The US Civil War- what was it about?

Question

So many people say it was the war to free the slaves, but I read the North side had slaves and was the first to legalize slavery. So what was it all really about and why is the romantic viewpoint taught in schools?

Answer 1

What became the American war of the 1860s was rooted deep in the evolution of English Common Law into what became the Constitution of the United States. In this evolution individual rights became increasingly significant. In the American version of this perspective of life, individual States were considered Sovereign as noted in Article One of the 1783 Treaty of Peace. While these independent States came together in the Articles of Confederation, to be considered perpetual, that sovereignty was never surrendered. Further, the transition form those Articles of Confederation established the State power to retain the power of secession in that to join the Union of States by ratification of the new Constitution, secession had to be initiated from the Articles. The States never surrendered this power.

The South, fought solely for the intent of the Founders’ for the inalienable right of a people to change their government ... to withdraw from a Union into which they had, as sovereign communities, voluntarily entered. The existence of African servitude, was not the cause of the conflict, but only one of a number of elements. The War had its origin in the organic Structure of the Government of the States. It was a strife between the principles of Centralism and Consolidation of Federation and the Sovereign entity of the States.

The real cause of the war that killed more than 620,000 people was a difference of opinion about the Constitution that had existed since ratification. The Civil War was not a war to preserve the American nation and to abolish slavery, but rather a war of federal intervention into Sovereign Southern States’ Constitutional rights.

There were those who posited a clash between interest groups and classes as the central theme of American history--industry vs. agriculture, capital vs. labor, railroads vs. farmers, manufacturers vs. consumers, and so on. However, the real issues of American politics revolved around the economic interests of these contesting groups: tariffs, taxes, banks and finance, land policies, industrial and labor policies, subsidies to business or agriculture, and the like.

American political history progressed in an undeviating line from the clash between Jeffersonian Republicans and Hamiltonian Federalists in the 1790s to the similar clashes between the New Deal/ Fair Deal Democrats and conservative Republicans in the 1930s and 1940s. In part this can be founded in the Marshall court opinion of McCulloch v. Maryland where Marshall interpreted the 18th Clause of Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution to a new meaning by stating that the words “Necessary” and “Proper” have the same meaning. This was not true in history, law or language usage but establish a foundation in which Congress could do as it wished outside of its delegated powers.

The war transferred to the battlefield a long-running contest between plantation agriculture and industrializing capitalism in which the industrialists emerged triumphant. This was not primarily a conflict between North and South: Merely by the accidents of climate, soil, and geography, was it a sectional struggle--the accidental fact that plantation agriculture was located in the South and industry mainly in the North. Nor was it a contest between slavery and freedom. Slavery just happened to be the labor system of plantation agriculture, as wage labor was the system of Northern industry. For some Progressive historians, neither system was significantly worse or better than the other-"wage slavery" was as exploitative as chattel bondage. In any case, slavery was not a moral issue for anybody except a tiny number of abolitionists; its abolition was a mere incident of the destruction of the plantation order by the war. The real issues between the North and South in antebellum politics were the tariff, government subsidies to transportation and manufacturing, public land sales, financial policies, and other types of economic questions on which manufacturing and planting interests had clashing viewpoints.

As a note: The South did not trample over the rights of the North by enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act. This was an enforcing of Constitutional restrictions on the States to recognize the laws of other States and not allow fugatives to escape to other States. This cannot not be considered a "nullification" of federal law as described in the Virginia Resolution, rather it is an enforcment of Constitutional law that can only be changed by Constitutional Amendment.

Answer 2

The Confederates claimed it was about States rights. The choice of each state to dictate its own laws and ordinances without having intervention or dictation from the Federal government. Also involved in this issue was the slave trade. The South felt it had the right to own slaves, but the North was in agreement with movements to abolish slavery.

South Carolina decided to be the first to separate from the United States. Many other Southern states followed suit thereafter. Fearing total breakup of the Union, Lincoln called for 75,000 troops to quell the rebellion, this infuriated the South. Confederate forces fired on Ft. Sumpter, SC and that began hostilities between the two sides.

Hope this helps you.

PS.... The North did not have "slaves", per se. What they were called was "indentured servants". That is a sticky issue to be discussed another time.

Answer 3

States' Rights. Several states had seceeded from the Union and this was considered illegal. The character of the United States changed after the Civil War; before it was more of a confederation of states, but after it was all one country and the differences and power that the individual states' had was greatly diminished.

Slavery was not much of an issue at first, but grew in importance over time. It didn't ultimately make much difference since soon after Reconstruction, the Black Codes were developed which reinstated Slavery in everything but name. No serious civil rights measures were taken until nearly 100 years later.

Answer 4

Many issues. Slavery, states rights, and economics. The Agrarian South was pitted against the Industrial North as to which was going to control the rich lands of the West. The two lifestyles and economic systems would inevitably clash, and the result was the Civil War.

Chow!!

Answer 5

It was mainly about State's Rights. The South wanted to pull out of the Union, but they were not allowed to by the Northern States. To leave the union was legal; before each state joined, it was agreed that should one decide to leave that is ought to be granted.

And you must also ask that if the North had decided to go on a crusade to free the slaves, why did the Emancipation Act take so long to come to play? It should have been declared in 1861 or before instead of three years later.

Answer 6

On the surface it was about states' rights. What states' right did the two sides have a falling out over? Slavery, and to a far lesser extent tariffs and economic barriers.

Also remember that a few years before the war started Southern states trampled all over Northern states' rights when they got the federal government to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, forcing Northerners and their police agencies to capture runaway slaves and return them to the South.

So the South really only supported states' rights when it suited them, and as history shows the collection of runaway states miscalled the Confederate States of America became just as federalized as the Union they were trying to leave.

Answer 7

It was about power! That's what all wars are about! All the despots in history down through the ages have wanted power, killed countless millions in the quest for it! Genghis Khan, Kublai Khan, Julius Cesar, Napoleon Bonaparte. The Tsars of Russia, Starlin, Hitler, Ide Amin, Pol Pot. The list goes on! And the Civil war was no different! Power! Power! Power! Have a good day.

Answer 8

All wars are about money and/or the acquisition of land and resources. The opposing sides engage in a campaign to kill people and break things until the loser can no longer afford the sacrifices of lives, power and resources. We tend to romanticize all conflicts to expose a winner and a loser, and depending on where we live we either celebrate a victory or are sponsored by the US of A to lift us from third-world status in the process of sending the American middle-class into oblivion.

Answer 9

It was about whether states of the USA could leave the Republic.

Answer 10

All wars are fought about money and power. Control. Greed. Why do you think we are in Iraq? Control of natural resources. We put a romantic spin on it to justify ourselves. I can only hope that there is really a god and that justice will prevail. I have great faith in Jehovah God but not in our political leaders.