The American Civil War (or the Southern Rebellion) was entirely over the issue of slavery, with the - General

I'd argue for the South, Slavery was the biggest issue. Not the North and thats where the whole idea of the 'States Rights' comes from. The North needed the south's cotton farms for their industrial centers so it was a larger economic issue for the North than a slavery issue.

Umm pretty sure it was over state sovereignty. The people in charge in the South realized they were outvoted in the Union (Lincoln winning the election), and decided to secede to do things their own way. Slavery was the popular reason at the time since it was the most loudly contested issue and it was so thoroughly linked to many of the Southern States' economies, but that was just a branch of the real issue. Mainly the idea of the federal government being able to tell the states what to do, and the states (the Southern states anyway) feeling they had no voice. If you read beyond the SLAVERY chapter in whatever wikipedia article you're getting your info from, you'll probably see something about how powerless the central Confederate government really was. It needed a lot more cooperation from its states to do anything than the Union did from its members. TL;DR: The southern states just didn't want to be team players in the game of politics. Much like Conservatives today come to think of it...

[QUOTE=Drainwater;39012568] TL;DR: The southern states just didn't want to be team players in the game of politics. Much like Conservatives today come to think of it...[/QUOTE] Neither party wants to be team players... I think ultimately the war was about slavery, the south seceded since they did not want slavery to end. The Union was fighting to keep the country whole, the ending of slavery did not come until near the end when they wanted to keep moral up and give the fight more meaning than just coming back together. The south relied on slavery, without it their whole economy would crumble, they also viewed blacks and inferior and were appalled by any notion of letting them become citizens. Basically the South succeed since it wanted to keep slavery and do things their way, the North went into the fight to make the South come back to the Union and eventually led to ending slavery as well. So in conclusion I believe the war was all about slavery as the South seceded because of it which forced the North to retaliate.

Ah the South didn't want slavery to end. And what might have ended it (if they hadn't fought and lost the war)? The federal government telling them to end it. A federal government they couldn't control. But touche on neither party being team players.

[QUOTE=Drainwater;39012568]Mainly the idea of the federal government being able to tell the states what to do, and the states (the Southern states anyway) feeling they had no voice.[/QUOTE] If this was the main idea, (as you argue) then there would need to be a big issue over which the states and federal government could not mutually agree upon. That issue was slavery, which I argued as being the driving force behind that. States rights are irrelevant to the underlying cause, as you cannot argue about states rights unless you have an issue to argue over.

[QUOTE=Swilly;38987532]I'd argue for the South, Slavery was the biggest issue. Not the North and thats where the whole idea of the 'States Rights' comes from. The North needed the south's cotton farms for their industrial centers so it was a larger economic issue for the North than a slavery issue.[/QUOTE] No, Britain needed the South's cotton. The North didn't have a big textile industry. [QUOTE=Drainwater;39012568]Umm pretty sure it was over state sovereignty. The people in charge in the South realized they were outvoted in the Union (Lincoln winning the election), and decided to secede to do things their own way. Slavery was the popular reason at the time since it was the most loudly contested issue and it was so thoroughly linked to many of the Southern States' economies, but that was just a branch of the real issue. Mainly the idea of the federal government being able to tell the states what to do, and the states (the Southern states anyway) feeling they had no voice. If you read beyond the SLAVERY chapter in whatever wikipedia article you're getting your info from, you'll probably see something about how powerless the central Confederate government really was. It needed a lot more cooperation from its states to do anything than the Union did from its members. TL;DR: The southern states just didn't want to be team players in the game of politics. Much like Conservatives today come to think of it...[/QUOTE] And why were they afraid of being outvoted? Because they thought the North would ban slavery. Why didn't they want Federal government control? Because it would mean taking control out of the slave owners. The "state's rights" issue had been settled decades earlier. It is simply an apologist's playing card to avoid calling the Confederacy an outright racist institution, which it was.

As I said, slavery was the popular hot button issue. Your thread says it was [I]entirely[/I] over slavery, which isn't the case. There were also the issues of tariffs, filibustering in South America, and how the new territories should be distributed. And the states rights issue hadn't been settled. Just look at what comes out of the mouth of the Governor of Texas and you'll realize it hasn't been resolved to this day. [QUOTE=King Tiger;39012878]It is simply an apologist's playing card to avoid calling the Confederacy an outright racist institution, which it was.[/QUOTE] And no one here is avoiding calling the Confederacy a racist institution. Don't put words in my mouth. Figuratively speaking :) .

[QUOTE=Drainwater;39012887]As I said, slavery was the popular hot button issue. Your thread says it was [I]entirely[/I] over slavery, which isn't the case. There were also the issues of tariffs, filibustering in South America, and how the new territories should be distributed.[/QUOTE] The tariffs and the territories were both intrinsically linked to slavery, hence cannot be used to say it wasn't. As for fillibustering, I do not think that was a very large deal at the time to influence something on the scale of a civil war.

The tariffs were an issue that affected both sides, Northern manufacturers and Southern plantation owners alike, so they weren't "intrinsically" linked to slavery. The territories, yes, were falling in to the free/slave state categories nicely. You also forget that some Northern states were slave states, so that obviously isn't as cut and dry as that, now is it? And filibustering wasn't what sparked the war, but it was an influence on the politics. So, again, it wasn't [I]entirely[/I] over slavery.

[QUOTE=Drainwater;39013068]The tariffs were an issue that affected both sides, Northern manufacturers and Southern plantation owners alike, so they weren't "intrinsically" linked to slavery.[/QUOTE] The tariffs were protectionist measures introduced to protect northern industry from foreign competition. Southern cotton plantations had to bear the costs, which could be argued as an indirect attack on slavery by the north. [quote]You also forget that some Northern states were slave states, so that obviously isn't as cut and dry as that, now is it?[/QUOTE] Slavery wasn't going to be abolished at the outset, and the emancipation proclamation did not ban it in Union States. Those states saw more advantages from staying in the USA than from joining the CSA. [quote]And filibustering wasn't what sparked the war, but it was an influence on the politics. So, again, it wasn't entirely over slavery.[/quote] It had an influence, but it was never an underlying cause for the war.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39013161] It had an influence, but it was never an underlying cause for the war.[/QUOTE] Phew, got you to admit something besides only slavery. And I'm out. Just for clarification: "The American Civil War (or the Southern Rebellion) was entirely over the issue of slavery" I won't even attempt to argue the second part, "with the South doomed from the outset" because personally I agree with you on that. And again, I'm not defending the CSA. I'm just pointing out that Civil War history isn't so cut and dry. People throw out slavery as the reason for the war, and it was a large part of it. But many of the issues that led to it are still around today. And much of it boils down to interpretations of the Constitution. We interpret it differently today than they did back then, but it's ridiculous how differently 2 people can read the same document.

[QUOTE=Drainwater;39013202]Phew, got you to admit something besides only slavery. And I'm out. Just for clarification: "The American Civil War (or the Southern Rebellion) was entirely over the issue of slavery" I won't even attempt to argue the second part, "with the South doomed from the outset" because personally I agree with you on that. And again, I'm not defending the CSA. I'm just pointing out that Civil War history isn't so cut and dry. People throw out slavery as the reason for the war, and it was a large part of it. But many of the issues that led to it are still around today. And much of it boils down to interpretations of the Constitution. We interpret it differently today than they did back then, but it's ridiculous how differently 2 people can read the same document.[/QUOTE] You're ridiculous if you believe that the South seceded over filibustering. Or over some ideological debate over federal power. It only began after people pockets were about to get light because they perceived that their business was under attack.

eh if this is your history thesis, go back and do more digging, the majority of southerners were not slave owners like Hollywood would like you to believe the issue of slavery wasn't the single issue that caused the civil war, no war is ever caused by one single issue, the civil war was caused by a difference in ideology between the southern states (those that seceeded) and the ones that stayed in the union, thats why boarder states like Missouri and Kentucky stayed in the union, even though they were considered slave states. the main reason why the civil war happened was the south believed the federal goverment had no ability to regulate slavery, while the union believed it did, and the south also believed it had the power to suceed from the union as states essentially what they had done from britain before. another reason why they succeded was because they felt they were not being fairly represented in the union when Lincoln won the election with a whopping 0% of the southern vote (which geographically accounted for roughly 1/2 of the country at the time, even though demographically it accounted for less than 1/2 of the voting population) as for the second part, yes the south was doomed from the start, while they had better generals, and initially were evenly matched with the union because of the plundering of federal armories throughout the south, the north was one of the few industrialised powers in the world at the time, with telegraph communications, standard gauge railways, and more men and machines than the south ever could muster, along with open access to the great wealth of natural resources to the west, while the south was essentially blockaded from the west and from europe from 1863 onward

It wasn't slavery, But the fact that the entire cotton trade was the largest part of their economy. They couldn't stand to lose it. It was like a bitch slap from Lincoln when he wanted to abolish it, The greed of the south would be their downfall. It was the fact they were taking away the livelihood the south embellished with the emancipation proclamation However, if the confederates turned to making better arms of war they wouldn't have been so easily defeated. most of the problems they faced strategic wise was just because they didn't have a way of making more weapons, while the north was industrialized.

[QUOTE=Sableye;39018337]the main reason why the civil war happened was the south believed the federal goverment had no ability to regulate slavery, while the union believed it did[/QUOTE] ... So... it WAS about slavery then. [QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;39019229]It wasn't slavery, But the fact that the entire cotton trade was the largest part of their economy.[/QUOTE] But the cotton industry was run entirely by slaves. So again, it was about slavery.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39013161]The tariffs were protectionist measures introduced to protect northern industry from foreign competition. Southern cotton plantations had to bear the costs, which could be argued as an indirect attack on slavery by the north. Slavery wasn't going to be abolished at the outset, and the emancipation proclamation did not ban it in Union States. Those states saw more advantages from staying in the USA than from joining the CSA. It had an influence, but it was never an underlying cause for the war.[/QUOTE] Yea, the emancipation proclamation only freed the slaves in the states of rebellion, not ones in states that were not apart of the rebellion. [editline]29th December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;39019229]It wasn't slavery, But the fact that the entire cotton trade was the largest part of their economy. They couldn't stand to lose it. It was like a bitch slap from Lincoln when he wanted to abolish it, The greed of the south would be their downfall. It was the fact they were taking away the livelihood the south embellished with the emancipation proclamation However, if the confederates turned to making better arms of war they wouldn't have been so easily defeated. most of the problems they faced strategic wise was just because they didn't have a way of making more weapons, while the north was industrialized.[/QUOTE] You say it was not slavery, yet slaves are the ones who picked the cotton that allowed the South to have such a large cotton industry. One that if they lost would devastate their economy. The large part of why the Union won was from their industrialization though, they had the infrastructure to send troops to the front lines quickly, and they had the capabilities of creating weapons far easier and faster than the Confederacy did. Since the South was so focused on cotton, they did not work hard to bolster the industry and infrastructure that the North did since they did not see a reason to since they had cotton.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;39019302]... So... it WAS about slavery then. But the cotton industry was run entirely by slaves. So again, it was about slavery.[/QUOTE] no... you just cherrypicked from my post.... i said there were several factors, slavery was one factor, the abolishonists who became the republicans, did not want it to spread west, but the supreme court declared that the federal goverment had no right to the history books just play it up because its easier to blame slavery as the cause of war just as its easy to blame the spanish for sinking the u.s.s. maine in the spanish american war,

[QUOTE=Sableye;39019679]no... you just cherrypicked from my post.... i said there were several factors, slavery was one factor, the abolishonists who became the republicans, did not want it to spread west, but the supreme court declared that the federal goverment had no right to[/QUOTE] But in the end, it still boiled down to slavery. All those other arguments used (states rights for instance) still boil down to slavery as a root cause.

What is a little interesting are the different perspectives people have about the war. People have many theories as to why the war is happening, and unfortunately many were willing to murder and risk being killed for these irrational reasons. Really this is similar to today. The war in Iraq for the oil interests was about oil. The war in Iraq for George Bush was about a message from God. The war in Iraq was more about the strategic positioning for particular special interests. The war in Iraq was about increase arms sales for arms producers. To my grandmother it is about Israel. There are many reasons influences in a war, but a good question is, what is/are the main one/s? This is a pretty good argument about the civil war, though the north's motives are little interesting, especially with Lincoln.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;39013992]You're ridiculous if you believe that the South seceded over filibustering. Or over some ideological debate over federal power. It only began after people pockets were about to get light because they perceived that their business was under attack.[/QUOTE] I didn't say they did secede over filibustering, only that it was an influence. I like how people argue that there can only be one simple explanation for major historical events. I agree slavery was a major reason, but it wasn't the only reason.

Let's clear this up: Sobotnik's title clearly states his thesis is that slavery is the [I]sole cause[/I] of the war. Quote, "was [B]entirely[/B] over the issue of slavery." In that way, I believe he is wrong as, agreeing to Drainwater, no major historical event is caused by one simple cause. But I will agree that slavery was definitely a priority cause, if not the most important.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39037848]Let's clear this up: Sobotnik's title clearly states his thesis is that slavery is the [I]sole cause[/I] of the war. Quote, "was [B]entirely[/B] over the issue of slavery." In that way, I believe he is wrong as, agreeing to Drainwater, no major historical event is caused by one simple cause. But I will agree that slavery was definitely a priority cause, if not the most important.[/QUOTE] At worst I would say he needs to revise it to "caused by things that in one way or another related back to slavery".

In my humble opinion, south never even had the chance. Due to economical reasons, it was simply retarded for them to start the war. I mean, 8 million people versus 23 million with emigrants? South didn't even had enough factories to make guns and ammo, if not short with manpower. South was doomed from the start.

[QUOTE=overpain;39077100]In my humble opinion, south never even had the chance. Due to economical reasons, it was simply retarded for them to start the war. I mean, 8 million people versus 23 million with emigrants? South didn't even had enough factories to make guns and ammo, if not short with manpower. South was doomed from the start.[/QUOTE] I don't believe it was necessarily "doomed" from the very beginning. It had won a number of battles in the early stages of the war and, possibly, could have won it had it stayed on the defense instead of invading northward. But that's a whole other debate.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39087144]I don't believe it was necessarily "doomed" from the very beginning. It had won a number of battles in the early stages of the war and, possibly, could have won it had it stayed on the defense instead of invading northward. But that's a whole other debate.[/QUOTE] They barely had any factories. Their ammo was gonna end sooner or later. Manpower too.

[QUOTE=overpain;39089867]They barely had any factories. Their ammo was gonna end sooner or later. Manpower too.[/QUOTE] There's more to war than simple numbers.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39090252]There's more to war than simple numbers.[/QUOTE] Well, but if they don't have anything to shoot with they certainly won't win the war, even if they would have world's best strategists.

[QUOTE=overpain;39090280]Well, but if they don't have anything to shoot with they certainly won't win the war, even if they would have world's best strategists.[/QUOTE] Swords, at least in regards to light cavalry, played a fairly significant part. All the rifles were muzzleloaders so swords still possessed a significant advantage when infantrymen found themselves without a loaded round. Just an obligatory point though.. Though it seems the civil war eventually deteriorated down to just "X number of guns in the hands of X number of men" and the north had a huge advantage in that regard. Even if the south had won the war it's highly unlikely they would have been able to topple the north, and the north probably just would have come back later. Best case scenario for the south was simply being able to not be decimated and dissolved during the civil war.

[QUOTE=ShadowSocks8;38919802]While slavery was a factor, it wasn't the main reason. In fact, it was more of a scapegoat. Lincoln didn't give two shits about slavery one way or the other, he was a tyrant and wanted nothing more than to regain control of his collapsing Union. Think I'm wrong? Where in the Constitution does it say states aren't allowed to secede?[/QUOTE] He didn't despise the south actually. He wanted to unify it, which is why he had a democratic vice president.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39087144]I don't believe it was necessarily "doomed" from the very beginning. It had won a number of battles in the early stages of the war and, possibly, could have won it had it stayed on the defense instead of invading northward. But that's a whole other debate.[/QUOTE] im pretty sure sherman demonstrated that the boarder between north and south was fairly indefensable and quite passable