# CSA dead in the ACW? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 8, 2009, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/csa-dead-in-the-acw/512998 "2009-10-08T00:35:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2009, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/csa-dead-in-the-acw/512998/41 "2009-10-10T03:13:27Z")
Quite true. Consider, also, the Cornerstone Speech: [Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech) ---
**Author:** ![Jeff\_Lichtman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jeff_lichtman/32/1531_2.png) [@Jeff\_Lichtman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jeff_Lichtman)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2009, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/csa-dead-in-the-acw/512998/42 "2009-10-10T06:26:21Z")
**chowder** , one thing to consider is that, from the secessionists’ point of view, the U.S. was not one country, and the northerners were not their countrymen. Many of them believed that federal troops were invading their homeland. Robert E. Lee, for example, joined the fight for the Confederacy in order to defend his “country” of Virginia. Even some unionists were prone to thinking this way - there is a story (possibly apocryphal) that General Meade once wired Lincoln after a battle that he had “driven the rebels from our soil” (Lincoln is supposed to have remarked, “When will they learn that it is all our soil?”) This is why, despite what **davekhps** said, the term _War Between the States_ is not a neutral term. It is used by apologists for the Confederacy to frame the war as one between the northern states and the southern states, as opposed to a war between a central government representing the whole country and a group of rebels who wanted to break away. ---
**Author:** ![chowder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/977dab/32.png) [@chowder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chowder)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2009, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/csa-dead-in-the-acw/512998/43 "2009-10-10T06:45:33Z")
> [@Jeff\_Lichtman](#): > > **chowder** , one thing to consider is that, from the secessionists’ point of view, the U.S. was not one country, and the northerners were not their countrymen. Many of them believed that federal troops were invading their homeland. Robert E. Lee, for example, joined the fight for the Confederacy in order to defend his “country” of Virginia. Even some unionists were prone to thinking this way - there is a story (possibly apocryphal) that General Meade once wired Lincoln after a battle that he had “driven the rebels from our soil” (Lincoln is supposed to have remarked, “When will they learn that it is all our soil?”) > > This is why, despite what **davekhps** said, the term _War Between the States_ is not a neutral term. It is used by apologists for the Confederacy to frame the war as one between the northern states and the southern states, as opposed to a war between a central government representing the whole country and a group of rebels who wanted to break away. Well then it appears to me that the secessionists didn’t understand exactly what **United** States meant. As for Lee fighting for his ‘country’. his country was the USA, his state was Virginia and to my way of looking at it he was totally out of order in considering Virginia to be a country. Lincoln had it nailed, it was all your soil ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2009, 7:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/csa-dead-in-the-acw/512998/44 "2009-10-10T07:12:39Z")
> [@chowder](#): > > Well then it appears to me that the secessionists didn’t understand exactly what **United** States meant. To be fair, they may have been looking back at the Declaration of Independence, which said > [@](#): > > IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776. > The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, … Note the non-capitalization of that word **united** there. It’s even more obvious in the original, where “united” is in a much smaller size than the words “States of America”. Personally, I think that was superseded by the Articles of Confederation and later the Constitution, which did write **United States** , and even specific words like “perpetual union”. ---
**Author:** ![engineer\_comp\_geek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/engineer_comp_geek/32/504_2.png) [@engineer\_comp\_geek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/engineer_comp_geek)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2009, 10:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/csa-dead-in-the-acw/512998/45 "2009-10-10T10:34:01Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > To say the Civil War was not about slavery is just not accurate. Saying the Civil War was all about slavery is a lot like saying that World War I was about the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand. Slavery is what sparked off the war. It wasn’t the underlying cause. The underlying cause was an “us vs. them” attitude that had been growing in strength for decades. As things started to polarize between the southern agricultural culture and the northern industrial culture, slavery was one of those things that you could easily point to and say see, that’s where they are different than us. As such, a lot of the arguments on both sides built up around slavery. The underlying tension was there long before slavery moved to the forefront of the issues though. A lot of “slavery” issues weren’t really slavery issues. They were control issues. For example, how the new western territories would be managed was portrayed as a slavery issue, but it wasn’t really. The south wanted these territories to be allied with them, as did the north, because whichever way these states went would decide who had more control at the federal level. Battles at the federal level had raged for decades. The north wanted laws and policies that favored their industrial and city based lifestyle. The south wanted laws and policies that favored their agricultural and rural lifestyle. Then, as now, whoever had more control in Washington got to force their policies through. As the balance of power shifted back and forth, whoever was on the losing side of a particular political battle tended to get pissed off, furthering the us vs. them polarization that had started many years earlier. Lincoln was the straw that broke the camel’s back. When it became clear that he would be elected, the southern states decided to secede. They viewed Lincoln as being a pro-north president. Even if Lincoln hadn’t gotten elected, and even if somehow the whole slavery issue managed to get resolved peacefully (not bloody likely given the circumstances), that still probably wouldn’t have stopped the war from coming. The south may have had to come up with a different excuse to secede, but by that point the U.S. was so polarized that just about anything could have set off the war. ---
**Author:** ![Mk\_VII](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Mk\_VII](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mk_VII)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2009, 11:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/csa-dead-in-the-acw/512998/46 "2009-10-10T11:20:21Z")
One effect of the war was to change the common ante-bellum construction, “ **these** United States” to “ **the** United States”. Lee privately disagreed with the decision to secede, but chose to go with his state (Virginia), as did many other people faced with a choice. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2009, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/csa-dead-in-the-acw/512998/47 "2009-10-13T00:28:24Z")
> [@engineer\_comp\_geek](#): > > Saying the Civil War was all about slavery is a lot like saying that World War I was about the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand. Slavery is what sparked off the war. It wasn’t the underlying cause. The underlying cause was an “us vs. them” attitude that had been growing in strength for decades. As things started to polarize between the southern agricultural culture and the northern industrial culture, slavery was one of those things that you could easily point to and say see, that’s where they are different than us. As such, a lot of the arguments on both sides built up around slavery. The underlying tension was there long before slavery moved to the forefront of the issues though. A lot of “slavery” issues weren’t really slavery issues. They were control issues. For example, how the new western territories would be managed was portrayed as a slavery issue, but it wasn’t really. The south wanted these territories to be allied with them, as did the north, because whichever way these states went would decide who had more control at the federal level. Battles at the federal level had raged for decades. The north wanted laws and policies that favored their industrial and city based lifestyle. The south wanted laws and policies that favored their agricultural and rural lifestyle. Then, as now, whoever had more control in Washington got to force their policies through. As the balance of power shifted back and forth, whoever was on the losing side of a particular political battle tended to get pissed off, furthering the us vs. them polarization that had started many years earlier. > > Lincoln was the straw that broke the camel’s back. When it became clear that he would be elected, the southern states decided to secede. They viewed Lincoln as being a pro-north president. Even if Lincoln hadn’t gotten elected, and even if somehow the whole slavery issue managed to get resolved peacefully (not bloody likely given the circumstances), that still probably wouldn’t have stopped the war from coming. The south may have had to come up with a different excuse to secede, but by that point the U.S. was so polarized that just about anything could have set off the war. Eh, you have some good points about sectionalism, but when one reads what was written and said at the time, it’s clear that slavery and its racialist background issues were the trump cards. Sectionalism may have heated things up but it did not provide the sharpest impetus for the war. If you take a shallow glance at the war, you’d say it was slavery that caused it. Scratch the surface, and sectional/control issues become apparent. But the bones deep down underneath all that are slavery and racial fear, after all. ---
**Author:** ![qazwart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/5fc32e/32.png) [@qazwart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/qazwart)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2009, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/csa-dead-in-the-acw/512998/48 "2009-10-13T02:58:41Z")
Don’t forget Texas’ Articles of Succession! Not only do they mention that them Yankees wanted to take away their property (slaves), but the same said Yankees wanted to mongrelize the races. From the very first paragraph: > [@](#): > > 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. And the conclusion: > [@](#): > > We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable. > > That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states. Now tell me again it wasn’t about slavery. ---
**Author:** ![RadicalPi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/radicalpi/32/9806_2.png) [@RadicalPi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RadicalPi)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2009, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/csa-dead-in-the-acw/512998/49 "2009-10-13T05:39:45Z")
> [@Mk\_VII](#): > > One effect of the war was to change the common ante-bellum construction, “ **these** United States” to “ **the** United States”. > Lee privately disagreed with the decision to secede, but chose to go with his state (Virginia), as did many other people faced with a choice. [Mostly irrelevant comment] According to the Language Log, this may not be quite true. See [Language Log » When did the Supreme Court make us an 'is'?](http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1798) . In the written opinions of the Supreme Court, the United States didn’t consistently become singular until about the 1910s. While it is true that the formal sort of language usage that an opinion of the Supreme Court would use tends to lag common informal speech and writing, it’s important to note that the changeover from plural to singular did not happen all at once. In fact, according to the Language Log, the Civil War may have slowed the changeover. [/Mostly irrelevant comment] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/csa-dead-in-the-acw/512998.md?page=2)