Opinions on the American Civil War

[Kiehlroy]

We love you Aussies too, my step-dad is from down there.

Concerning the subject, I'm glad this turned into an informative thread. I've been trying to piece together the history as unbiasedly as possible but I have found that much of the available information is wildly biased.

Anyways, I notice that no one has mentioned the Morrill Tariff and other legislation that seems to have been a definite source of tension leading up to the war. From what I gather much of it seems very antagonistic. But I'm no scholar.

Also, wasn't Ft. Sumter also a federal tax collection facility.

[Beatnik Bob]

The only way the CSA could have won against the USA would have been to make the war so painful the people would vote out Lincoln, or perhaps get international support via England and France recognizing their legitimacy and providing aid in the form of supplies and military.

Or they could have won in the first battle of Bull Run by marching straight to DC instead of stopping to celebrate their victory. They could have easily held Lincoln at gunpoint, and the war would be over nearly as soon as it started.

With the loss at Gettysburg, combined with the surrender of Vicksburg, morale sank... but the Southern armies recovered. They were able to mount successful defenses in much of 1864, but it was the disaster the Army of Tennessee experienced from Chatanooga until Franklin and Nashville that really did the CSA in.

Let's face it, the South was done after the North defeated Lee. As in, they had literally no hope.
After that point, not only was it just a matter of time, but they would have to be on the defensive for the rest of the war. And you cannot ever win a war if you are consistently on the defensive.

Gen. Bragg was likely the worst commanding general of a major CSA army thru the war, and he had Jeff. Davis' confidence for far too long.

Because he was a really good captain (or officer maybe, not sure what he was) in the Texan revolution. He served in the Mexican war as well I believe.

You cannot blame Bragg for poor leadership, because he didn't have a great deal to work with, since the South had been cut in half by Union forces (preventing troops from Texas being able to fight on the "front").

When he allowed Missionary Ridge to collapse...

But seriously, it wasn't his fault. What was he supposed to do? The war was lost before less strategic areas in Tennessee were invaded.

which was arguable the most easily won... but lost battle of the war, the campaign in and around Atlanta was pretty much a sure thing for the USA. Then, John Hood was eventually given command of an army he had never truly been a part of, and led them to ruin, leaving Sherman free to drive on Savannah.

Actually, no.
Southerners burnt most of Atlanta to the ground before Sherman got there. Given, Sherman burnt everything but churches and hospitals, but the Southerners burnt their own town.
Not that Atlanta was remotely large. Not nearly as big as Charleston or New Orleans. But it was strategic in terms of the railway.
But, they still had no hope of preventing Sherman's march.

After the fall of Savannah, huge numbers of southern soldiers from Savannah and Charleston desserted to protect their family and homes from yankee scum burning and attacking civilians.

Many of the "Yankee scum" weren't Yankees at all, but rather were freed slaves that Sherman had help him in his march.
Which doesn't mean Sherman wasn't an asshole--he was--but there were others assisting in the the Northern ravaging of Georgia.

If the USA would have lost at Chatanooga and been forced to either surrender or retreat into Kentucky, it would have spared Georgia and the war would have been much harder fought throughout the end of 1864 and into 1865, with the outcome we know today likely not happening.

The South would have still lost. The turning point was when Lee was defeated. And Picket's charge: the worst military plan ever invented.

So by that time, the Federalists would have still beat the Confederates.

The South could have shifted more troops and far greater nnumbers of supplies and food into the Petersburg and Richmond areas if they would have fallen under siege, and no retreat would have been necessary when it occurred, and likely CSA offensive opperations might have resumed. On top of that, Longstreets failed campaign into Kentucky after the Battle of Chickamauga would likely not have happened, with him likely remaining with the Army of Northern Virginia. Georgia militia units would have been able to either get mustered into CSA service or been able to perform coastal duty at home, keeping their morale high. The additional troops shuffled north might have been able to allow the army under Beauregard to attack and likely defeat Butler on the James River, thereby threatening the flank of the Army of the Potomac, and would have been far different.

But you see, by this time Lincoln had already made the war about slavery.

The South didn't care about Lincoln, they cared about Northern opinion. And many Northerners were not only loath to be drafted into the Federalist army, but they supported the South.
There were anti-Union and anti-draft riots in Baltimore, New York, and Boston. Lincoln had to go in disguise to the White House for his inauguration because the people in Maryland would have killed him.
A very large number of northerners supported the right of the South to secede, and did not support a war for the Union.
So the South was often trying to appeal to these states. Not make enemies with them. They tried to find a common enemy of Lincoln within Northerners.

However, when Lincoln made the war about slavery after Gettysburg. The war might as well have ended there, because Northerners supported the right of the South to secede, and many of them may have been anti-Unionists, but they certainly didn't support slavery.

So, smart bit of propaganda on Lincoln's part. Gettysburg brought support from Northerners toward the Union--because of slavery being made the issue.

[pico]

The South would have still lost. The turning point was when Lee was defeated. And Picket's charge: the worst military plan ever invented.

While that was indeed the turning point for the Army of Northern Virginia, they had plenty of fight left in them. They had left what amount to nearly a corp of soldiers in the Richmond area during the Gettysburg campaing under the command of Gen DH Hill, and North Caolina still had vast amounts of supplies and soldiers just to the south.

Books have been written on these matters that go into extensive detail, but having the Mississippi under US control preventing Texas from shipping in soldiers and supplies was not going to bring down the CSA. Texas was largely still lightly populated, and they had absolutely no manufacturing there. Louisiana was still recruiting soldiers, and many were in the Trans Mississippi serving in Arkansas and Louisiana.

The major killer to the CSA clearly was the march thru Georgia and the loss of Atlanta and especially Savannah. This did little to actually split the CSA, but the vast amount of destruction caused by Yankee soldiers going thru the region left a huge path of waste. This crushed the morale of many Georgia and then South Carolina soldiers in both the Army of Tennessee and the Army of Northern Virginia, causing many to desert. Look at the rosters for many Georgia regiments. My great great grandfather was a private in company A 18th Georgia Battallion. He enlisted in 1862 and fought at Battery Wagner in 1863. The 18th GA Batt had been a Savannah militia unit, and began with well over 800 serving. After Wagner, they were transferred to the Petersburg/Richmond defenses. By late 1896, the unit was shrinking rapidly from desertion, with the fall of Savannah (the main city of GA troop enlistment). This unit joined in the general retreat from Richmond, and when they were forced to surrender in April 1865 at the Battle of Saylors Creek, only 15 from this groups were left to surrender (8 of whom were the colored musicians).

[Cartesiantheater]

[...]

It can be argued that the war was over slavery, and it likely was to some wealthy southerners and northern abolitionists... but the funny thing in all of it is that Lincoln freed the southern slaves not out of any feel good policy, but it was purely political, to gain favor in the northern radical circles.

That is not really true. It was both. Abraham Lincoln said the following, distinguishing between his personal moral views and wishes and his duty as President:

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.

However, in the very same letter, he says this, qualifying what he had just remarked:

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.

So you see, it was both a political move AND a "feel good policy" to free the slaves.

However, Lincoln wasn't the only one involved in either the Civil War or Abolition. Some congressmen no doubt wanted to use the issue of slavery to help with the Civil War, while others no doubt wanted to use the Civil War to end slavery; Thaddeus Stevens, for example, was most assuredly wanting to take advantage of the Civil War to end slavery. He was quite RADICAL on the matter (Radical Republican pun).

It is said the South will never submit — that we cannot conquer the rebels — that they will suffer themselves to be slaughtered, and their whole country to be laid waste. Sir, war is a grievous thing at best, and civil war more than any other ; but if they hold this language, and the means which they have suggested must be resorted to ; if their whole country must be laid waste and made a desert, in order to save this Union from destruction, so let it be. I would rather, Sir, reduce them to a condition where their whole country is to be re-peopled by a band of freemen, than to see them perpetrate the destruction of this people through our agency. I do not say it is time to resort to such means, and I do not say that the time will come, but I never fear to express my sentiments. It is not a question with me of policy, but a question of principle.

As you can see here, he appears to be more than willing to completely destroy the South in order to repopulate it with freed slaves.

I have ancestors that fought on both sides of the conflict (aka War of Northern Aggression), and can say that while one in particular was wealthy from Louisiana, the rest were dirt poor and had been born in Ireland, recently immigrated to America. They fought in Georgia regiments and certainly weren't fighting to protect the interests of Slave owners... and the family was poor up until the later part of the 20th century. Clearly, they fought for other reasons... likely because they could freely come to the Irish Catholic region of Georgia without fear of seeing signs like "Irish Need Not Apply", which was the common racist sentiment in the North.

This topic is far to big and varied to be handled easily by this forum.

Regarding the cause of Civil War. Obviously, individual soldiers are not going to be representative in all cases of the motivations of their commanders and leaders. However, one very important leader for the Confederates, Alexander Stephens (their Vice President), said this:

The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.

Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us...

He quite clearly articulates that his motivation was the continuation of slavery. Now, obviously this wasn't just about predjudice and the Southern view of the African American's place at the time. It was obviously about slavery as a tool for the economy. In light of that, however, it is quite dishonest to claim the Civil War was not about slavery. That would be like saying the current political debate isn't about spending and taxes, but is instead about the economy. Do you see how stupid that sounds? Same thing with the Civil War.

You sound like you were taught from the same books here in the US. The fact is that the war was brought about over the concept that the Southern States wanted strong State powers, whereas new new administration under Lincoln, and other administrations in the past, were pushing for a stronger Federal government. Slavery was an issue, but just one of several bigger ideas at play. Southern States wanted to maintain a degree of control over themselves, and felt they would lose any control if they remained in the United States, as they had long ago lost control with the House of reps, but would then also lose any power base they had with the Senate with the addition of the many new States just prior to the Civil War, as well as during the War with the addition of West Virginia.

The Civil War was NOT about "States rights" in the way you mean here. Well, it is about that NOW, in the South anyway, but it wasn't THEN.

The reality is that Confederates OPPOSED States rights. They OPPOSED the Northern State's rights to outlaw slavery IN NORTHERN STATES, including in the case of slaves who escaped to the North. They demanded that the Northern States conform to their laws regarding slavery, particularly in the way that the South defined escaped slaves as missing property while the North defined escaped slaves as free men, and the Southern desire to continue to have slaves as property even when they entered into the jurisdiction of Northern states- there were no laws in the North categorizing humans as property, yet the South insisted that the North conform to Southern Laws regarding slaves. In the North, human beings could not be legal property, but the South wanted to extend their jurisdiction to the North in the case of slaves who were "lost" in the North. This is (ironically) EXACTLY like the Federal Government extending its jurisdiction to the States today. The South wanted the North to conform to their Laws, and they feared the growing hostility to the institution of slavery in the North.

If you smoke week in Colorado, and then drive down to New Mexico while on vacation, would you still be able to legally smoke weed? NO SIR, YOU WOULD NOT. Because Colorado has no right to infringe upon the rights of the State of New Mexico. Saying it was about States rights is only correct in the sense that it was about the South wanting to infringe upon the rights of the Northern States.

We love you Aussies too, my step-dad is from down there.

Concerning the subject, I'm glad this turned into an informative thread. I've been trying to piece together the history as unbiasedly as possible but I have found that much of the available information is wildly biased.

Anyways, I notice that no one has mentioned the Morrill Tariff and other legislation that seems to have been a definite source of tension leading up to the war. From what I gather much of it seems very antagonistic. But I'm no scholar.

Also, wasn't Ft. Sumter also a federal tax collection facility.

Except most states had already seceded before the Morill Tariff was passed. That one is one of the popular revisionist attempts to change the cause to "anything but slavery." While it isn't NOW considered a peripheral part of secessionist thought by southerners, at the TIME it was significantly less important than the election of Lincoln and the slavery issue, and the Northern state trends regarding that issue (once again, history is tainted by people looking at it through modern lenses. States rights versus the Federal Government, taxation, etc, are huge issues NOW, and have been for some decades as the Federal Government has grown in power, and as a result people in the South view the history of the Civil War through that prism. It wasn't quite the same situation.). However, beginning with Reconstruction, the political game was POINTED THAT WAY by the South in their aims to keep the nation for white men, as Andrew Johnson put it:

This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government for white men.

And then on to the Jim Crow states. States rights were the shield behind which such things were enacted and continued.



So in essence, the "States rights" argument in the South was not the cause of the Civil War, but was rather the means of preservation of the state of the South as much as possible immediately after the Civil War.


It is a myth, proven simply by reading the Constitution of the Confederate States of America:

Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.


[...]


No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

The South weren't victims of imposition by the North. They wanted to impose their laws upon the other States. They were the tyrants trying to infringe upon States rights. They wanted to force other States to comply with their laws whenever any of their citizens traveled to another State with a slave. This is the equivalent of Colorado or Washington demanding that another State respect their citizen's rights to possess marijuana while those citizens are in another state. It is ludicrous to say that the OTHER states are infringing upon Colorado or Washington because they prohibit the possession of marijuana. Likewise, it is quite ludicrous to claim that the North was infringing upon Southern State's rights because the North did not legally recognize slaves as property when those slaves were in a Northern state.

[pico]

Sorry not to notice this sooner. I would disagree with you about what you call the reasonings behind the war. For decades prior to any action being taken militarily by either side, the north continually tried to pass taxes that would have severely damaged the economy in the south. At the time of the later 1850's, the nation was in poor economic shape, with the South actually maintaining much of the way of life without so much economic hardship that was visiting the north. The northern states began to push for more taxation thru imports and exports that would hurt the argibusiness that was heavy in the south. This was another underlying cause of the war. Also, look to states that were coming into the US. Kansas was a slave holding state prior to the mid 1850's, when large numbers of abolitionists entered for a sham of a vote. They not only simply came to vote Kansas as a free state, they burned and chased off many pro southern leaning folks, even lynching some. While the south did not have clean hands, there was a fundamental difference of opinion that went beyond slavery in most cases.

[Cartesiantheater]

Sorry not to notice this sooner. I would disagree with you about what you call the reasonings behind the war. For decades prior to any action being taken militarily by either side, the north continually tried to pass taxes that would have severely damaged the economy in the south. At the time of the later 1850's, the nation was in poor economic shape, with the South actually maintaining much of the way of life without so much economic hardship that was visiting the north. The northern states began to push for more taxation thru imports and exports that would hurt the argibusiness that was heavy in the south. This was another underlying cause of the war. Also, look to states that were coming into the US. Kansas was a slave holding state prior to the mid 1850's, when large numbers of abolitionists entered for a sham of a vote. They not only simply came to vote Kansas as a free state, they burned and chased off many pro southern leaning folks, even lynching some. While the south did not have clean hands, there was a fundamental difference of opinion that went beyond slavery in most cases.

The Morrill Tariff was not the cause of the civil war. It was hardly mentioned in the succession convention in Georgia. Lincoln's election, and slavery, however, were very big parts of that convention. I believe I already pointed this out. And note that unlike you and other Confederate sympathizers (let's not pretend here, come on...), I'm not citing historical instances and then claiming they were the cause of the Civil War. I was citing the LEADERS OF THE SECESSIONISTS, who THEMSELVES stated in their OWN SECESSIONIST writings and speeches that slavery was the main reason. As I posted earlier, the Vice President of the Confederate States said it himself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech

The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.

Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us...

How can you argue against that when it came straight from the Horse's mouth itself? Is your historical analysis one that completely ignores the words of those who lived at the time describing their motivations? You just dismiss exactly what the players in the act said and vaguely site "taxes" and "tariffs?" Makes sense /sarcasm.







In fact, the present tariffs of the time (1957) were written by Southerners. So list some more that led to the South deciding to attack the north and/or secede, if you please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_of_1857

Supporters of the bill came mostly from Southern and agricultural states, which tended to be export dependent and tended to support the "free trade" position. They were also joined by a handful of New England wool manufacturers. This constituency traditionally supported protectionism in the 19th century.

As for the Morrill Tariff, the succession had already begun by then.

You've got it backwards. Slavery was the main issue, and tariffs and the like were the peripheral issues. Even in your sham vote you list here, slavery was the issue.









In fact, let me list some of the secession declarations:

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic.

Not about slavery there /sarcasm

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.

No slavery here boss /sarcasm.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the *forms* [emphasis in the original] of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

"Property" refers to SLAVES here. Yeah, slavery definitely wasn't the primary cause /sarcasm.

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States.

[...]

In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.[..]

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

The word "slavery" was found 38 times in these four documents. The word "tariffs" ZERO times. The word "tax" or "taxes" EXACTLY ONE time.


What was the primary issue again?


At some point you've got to start looking at history through the WORDS OF THE PARTICIPANTS rather than through the words of revisionists or descendants of participants who want to paint their ancestor's in the best light possible.

[Rockytrawn]

I am posting this not a a religious tract, but as an example of the thoughts of the local participants in the Civil War just prior to the outbreak - I found this prophecy from the 1830's which suggests that slavery, the involvement of South Carolina, and the expectation of a coming conflict were something that were common to the period and in the public thoughts just prior to the onset of the war. It should be noted that Joseph Smith was a presidential candidate running on a platform of abolition, prison reform and women's rights:

" Doctrine and Covenants Section 130:
12 I prophesy, in the name of the Lord God, that the commencement of the adifficulties which will cause much bloodshed previous to the coming of the Son of Man will be in South Carolina.
13 It may probably arise through the slave question. This a avoice declared to me, while I was praying earnestly on the subject, December 25th, 1832.

Doctrine and Covenants Section 87
Revelation and prophecy on war, given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, 25 December 1832 (see History of the Church, 1:301–2). This section was received at a time when the brethren were reflecting and reasoning upon African slavery on the American continent and the slavery of the children of men throughout the world.

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord concerning the awars that will bshortly come to pass, beginning at the rebellion of South Carolina, which will eventually terminate in the death and misery of many souls;

2 And the time will come that bwar will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place.

3 For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations.

4 And it shall come to pass, after many days, aslaves shall rise up against their masters, who shall be marshaled and disciplined for war.

5 And it shall come to pass also that the aremnants who are left of the land will marshal themselves, and shall become exceedingly angry, and shall vex the Gentiles with a sore vexation.

6 And thus, with the asword and by bloodshed the inhabitants of the earth shall bmourn; and with cfamine, and plague, and earthquake, and the thunder of heaven, and the fierce and vivid lightning also, shall the inhabitants of the earth be made to feel the wrath, and indignation, and dchastening hand of an Almighty God, until the consumption decreed hath made a full fend of all nations;

7 That the cry of the saints, and of the ablood of the saints, shall cease to come up into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth, from the earth, to be avenged of their enemies.
8 Wherefore, stand ye in holy places, and be not moved, until the day of the Lord come; for behold, it cometh quickly, saith the Lord. Amen."

[Freddy]

I am posting this not a a religious tract, but as an example of the thoughts of the local participants in the Civil War just prior to the outbreak - I found this prophecy from the 1830's which suggests that slavery, the involvement of South Carolina, and the expectation of a coming conflict were something that were common to the period and in the public thoughts just prior to the onset of the war. It should be noted that Joseph Smith was a presidential candidate running on a platform of abolition, prison reform and women's rights:

" Doctrine and Covenants Section 130:
12 I prophesy, in the name of the Lord God, that the commencement of the adifficulties which will cause much bloodshed previous to the coming of the Son of Man will be in South Carolina.
13 It may probably arise through the slave question. This a avoice declared to me, while I was praying earnestly on the subject, December 25th, 1832.

Doctrine and Covenants Section 87
Revelation and prophecy on war, given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, 25 December 1832 (see History of the Church, 1:301–2). This section was received at a time when the brethren were reflecting and reasoning upon African slavery on the American continent and the slavery of the children of men throughout the world.

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord concerning the awars that will bshortly come to pass, beginning at the rebellion of South Carolina, which will eventually terminate in the death and misery of many souls;

2 And the time will come that bwar will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place.

3 For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations.

4 And it shall come to pass, after many days, aslaves shall rise up against their masters, who shall be marshaled and disciplined for war.

5 And it shall come to pass also that the aremnants who are left of the land will marshal themselves, and shall become exceedingly angry, and shall vex the Gentiles with a sore vexation.

6 And thus, with the asword and by bloodshed the inhabitants of the earth shall bmourn; and with cfamine, and plague, and earthquake, and the thunder of heaven, and the fierce and vivid lightning also, shall the inhabitants of the earth be made to feel the wrath, and indignation, and dchastening hand of an Almighty God, until the consumption decreed hath made a full fend of all nations;

7 That the cry of the saints, and of the ablood of the saints, shall cease to come up into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth, from the earth, to be avenged of their enemies.
8 Wherefore, stand ye in holy places, and be not moved, until the day of the Lord come; for behold, it cometh quickly, saith the Lord. Amen."

Andrew Jackson said the same thing in 1833.

"WASHINGTON, May 1, 1833.
MY DEAR SIR:
I have had a laborious task here, but nullification is dead; and its actors and courtiers will only be remembered by the people to be execrated for their wicked designs to sever and destroy the only good Government on the globe, and that prosperity and happiness we enjoy over every other portion of the world. Haman's gallows ought to be the fate of all such ambitious men who would involve their country in civil war, and all the evils in its train, that they might reign and ride on its whirlwinds and direct the storm. The free people of these United States have spoken, and consigned these wicked demagogues to their proper doom. Take care of your nullifiers; you have them among you; let them meet with the indignant frowns of every man who loves his country. The tariff, it is now known, was a mere pretext—its burden was on your coarse woolens. By the law of July, 1832, coarse woolen was reduced to five per cent, for the benefit of the South. Mr. Clay's bill takes it up and classes it with woolens at fifty per cent., reduces it gradually down to twenty per cent., and there it is to remain, and Mr. Calhoun and all the nullifiers agree to the principle. The cash duties and home valuation will be equal to fifteen per cent, more, and after the year 1842, you pay on coarse woolens thirty-five per cent. If this is not protection, I cannot understand; therefore the tariff was only the pretext, and disunion and a southern confederacy the real object. The next pretext will be the negro or slavery question.

My health is not good, but is improving a little. Present me kindly to your lady and family and believe me to be your friend. I will always be happy to hear from you.
Andrew Jackson"
Letter of Andrew Jackson to Reverend A J Crawford