Scourge of War Boards

First time poster. Great topic for discusiion, stumbled on the Forum doing a little research and thought I would throw in my two cents worth.

On the original topic, did Lincoln start the war? No. No one individual started the Civil War IMHO. It was the culmination of events from the previous 67 years and was a Powder Keg ready to go off at anytime.

A second question would be...Could Lincoln have prevented the war? Yes. But it wasn't a practical option.

Lincoln's solution followed the blueprint established by the British when they aboloshed slavery.

Lincoln had previously developed a plan to "Buy-out" the slaves of Deleware and have them transplanted to another country but could not obtain support in the Deleware Congress. After he became President he did authorize the "buy-out" ($300/slave) of slaves in DC and was actively trying to relocate them to Panama.

While Lincoln had the Power and Money to carry out his plans in DC he couldn't get the support to do this for any other region.

A side discussion through this thread has centered around the reasons for the War, IMHO it is all to do about money.

Since the 1794 Jay Treaty the Cotton Industry was leveraged by those in the North and the South for gain.

The later very high protective Tariffs on Imports and current Trade patterns in place for the Cotton Industry led to 3 of 4 dollars spent on Cotton generated went to Northern interests in the form of shipping/warehousing/unload/reload/insurance/finance (New York was built on cotton).

The Cotton Industry was hyper competitive with low profit margins, it had developed into a commodity with great pressure from Egypt and India. The Morrill Tariff was going to raise the Import rate on Cotton products and place further protective Tariffs on wool and Iron products further increasing thae costs for the southern planter and decreasing his expected sales volume.

The Morrill Tariff was passed by the House in May of 1860 and held up in the Senate Committee until after the elaection. That election not only confirmed that Lincoln would be in office, it also confirmed that the Morrill Tariff would be pushed through the Senate with Buchannan waiting for final signature.

The South was looking at a very uncertain economic future. Most Southerners also felt that the Northern states were benifitting too much by there taxes. The Canals, Federal roads, ship building contracts, and other government spending was very beneficial to the Northern States and the higher Tariffs would only bolster the sales of Northern Industry. It was taxation without an even distribution of the wealth.

In the North they saw the Cash Cow of cotton slipping away from them. The southern states were very friendly with Great Britain and the bypassing of the Northern Economic establishment would have crippled the Union. I think the North would never have let the Southern taxes and cotton trade bypass them.

Simply put, money really is the root of all evils.

The southern states were compelled to secede to try and avoid being pushed further into debt to the Northern banks at Cotton Buyers that held the mortgages/liens on their properties. No one sat them down and said that they would give them relief on the loans or subsidize the planters to balance out the redistribution of wealth and lowering of sales.

The "moral issue" of eliminating slavery only reached the forfront when the Union had gained the advantage and victory was assured.

As one poster noted, "The victor writes the history books" to justify his actions and it's just as true in this case as in any other war in history.

From my point of view the South was right to secede, but, Lincoln showed very poor leadership by not holding out for a negotiated settlement and reunification based on his stated position and principles.

The Civil War cost the Union 4 times more to fund than a buyout of the slaves not to mention the cost to the southern states and the loss of life for 700,000 of the nations young men as well as the destruction of the infrastrucure in the South at a time when the country could have been more active internally and on a global basis settling and harnessing the wealth of many countries that were instead used to build Europes wealth.

Lincoln may not have started the war, but, his failure to stop it was the greatest step backwards in American History. We allowed the European Navies to get way ahead of us during those years and lost out on a ton of global leverage. At the time we were the premier shipbuilders and our steel industry was about to become a juggernaut. The Navy would have dominated the world, but, instead we spent the next 80 years playing catch-up to England on the seas and had a very small footprint beyond our own borders.

One further point, I agree with the poster that thinks slavery would have been eliminated with the advent of the traction engine and crop rotations which were around the corner and would have eventually made the need for labor much more seasonal (Peak numbers needed for cotton harvesting only which is about 2 months each year) and slavery redundant.

The Civil War was fought for Money and white washed with the freedom of the slaves to cover the blood of 750,000 men who should have been represented by leaders with less avarice and less ambition.

IMHO

Nothing really changes in History. Power struggles and Money always seem to be at the fore front of every conflict. Moral issues seem to be relagated to the back burner or as an after thought or even a by product, if the vested interests of the parties on the winning side are met. Lincoln couldn't put forth freedom until it was clear they, The Union, would be in a position of strength, Both power and money, then moral imperative or objective of freeing the slaves, aka "property" of the south could be excerised.

Given the circumstances that he, Lincoln, was faced with, he had very few choices to decide upon. Do you give up all federal property with out a wimper or do you defend federal property and national pride? How do you keep in the right, if there is a right? How do you appear not to be the aggresser? And not being in a position of weakness or overly too powerful? Jefferson Davis,in my opinion, provided the answer to Lincoln's inherited and impossable position. Jefferson Davis could have exersized a more or I should say less volital position and waited just a little longer. But I think with Lincoln's inherited and continued plan of supplying Fort Sumter was a good choice. It gave Jefferson Davis the unenviable part of throwing the first stone. And Beauregard was chomping at the bit to be that guy to throw it.

All in all it seems Lincoln was just a player thrown in the mix of powerful events way to out of control to be harnessed in, what, with all the rebel rousing and mad fury. When I say," just a player", I don't mean he was not up to the task at hand, but developed into the great President he became. I don't think any party would have listened to any one man in office. The war started hundreds of years prior to the first cannon shots at Fort Sumter. When the English or Dutch if you prefer, brought the first slaves to the North American shores, it began. It could have stopped then but it did not. By the time of our "Glorious Revolution", it was too late too big and too ingrained on our shores. Only with the blood of hundreds of thousands of American men, both sides, could we pay for the blood of millions of human beings in bondage. I have no issues about "State Rights,way of life, or right to secceed". Every human being has a God given right to rise up out of oppression. The only problem with the south rising up to throw off the yoke of Yankee oppression was that at the same time they were oppressing a whole human race. Albeit, a race they considered inferior and sub human. They concidered them property,of this peculier institution. They also felt that they were in some way benefiting the black race to be on American Shores and not in Africa. It was there christian duty to take care of them, to feed them, house them, give them meanial work to do. By serving the white man, they were rising up from their pitiful state in Africa. Of course they could not be given any power or education. We wouldn't want the "property" to think for themselves heavens sake no. Sarcassum, sorry. The black race has been shafted though out history and even today things don't seem to be much different. Frederick Douglas said it would happen and it has. If the former slaves were to take a helping hand from the white man they would just be dependent all over again. He said we should make it on our own or not make it at all. Harsh words but prophetic. Any how, many issues to be resolved, and America is a work in progress.

Without more research directly pertinent to the topic, it is difficult to say that slavery only became a "cause" for the North once they felt they had gained the upper hand (for my part, anyway). While true that Lincoln was awaiting a Union victory to announce the Emancipation Proclamation, that was not so much to project power or claim moral superiority as it was to avoid projecting weakness (arguably a similar motive, but I think the latter comes as a shrewd political move instead of more of a devious scheme, which the first option seems to resemble). Was it opportunistic? Absolutely, and calculated to be such. But recall that abolitionist sentiment existed in the North well before the war, and Lincoln was well aware of it and, here again, shrewdly wary of it. He did not simply fall in line with the demands of those who wished to abolish slavery outright, most of whom were wealthy and politically powerful (which has already been explained, to some extent). Anyhow, most of that is just an aside, and certainly is to the central question.

As far as the contention that the war started decades prior to the first shots, that is unfortunately a determination made with the benefit of hindsight. Those who originally brought slaves to American shores did not do so with the intent to stir up conflict, but neither could the practice have been ended outright and immediately (especially once it began). There's no way that the men sailing the first boat of slaves that arrived could have known that slavery would become such a contentious issue, and as such could not have simply made the determination to stop. As with the general argument being made in the last two posts, a major drive of this entire process was simply economics. While yes, many whites felt a sort of Christian duty to look over the blacks, the slave trade itself was not driven by such a brotherly attitude. No amount of good will can substitute for money.

In light of that argument, utilizing the rhetoric of the time that the war's bloodshed was a way of atoning for the blood shed during the decades of slavery is framing the issue in very religious terms. It isn't so much that whites had to give an eye for the eye they took by keeping slaves, but that it took a major shock to the system that went with such a massive loss of life and money to divert the path the system was on. Religious explanations were widespread at the time, no doubt, but we do not need to obscure our understanding of the hard, concrete issues at work by incorporating them now.

Anyway, there was a good deal of Christian idealism behind looking over slaves, although this obviously varied greatly from slave owner to slave owner, and was their prerogative entirely. The point behind your sarcasm, though, Boles, is moreso one of fear than necessarily one of allowing property to learn and have rights. Much of the South's attitude toward slaves was crafted around fear of uprisings. It was this fear that actually steered slavery and servitude away from being a universal feature of the US towards one built purely upon race. If the blacks were set apart as below any white, then there would be no danger of whites associating with blacks and threatening to overthrow the existing hierarchy and ruling order in the South.

And many former slaves (several generations removed now) rely solely upon handouts from "the man" (no longer just the white man). Douglas was no doubt wise, but we probably ought not get into all of that.

Edit: I did also want to extend my thanks to SmithDetroit for his incorporation of specific legislation. I had learned those a while back but had forgotten the specifics, and using it as a general argument is setting oneself up for failure. Good on ya for setting out specific evidence.

I would also like to note for fellows like 2nd Kentucky, as it has been revealed in other discussions of the topic here (and which I never quite understood until recently): In the modern day, anyone with any remote sympathy or respect for the Confederacy, its leaders, soldiers, or "cause" (heaven forbid), in any light whatsoever, will be discounted as a "Lost Cause" romantic and a closet racist. People may bandy about these terms when branding anyone making a pro-South argument, no matter how qualified, but they ought to understand that these are serious accusations and are a sharp attempt to entirely discount one's beliefs and reasonings with clumsy labels. I won't discourage anyone with what may be called an enlightened understanding of Southern Pride (which is a very vague, expanisve term, I know), but know that you are condemned the second you open your mouth. There is nothing you can do about it, so you might as well be prepared.

Brilliant posts by all!

As for labels, well call me what you want! but nothing will ever change my sympathies for the south and there cause :p


Braxton Bragg

One of the great myths of the Civil War is that it was the only way to stop slavery. How many other nations fought a war to end Slavery. Only the United States. Slavery would have died out anyway. It is more economical to pay low wages to workers than pay for their upkeep.

The last major nation to emancipate slaves was Brazil after the Triple Alliance War. (1870-1871). The Russians ended serfdom around the same time. How long could the US have slaves when no other nation did?
It would have been much easier to simply buy all the slaves. No 700,000 dead and billions spent by both sides.

Slavery could have been ended just as it was in Brazil; i.e. use a several methods at the same time. Brazil did have many more slaves than the South ever had.

Now you know why it was called to War of Northern Aggression. The Civil War was a senseless waste of lives caused by the North forcing their plans and will on the Southern People.

Burymeonthefield

No matter how much lipstick you put on a pig, it's still a pig. The war was a fight of good vs evil. Good won.

Rubbish!!


Braxton Bragg

Personally, I would have to say Americans were responsible.

The Civil War had "hotheads" on both sides. However, North Carolina and Virginia did not wish to secede from the Union. If Lincoln would have accepted neutrality (he did in Kentucky,) the rebellion would have not lasted very long.

Lincoln lost one of his best friends, his brother-in-law at Chickamauga. Brig. Gen. Benjamin Hardin Helm died at the head of the Kentucky Orphan Brigade...Lincoln could not show any grief or sadness. He had to mourn for his friend in private. Lincoln was not a terrible person, but a man placed in a horrible position at the worst time of our Country. He was a man of fortitude and courage. Contrasted to Jefferson Davis, Lincoln was obviously the better man.

Burymeonthefield

"No matter how much lipstick you put on a pig, it's still a pig. The war was a fight of good vs evil. Good won"

Is that really considered as a valid point?
I have to imagine that was read from some kind of laymans ABC guide to defending the Northern aggresion argument.Cant agree with it in any form.sorry. :whistle: