Hello,

Based on discussions on another thread, I'd like to start this discussion here. This way, the other thread doesn't get derailed so much. Also, the other thread won't get locked out due to heated discussions.

PURPOSE:

This thread is a place for us to talk about historic issues in a polite and respectful manner. It is not about bashing anyone. I highly encourage people to use sources for their discussions as much as possible. Please be polite about all discussions as we don't want this thread to be taken down.

NOTE:

We will not discuss the morality of owning slaves or issues of race. That's off topic and will get this thread locked down, as well as being morally repugnant.

I'd really like to have seen round two between Monitor and Virginia. New shells for Virginia, and full charges in Monitor's guns. Plus the CSN had that nutty plan to try and cover the Monitor's pilot house with a tarp. (I don't think that would have gone well for them, too many shells and splinters flying around...)

Having studied the ACW, I think most people will agree that it can be traced back to economics. With that, we should really focus on that aspect. In the United States, there were two regional areas that had very different economic focus. The North was highly industrialized and heavily populated. The South was more agriculturally focused and had fewer citizens. This difference led to a division in the country that caused the Civil War.

Within the South, one has to look at the largest cash crop there was: King Cotton. The UK was the world’s leading producer of cotton goods with their industrial edge. The South supplied 80% of the cotton used by the UK. Cotton dominated the economy of the South more than anything. This was primarily due to the invention of the cotton gin by Eli Whitney (I won’t go into any debates about that. Start your own thread!). By 1860, the South was producing 2/3rds of the world’s cotton. Within 10 years of introducing the cotton gin, the total worth of cotton grown in the US went from $150k to $8 million.

With this in mind, why would it lead to a conflict with the North? The largest issue was the tariff. New industry in the North was trying to get off the ground, but it was hard to compete with British manufactured goods. The North wanted to introduce a tariff on foreign goods to product its young industries. The response from Britain was to create a tariff on American cotton, which cut into the profits of southern growers. This is an issue that competed for years in the young republic. It was the largest source of contention between the two economic zones.

The next largest problem with the growth of cotton dealt with slavery. Cotton plantations in the south greatly increased their profits with the use of slave labor. Slavery was a growing concern in the rest of the country. Abolitionist groups started to increase starting around 1790. The pressure to abolish the institution of slavery was one that only increased with time. In fact, the Republican Party was founded as an abolitionist part. Their very purpose for organizing was to stop the institution. This put the pressure on the South to change. It would heavily bite into the profits of plantation owners.

With the rapid increase in cotton production, plantation owners set themselves up as oligarchs within the South and quickly established their position. They acted domestically to secure their position with state laws and to establish their power in the federal govt., as well. It was during this time that numerous oligarchs also began to fund artists, poets, and writers to create a vision of the South in a positive light. The idea was to create a positive viewpoint of life in the South that was a counter point to the abolitionists’. Oligarchs also ensured to take over ownership of all forms of news and printing presses. An extensive campaign to remove voices of dissent also took place. Many middle class liberals were tarred and feathered and/or run out of town for having viewpoints and perspectives that did not coincide with the oligarchs. By the time of 1860, the South had been purged of dissenters and the oligarchs reign was complete.

It is with this background that we need to view the light of the events that led up to the election of 1860. The two sides were at odds with one another and there was a perfect balance of slave states vs. free states. New territories could only gain statehood when there was both a free and a slave state. Cuba would have become a US state due to US pineapple plantation owners who maneuvered make it so, except that there was no free state to also join the Union. Cuba was left to its own devices.

The conflict between these two regional powers came to a head with the debate about slavery. The tariff issue was settled in the 1830’s, but the growing rise of abolitionist groups in the North had only increased with time. The largest threat to the profits of cotton growers was the threat of freeing the slaves. It would drastically reduce the profits of those who grew cotton. This was the next discussion that tore the nation apart. Did the federal government have the right to abolish slavery in all the states? That is the crux of the issue. The South would want to frame this argument about state vs federal rights. It was an argument about that, but the key issue that was on discussion was slavery.

I will further contend that the cause of the Civil War was slavery. Perhaps a viewing of the events that led up to the war could shed some light.

The Republican Party was only formed in 1854 by northern liberals to combat the Kansas-Nebraska Act that spread slavery into the territories. Its ideology was that free market labor would be more efficient than slavery. Their slogan was "Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men". The party soon gained former Whigs and Free Soil Democrats. Their strategy was one of containment, which meant to surround the existing slave states with free states to prevent the spread of slavery. It was deemed that if slavery were prevented from spreading that it could eventually be voted down by a majority of Americans. Southern politicians loudly denounced the Republican party as one that was instigating a civil war. Abraham Lincoln can be quoted in his Cooper Union speech:

[W]hen you speak of us Republicans, you do so only to denounce us as reptiles, or, at the best, as no better than outlaws. You will grant a hearing to pirates or murderers, but nothing like it to "Black Republicans." In all your contentions with one another, each of you deems an unconditional condemnation of "Black Republicanism" as the first thing to be attended to....

For anything we say or do, the slaves would scarcely know there is a Republican party. I believe they would not, in fact, generally know it but for your misrepresentations of us, in their hearing. In your political contests among yourselves, each faction charges the other with sympathy with Black Republicanism; and then… defines Black Republicanism to simply be insurrection, blood and thunder among the slaves….

But you will not abide the election of a Republican president! In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, "Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!"

The elections of 1860 didn’t even have the Republican Party on the ticket in southern states. Still, it was enough for Abraham Lincoln to win a majority and win the election for president. It was at this point that the southern states tried to secede. Was it some sort of bill introduced into the Congress? Was it the federal government trying to force the southern states to do anything? No. It was the election of a Republican to the position of President. A member of a party that was founded on preventing slavery from expanding was the reason to cause these states to secede. If one argues that the issue was not slavery that caused the war, then what was it?

One of the better quotes I have heard regarding the civil war was as follows:

If you know very little about the civil war, you think that it was all about slavery.

As you study it more, you start to agree that it might in fact be about something else.

Then, when you have really studied the civil war, you realize "Nope, pretty much just slavery."

http://www.jjmccullough.com/CSA.htm - One good way to see that is to look at this line by line comparison of the USA and CSA constitutions.

When in doubt, follow the money.

I'd really like to have seen round two between Monitor and Virginia. New shells for Virginia, and full charges in Monitor's guns. Plus the CSN had that nutty plan to try and cover the Monitor's pilot house with a tarp. (I don't think that would have gone well for them, too many shells and splinters flying around...)

Can't I call it the Merrimack? The govt. that renamed it wasn't recognized as legal, so the name change never happened!

What I found interesting when looking into the ironclads was that they really hurt the South. The South didn't have as much rail lines or trains before the war and it only got worse as things went on. Internal shipping was terrible by the end of the war. There was no standardization in the industry and each rail line had it's own gauge. This caused tons of problems. Greensboro, NC is called the Gateway City as it was once a giant rail road hub. It had warehouses full of supplies that were trying to get to the front when Lee surrendered at Appomattox. The South made the whole situation worse when they build the ironclads. They had to rip up rail and sacrifice engines to make them. These ironclads were not able to leave their river inlets and were usually threatened by land and scuppered.

They were good in theory: The South couldn't compete with the Union Navy in numbers, so they went for quality. Unfortunately for them, the Union could out build them there too, and do it better, so they were hoist upon their own petard.

Can't I call it the Merrimack? The govt. that renamed it wasn't recognized as legal, so the name change never happened!

By that logic, Blackbeard's flagship should only be called La Concordia! XD

Nice, I thought my education on the subject was decent but you got a far better knowledge base on the subject than I do.

Honestly despite my tone sometimes I can understand how many in the South don't see the whole picture as to what happened fully becuase there is still a large movement to change the view of what the Civil War was about becuase their cuase is not seen as popular now. Also when you read the Southern papers and releases of the time it painted a very different picture of the North and Washington. This was of course a great classic example of Yellow Journalism but it is the view that many want to believe in.

So the Civil War is still a very touchy subject that can turn into arguements.

Also another point you kind of touched on was the involvement of the British government that was purposely stiring the pot for its own finacial gain becuase it saw he North's attempt at building a textile empire as a threat. Not to mention there was still lots of bad feelings on both sides about the revolution and the War of 1812. So cuasing a split between the North and the South was a win win for England. They hurt their competitor and will be able to get cotton directly from the South without dealing with the North.

The ironic part is that the General public of England felt the same way about slavery as the North and eventually the South would have had to end it eventually if it wanted to continue to have buyers in the long run. But like most of us here they couldn't see the long run and focussed on the profits they were making that day.

And you can bet the tariff hike was a calculated move by England to help cuase the problems between the North and the South. England already had military advisors and weapons ready for the South before the Letters of Secessions where sent.

Another misconception is that the North was the Aggressor and the South was on the defensive of the a campaign to destroy the South. But in truth General Lee and Stonewall were planning on taking Washington by force before the first shots were fired at Bullrun. So in truth the South was the original aggressor (Bullrun was an attempt by the North to disburse the gathering army of the South.) but until Gettysburg the South was on the offensive the entire campaign. After that is when Sherman went on his slash and burn campaign that was the most publicized part of the War.

Another misconception is that the North was the Aggressor and the South was on the defensive of the a campaign to destroy the South. But in truth General Lee and Stonewall were planning on taking Washington by force before the first shots were fired at Bullrun. So in truth the South was the original aggressor (Bullrun was an attempt by the North to disburse the gathering army of the South.) but until Gettysburg the South was on the offensive the entire campaign. After that is when Sherman went on his slash and burn campaign that was the most publicized part of the War.

The first shots of the war were fired on Northern ships trying to resupply fort Sumter on 9 January 1861. Note that Lincoln wasn't sworn in as president until 4 March 1861.

A couple interesting notes about various States and the Civil War:

The Civil War lead to the creation of West Virginia, out of Virginia counties which seceded from the Confederacy. When Eastern Tennessee tried to join West Virginia, and stay with the Union, the Confederacy sent in the troops.

I'd really like to have seen round two between Monitor and Virginia. New shells for Virginia, and full charges in Monitor's guns. Plus the CSN had that nutty plan to try and cover the Monitor's pilot house with a tarp. (I don't think that would have gone well for them, too many shells and splinters flying around...)

Can't I call it the Merrimack? The govt. that renamed it wasn't recognized as legal, so the name change never happened!

What I found interesting when looking into the ironclads was that they really hurt the South. The South didn't have as much rail lines or trains before the war and it only got worse as things went on. Internal shipping was terrible by the end of the war. There was no standardization in the industry and each rail line had it's own gauge. This caused tons of problems. Greensboro, NC is called the Gateway City as it was once a giant rail road hub. It had warehouses full of supplies that were trying to get to the front when Lee surrendered at Appomattox. The South made the whole situation worse when they build the ironclads. They had to rip up rail and sacrifice engines to make them. These ironclads were not able to leave their river inlets and were usually threatened by land and scuppered.

An interesting side effect of the Civil War was the the standardization of railway gauges across the north, and an eventual expansion of that gauge through the nation over the next decade. Once the Southern representatives left Congress, it left the Northern Congressmembers free to get a lot of their own priorities passed.

As a side note: I would love if this thread slowly drifted away from the Civil War, and into railroad infrastructure, and from there to shipping containers, and then... to the dockworker's dispute. Can we please make that happen?

Plus the CSN had that nutty plan to try and cover the Monitor's pilot house with a tarp. (I don't think that would have gone well for them, too many shells and splinters flying around...)

I thought that I knew everything there was to know about the Monitor vs. Virginia showdown, but I didn't know that. Thank you for that lil' tidbit which I shall now investigate further!

A couple interesting notes about various States and the Civil War:

The Civil War lead to the creation of West Virginia, out of Virginia counties which seceded from the Confederacy. When Eastern Tennessee tried to join West Virginia, and stay with the Union, the Confederacy sent in the troops.

The Only reason that West Virginia was able to form it's own state was due to the fact that it was under Union hands. Too bad East Tenn. wasn't, as well! I didn't know that about East Tenn.

The ironic part is that the General public of England felt the same way about slavery as the North and eventually the South would have had to end it eventually if it wanted to continue to have buyers in the long run. But like most of us here they couldn't see the long run and focussed on the profits they were making that day.

And you can bet the tariff hike was a calculated move by England to help cuase the problems between the North and the South. England already had military advisors and weapons ready for the South before the Letters of Secessions where sent.

Britain was very torn about the Civil War. It became a very class issue. The upper class were completely on the side of the South. The war was causing issues with their business and they wanted it resolved. It was only natural for them to side with a nobility like oligarchy in the South. The common man, though, was very pro Union. The idea of slavery was abhorrent. There were many public rallies through the years in support of the Union. There was no way the UK govt. could do anything official to support the South without a large backlash and chance of instability at home.

The tariff from the UK was purely a reaction on the US tariff. It's the international standard. You put a tariff on something of ours and we put one on something of yours. ***-for-tat.

As a side note, it should be noted that the UK started growing cotton in Egypt due to the Civil War. I think in 1862 or 63 cotton production there increased about 400%. It pretty much ruined the Cotton industry in the South.

A couple interesting notes about various States and the Civil War:

The Civil War lead to the creation of West Virginia, out of Virginia counties which seceded from the Confederacy. When Eastern Tennessee tried to join West Virginia, and stay with the Union, the Confederacy sent in the troops.

The Virginia's first captain, Franklin Buchanan, was originally from Maryland, and resigned from the US Navy when it looked like Maryland was going to leave as well. When it didn't he unsuccessfully tried to rejoin the Navy.

Plus the CSN had that nutty plan to try and cover the Monitor's pilot house with a tarp. (I don't think that would have gone well for them, too many shells and splinters flying around...)

I thought that I knew everything there was to know about the Monitor vs. Virginia showdown, but I didn't know that. Thank you for that lil' tidbit which I shall now investigate further!

They had another idea where they would hammer wooden wedges under the Monitor's turret to jam its movement. Again, I really don't see that going well.

I've thought for quite a long time now that had the Civil War not taken place, if the North and South could have overcome their disputes relatively peacefully, that slavery would have been voluntarily abolished by the southern states within 15 years and perhaps much sooner than that.

Slavery was (a) not as popular in the South as some have portrayed it to be and (b) a losing proposition financially. Having slaves was an economic drain on private resources in the long run. There were already many in the South who were advocating ending slavery and transitioning the region into one where former slaves could farm much as their counterparts among those of European descent.

After considering it for years, I seriously believe that that is what we would have seen had it not been for the outbreak of war.

But then, as heychadwick wonderfully articulated above, war was perhaps inevitable. The industrial differences between the North and South were too drastic, and the tariff only made things worse. In the end things wound up probably as well as they were likely to be.

Just don't get me started on Reconstruction and how much of a disaster it was in the long run...

There is something else that a lot of people don't know about the aftermath of the Civil War. Lincoln had chosen a southerner for his VP. Andrew Johnson was a southern liberal who wanted to abolish slavery and had been despised for most of his life for this. After Lincoln was killed, he became President right as the war was ending. Lincoln was always going to go with a forgiving hand for those in the south, but he most likely was not going to go as far as Johnson did. After being shunned by fat cats and big wigs, he suddenly found himself with these very fellows fawning over him for pardons. What happened was that he basically forgave everyone responsible without much repercussions. It basically kept the power structure of the south intact, with the exception of African Americans getting to vote. It's why you see statues in the south FOR OUR CONFEDERATE DEAD as opposed to all Americans who died in the war. It helped the strategy of racial division to break up lower class unity for at least 50 years to come and keep many of the same people in power.

I've thought for quite a long time now that had the Civil War not taken place, if the North and South could have overcome their disputes relatively peacefully, that slavery would have been voluntarily abolished by the southern states within 15 years and perhaps much sooner than that.

This makes me think of one historian (who's name I can't remember) who studied American history by generation. He stated that each generation had a unique character about them. The first generation were idealists. It included all the Founding Fathers who had all these noble ideas. The second generation were known for all being a bunch of lushes. They drank quote a bit! The best example of this is about that War of 1812 privateer ship that raided British shipping lanes. Based on cargo amounts of what was started with, captured, and purchased in Europe, it shows that each sailor drank an average of 1/5 of rum a day...for something like 150 days!

The third generation of Americans were all radicals, it was stated. They were all extremists and couldn't agree on anything. During this time, the abolitionist movement really took off. Not only that, but the temperance movement and women's lib. I'm sure there were a couple more, but I can't recall. In other words, that generation all thought they were right and couldn't compromise on anything. This could be the very reason why the war was fought to begin with.

Just another side note: Did you know that there was another attempt at secession before 1860? It was during the War of 1812. There were a number of New England states that relied heavily on trade with Britain for their economics. The war dragged on for a few years and was really hurting them. They finally resolved to secede from the union! They marched on the White House to announce their decision...only to find the celebration party of the end of the war!

One ironic thing I recall from my history classes regarding foreign cotton; not only did Britain find other sources of cotton, but bad years with food crops led to Northern grain being exported, so recognizing the South would have been disastrous for Britain because the last thing people wanted was the Union making exporting grain problematic.

My esteemed professor (head of the history dept) always stated that the North won with one hand tied behind it's back. While the war was going on, there was no greater increase in industry or number of patents created. Westward expansion was at a high and more areas became US territory than another other time in US history. Also, the number of states that joined the Union was high. The North fought the war, but also carried on with daily life. The south fought for it's own survival the whole time.

There is also the very nature of the Confederacy that defeated itself. With the naval blockade and Union raids to attack the coastal areas throughout the South, many states kept large reserves of state militias throughout the war. This led to fewer men and supplies moving towards the front while each state started to look after their own interests. One could say the very nature of the Confederacy defeated itself.

E Pluribus Unum!

I've thought for quite a long time now that had the Civil War not taken place, if the North and South could have overcome their disputes relatively peacefully, that slavery would have been voluntarily abolished by the southern states within 15 years and perhaps much sooner than that.

Slavery was (a) not as popular in the South as some have portrayed it to be and (b) a losing proposition financially. Having slaves was an economic drain on private resources in the long run. There were already many in the South who were advocating ending slavery and transitioning the region into one where former slaves could farm much as their counterparts among those of European descent.

After considering it for years, I seriously believe that that is what we would have seen had it not been for the outbreak of war.

But then, as heychadwick wonderfully articulated above, war was perhaps inevitable. The industrial differences between the North and South were too drastic, and the tariff only made things worse. In the end things wound up probably as well as they were likely to be.

Just don't get me started on Reconstruction and how much of a disaster it was in the long run...

As far as Slavery being "voluntarily abolished", I would that it could have been so! Some recent studies into the worth of slaves to the slave-owning class have shown how shockingly lucrative the practice was. By some estimates, slaves were worth more than every other asset class in America- combined. By others estimates, they were worth half of all assets in America. In one sense, that's a huge range. In another sense, that tells you exactly how difficult it would be to give up- or slowly phase out- slavery.

By way of analogy, we know exactly how destructive carbon fuels are to our species. We know that our use of carbon fuels puts our species in real danger of extinction. And yet... we are just sort of hoping the problem will resolve itself without needed to put forth much effort.

(Link to a study of the worth of slavery in the US pre-civil war: http://www.measuringworth.com/slavery.php )

(Link to a study of the worth of slavery in the US pre-civil war: http://www.measuringworth.com/slavery.php)

Oh, I tried this link yesterday and it didn't work. Can you post the full link or maybe PM me? I'd like to read it.

I wish you guys good luck in keeping it polite.

This part of history, and the narrative that surrounds it, is a very sore spot in the division of American society today. I think a debate about the history and its implications is a worthwhile thing to have, but it's something very closely related to our sense of identity, and so the nerve is very raw.

Also, I imagine that FFG will shut it down in the blink of an eye the moment it gets out of hand.

I wish you guys good luck in keeping it polite.

This part of history, and the narrative that surrounds it, is a very sore spot in the division of American society today. I think a debate about the history and its implications is a worthwhile thing to have, but it's something very closely related to our sense of identity, and so the nerve is very raw.

Also, I imagine that FFG will shut it down in the blink of an eye the moment it gets out of hand.

In this time of History, like today, politics were very polarized and view points do very a lot from one state to another. But the facts (Documented government papers and scholary research into that time period, not opinion pieces and News Paper articles of those days when both the North and South used yellow journalism to manipulate the pubilic to one view point or the other.) and of we get asked for proof we can easily provide them.