. But most of us find that just for ourselves, we've usually been pushed a ways before we react to things.
Thank you.

 

[Mule 11]

Burrrp...

 

[JustBill]

Burrrp...

Your IQ...understandable.

 

[The Hayman]

They were mostly about how to pay the property tax without his regular income, and how his commanding officer was an alcoholic who was always drunk by 7:00 AM. He died of sunstroke in Louisiana. Not very exciting, but he clearly stated his reason for being there.

 

[JustBill]

They were mostly about how to pay the property tax without his regular income, and how his commanding officer was an alcoholic who was always drunk by 7:00 AM. He died of sunstroke in Louisiana. Not very exciting, but he clearly stated his reason for being there.

Humorous how proerty taxes were a pain even back then.
What an era to live through.
Thx