In perhaps the greatest American speech Lincoln himself gave the reasons for fighting to keep the union:
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.
(My emphasis.) Lincoln’s concern was that if the Confederacy was allowed to secede that democracy on a national level was doomed not just in the US but anywhere.
We can debate the unreasonableness of the the South’s view of Ft. Sumter. However, firing on Ft. Sumter was completely unreasonable. That is an act of belligerence.
At the risk of psychoanalyzing people who lived over a hundred years ago, I suspect that living within a slave system affected their judgement. Southern slave owners became hyper-sensitive to any suggestion of subordination. Their worldview was that people were divided into masters and slaves and if you weren’t the master then you must be the slave.
I’ve read the theory that this is why so many southerners were leaders in the American Revolution even though the south was relatively left alone by the British. The theory was that the southerners resented British control over them in principle more than northerners did. The northerners supposedly only got riled up when the British actually did something like occupy Boston - they were willing to tolerate British rule as long as it was unobtrusive. But southerners couldn’t accept even the idea that somebody else was ruling over them - making them slaves, in effect, to the British masters.
Supposedly this same worldview is what led to secession. Southerners couldn’t accept the idea that a Republican national government was above them even if that government took no action against them. And the three issues I mentioned all had a common them: they were attempts by the Confederate government to compel other governments to do something. To establish, in effect, that the new southern nation was not subordinate to any other nation.
With an independent CSA to the south the Monroe Doctrine also would have been dead in the water. With England perpetually annoyed at the USA - and there were still factions at the time would talked about retaking the ‘rebellious colonists’, the USA would have been in the untenable position of having English sympathies to its north and south. At that point, England would have almost certainly felt a need to flex some new world muscle and see what it could carve off.
We wouldn’t have lost Pennsylvania or New York, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see pressure placed on the US that made the western territories either English or independent. Ditto the upper midwest.
This seems obvious and true for us, today. But it was not so obvious then.
At the time, the war was rarely discussed in terms of civil rights ( a phrase that did not even exist). The discussion and political debate was legalistic: whether new territories and states would allow slavery, how those territories would be represented in Washington, and what rights those territories would have to defy Washington. (Of course, the main issue on which they wanted to defy Washington was slavery…)
As Martin Hyde said in post #38, Lincoln seemed to care mostly about his legal and political obligation as President to keep the union together as one legal entity.Ethics were hardly mentioned. Lincoln never made any bold speeches showing moral leadership, like Martin Luther King would do a century later.
Only 5 years before the War , the Dred Scott case was ruled on by the Supreme Court–The court which spoke for the entire US–not just the southern states–and which ruled that blacks are not American citizens:
“A free negro of the African race is not a citizen within the meaning of the Constitution.”*
For us, locked into our our modern attitudes, it is shocking and incomprehensible that the highest-level legal minds in the country could write that sentence, and that the highest level politicans like Lincoln could accept it.
But when looking at history, it’s important to focus on the mindset of people in the past, not our mindset today.
And that question of mindset brings me back to the OP, who asked why people were so willing to shed so much blood. It’s easy to see why the southerners wanted to defend their society.Their plantations and slaves were their way of life, and people will fight hard when their lives and livelihoods are threatened…
But I cannot understand what motivated farmers from the north to give up their peaceful agricultural routine and way of life, to march five hundred miles and then die far from home, for, well,…for what? Winning a battle in Georgia would not improve their lives back on the family farm in Pennsyvania. Yet 18 year olds proudly signed up for the Union Army. I think that often the youth from entire towns would sign up together, and form a platoon named after their town. (Yes, I know that, later on, serving in the army wasn’t always popular, and the North had to institute a compulsory draft to keep enough bodies in uniform.)
But what caused the initial enthusiasm for war in the first place? Why did a kid who had lived his entire life on a small farm, who had never seen a slave in his life, and probably never even been close to a black person , want to leave it all behind and risk his life for a cause which in no way affected his personal life?
That or The War of Southern Treason doesn’t have quite the same ring to it. It never ceases to amaze me the contortions that some people will make trying to deny the fact that the South started the war, not the North. Regarding secession, I’d like to point out that the population in the states that seceded weren’t consulted on the decision; not everyone wanted to leave the Union. Further, the constitution of the CSA didn’t include the right of states to secede from it; the proposal to include such language was tabled with only the delegates of South Carolina voting in favor of it.
This is just trying to steal the high ground. The War of Northern Agression is called that because the Northern nation attacked (see dictionary def. of agression) the Southern nation that had seceded.
…By no serious and educated historian in the history of the world.
The term “War of Northern Aggression” was used by exactly nobody until at least the mid-1950s, at which point opponents of the Civil Rights movement - racists - began using it, and it picked up steam in the Internet era. Prior to that there is no record of anyone, ever, not a single person, calling the Civil War “The War of Northern Aggression.” Even Jefferson Davis did not call it that.
There is a reason actual historians do not use it; it’s stupid.
In his first inaugural address Lincoln promised to invade the South in order to maintain the collection of tariffs in this area. He was a railroad cronyist first and foremost, a skilled rhetorician second. He used sanctimonious religious rhetoric to spur the masses to fight his war so that his Whig statist cohort could divide the loot. It worked spectacularly.
I think there are a few issues. The most important one is patriotism, or nationalism, whichever word you prefer. No patriot likes to see his country cut in half. This was during the time of “manifest destiny”, when nationalists dreamed of a county that stretched from ocean to ocean. Patriots wanted a bigger, stronger country. Secession would have undermined that. (In addition, it would have created a competitor, if not outright enemy, on the immediate southern border.)
Then there was Abraham Lincoln. It was his election that sparked the war, and as president he believed (as any president would) that it was his responsibility to keep the country together. He was a political prodigy, a very gifted man, and much of the Union success belongs to him. As president he had (or obtained) the ability to draft people, make or break generals, impose taxes, suspend writs of habeas corpus, and issue money, among other things.
Finally, there were the Abolitionists. They were a minority, but they were among Lincoln’s strongest supporters, and they played a role in the war effort as well.
No. The Confederacy fired on soldiers prior to the arrival of a relief mission. The soldiers in Sumter weren’t attacking anyone. The first shot was actually offered to secessionist Roger Pryor, who declined, stating that he “could not fire the first gun of the war”.
“The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.”
In other words, what Lincoln is saying is that the taxes he is Constitutionally obliged to collect, he will collect. Like every other legitimate government that has ever existed in the history of the world. Some invasion.
You’re not exactly clear on the concept of a “Fort” are you? It’s a military encampment surrounded by walls, pickets, earthworks, etc. to make it harder for attacking forces to get at the guys inside of it. The Union guys were inside the fort, in case that wasn’t stated earlier in the thread.
Whig statist cohort? Abe Lincoln was a Republican. It was the Republican party that was trying to legislate against allowing slavery in future U.S. States. It was the members of the “other” party who were trying to insure that slavery would be allowed in future U.S. States.
He was ignorant of military strategy in the beginning of his presidency, something he worked hard to remedy as you say, but my criticism extends beyond that. Henry Halleck was a good organizer, that is the man responsible for any semblance of balancing military with political needs. Of course an administration isn’t a one man show, but lets place the praise at the feet of the man who earned it.
He trusted George McClellan far too much and for far too long. After he was removed Lincoln swung the other way and his impatience alienated talented generals (Reynolds and Hancock wanted no part of this shit show) and pushed mediocre commanders beyond their capabilities (Burnside was pushed into the Fredericksburg debacle, Meade Hooker and Pope were cycled though like they were models on a fashion show cat walk)
And as far as cultivating Military talent? Please. The best generals the Union had; Grant, Sherman, Thomas, McPherson came from the Western theater precisely because it was considered a political backwater. They rose in spite of Washington’s political machinations not because of it. Lincoln bears a great deal of responsibility for that environment.
My overall position is; the Union had a tougher road to hoe than is supposed (as I said in my previous post), Lincoln was adroit at handling political turmoil, he made many foolish mistakes in the conduct of the war which in turn created much of that political turmoil.
IIRC WillFarnaby leans highly libertarian. I really don’t understand the hatred that libertarians have for Lincoln. No one is more responsible for the end of slavery than Lincoln and you’d think he’d be celebrated for that fact and yet they pillory him. One extreme libertarian I knew on another message board celebrated John Wilkes Booth Day. Often libertarians defend the Confederacy. Does slavery not matter to these people?
In one narrow sense the South had a point: if an overwhelming majority of its citizens didn’t want to be part of the United States anymore, how could a government claiming to stand for democracy and freedom force them at gun point to remain? Libertarians loath Lincoln because in their eyes he adopted a policy of “above all else, uphold the State, by force and conquest if necessary”. That said, even besides slavery the South was hardly a bastion of freedom. When the South passed a universal draft law, Texas representative Louis Wigfall defended the draft saying "No man has any individual rights, which come into conflict with the welfare of the country’.