Did Lincoln Start the Civil War?

[norb]

Great stuff to consider! It's very interesting to try to get into the minds of the men that changed the country so much.

[Odox]

Warmest Greetings Gentlemen:

As is probably obvious, I rarely respond to posts in the Forum; certainly not out of any absence of avid interest in the development of the game, nor out of a lack of similar interests with my fellow enthusiasts. In fact, I genuinely appreciate many of the very fine points of detail and perspective I encounter here.

And as for the quality of the game as it has thus far been revealed, as a grizzled old grognard from the Avalon Hill days, I am genuinely impressed with what I've seen. I in fact feel the Austrian review didn't go far enough in its praises of what a truly masterful piece of historical and technical work is being created here. The gentlemen of the design team, you are doing extraordinary work, and I again urge you with the utmost sincerity for the sake of posterity: Continue to take your time and create a true work of art.

But to the topic at hand.

I'm sure many of us have had the experience of reading a certain post or thread, and elements of the thread keep buzzing around in one's mind for several days thereafter. Some unsettled, as yet vague idea pesters one's intellect as the mind almost unwillingly rolls and rolls around the irritating grain of sand in the process of perhaps creating some pearl, gaining some new insight, coming to some epiphany or breakthrough that releases one from the nagging consciousness (and the nagging conscience)that something is simply not right; some vital perspective is simply not being addressed in the question of whether or not Lincoln in fact bears the greatest responsibility for the horror of the nation called commonly the American Civil War.

To begin, and to perhaps again emphasize that it is the victor which writes the history, in comparison to other wars of civil strife, this was not a conflict of one or more militarized factions attempting to win control of the entire country. This was, in its most essential form, a war for the independence of the people of the states of the South, and not a war by them for the dominance of united States as a whole.

Part of the inconsistency which kept gnawing at me about this thread was the predominantly (and understandably) modern view of what is meant to "be an American" being used to measure the attitudes and behaviors of men who thought much differently of what it meant to be an American back then. Histories of the period written by today's authors have unquestionably given us a great deal of new information about the period, especially new perspectives in understanding the behaviors of important figures when such pivotal figures were influenced by what such excellent scholarship has revealed, hitherto unimagined. New information no doubt has led to new ideas.

But I caution my fellow enthusiasts that such new information, however valuable it may be in many ways, can and does mislead us into what is unquestionably historical revisionism if we are not careful, if we take too narrow a view of this period of history and history in general in our honest if not hasty desire to oversimplify matters, and thereby lose much important truth. Simply put, histories about the period have, in my opinion, glossed over, discounted and completely dismissed important attitudes and beliefs written before and in the period. I think by such inattention, we lose much of what it meant to be an American then, and to perhaps come to an understanding of what we have lost as Americans as a result, now.

A central and incorruptible belief in every man of that time, to the core of his being, was the concept of the "freeman"; of what it meant to be a freeman, of how this concept framed his relationship to his neighbors, in his economic dealings, to religion, to his State and to the government in Washington DC.

This paradigm, if followed faithfully and researched honestly, will undoubtedly show that, far from advancing the cause of freedom by freeing the slaves or preserving the Union, actually destroyed in America what was believed to be sacred tenets of the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason; and for all their faults, certainly the most dearly-held beliefs of the Founding Fathers.

In short, our Southern forebears fought ferociously because they knew they fought against every single form of tyranny from which they had only recently freed themselves; the bloodshed of the Hundred and the Thirty-Year's Wars, the Counter-Reformation and the abuses of the Calvinist theocracies, the horrors of serfdom and monarchy and indentured servitude from which so many had only recently escaped, these things were fresh to these men. Has everyone here somehow forgotten how the debates in Philadelphia raged, in attempting to establish a central government of the colonies, over whether or not they were merely substituting one form of tyranny for another? Isn't it explicit that a free people can choose to join an association of other free peoples? And is it not the most blatant violation of the hard-won rights of that same free people to be prevented from as peacefully withdrawing from such an association by bloody conquest upon them?

In the end, backed by expansionist commercial interests, yes Lincoln is the historical figure most responsible for the war. The supremacy of Federal power over any and all other considerations was made manifest; at best, we can only sigh and say the slaves were given a questionable freedom while the rest of the citizenry lost a great deal, a process which has quite plainly continued down to our present time.

It was also a profound defeat for the Christian faith, especially Protestantism, but that discussion could be saved for a later time.

Respectfully,

Odox

[Armchair General]

Odox wrote:

Warmest Greetings Gentlemen:

In short, our Southern forebears fought ferociously because they knew they fought against every single form of tyranny from which they had only recently freed themselves; the bloodshed of the Hundred and the Thirty-Year's Wars, the Counter-Reformation and the abuses of the Calvinist theocracies, the horrors of serfdom and monarchy and indentured servitude from which so many had only recently escaped, these things were fresh to these men. Has everyone here somehow forgotten how the debates in Philadelphia raged, in attempting to establish a central government of the colonies, over whether or not they were merely substituting one form of tyranny for another? Isn't it explicit that a free people can choose to join an association of other free peoples? And is it not the most blatant violation of the hard-won rights of that same free people to be prevented from as peacefully withdrawing from such an association by bloody conquest upon them?


Respectfully,

Odox

Couple of follow-up comments: Are you really trying to compare the Hundred Years' War with the American Civil War? And the debates raged in Philadelphia as you said on one level because the Southern representatives were trying to be hypocrites. On one hand, they were denying slaves every single human right, and then on the other hand, they wanted them counted as population so they could get more representatives in Congress? That should pop up as a serious WTF moment, and that same debate continued on through the early 19th century and headed straight to the 1860s.

[Odox]

My dear Armchair General,

I must apologize for the misunderstandings.

I had just finished a detailed post addressing your thoughts and attempted to post it, but I became disconnected from the sight somehow during my response to you and my post was lost. I didn't think beforehand that I might need to save it as it would have been saved in the forum had it posted properly.

Again, I regret this occurrence very much and apologize for whatever misunderstandings you have about my comments.

Sincerely,

Odox

[Armchair General]

Odox wrote:

My dear Armchair General,

I must apologize for the misunderstandings.

I had just finished a detailed post addressing your thoughts and attempted to post it, but I became disconnected from the sight somehow during my response to you and my post was lost. I didn't think beforehand that I might need to save it as it would have been saved in the forum had it posted properly.

Again, I regret this occurrence very much and apologize for whatever misunderstandings you have about my comments.

Sincerely,

Odox

No need to apologize, I guess I just lost track of the points being made.

[JC Edwards]

AC has a tendency to wander a bit Odox.

As in the MMG OOB for TC2M, he alway's seems to wander right smack dab into the middle of a fire fight!

[Armchair General]

JC Edwards wrote:

AC has a tendency to wander a bit Odox.

As in the MMG OOB for TC2M, he alway's seems to wander right smack dab into the middle of a fire fight!

I look forward to 'wandering' into your lines Sarge. And then subsequently crushing them.. Too zealous? Perhaps...

[JC Edwards]

Armchair General wrote:

JC Edwards wrote:

AC has a tendency to wander a bit Odox.

As in the MMG OOB for TC2M, he alway's seems to wander right smack dab into the middle of a fire fight!

I look forward to 'wandering' into your lines Sarge. And then subsequently crushing them.. Too zealous? Perhaps...

No,no. It's perfectly fine to "get your dander up" AC my young friend. Just know that my boy's will be waiting there to greet you.......with the "cold steel".

[dale]

"In short, our Southern forebears fought ferociously because they knew they fought against every single form of tyranny from which they had only recently freed themselves; the bloodshed of the Hundred and the Thirty-Year's Wars, the Counter-Reformation and the abuses of the Calvinist theocracies, the horrors of serfdom and monarchy and indentured servitude from which so many had only recently escaped, these things were fresh to these men. Has everyone here somehow forgotten how the debates in Philadelphia raged, in attempting to establish a central government of the colonies, over whether or not they were merely substituting one form of tyranny for another? Isn't it explicit that a free people can choose to join an association of other free peoples? And is it not the most blatant violation of the hard-won rights of that same free people to be prevented from as peacefully withdrawing from such an association by bloody conquest upon them?"

Welcome to the discussion, Odox. I think defenders of the Southern Cause tend to romanticize their defenses of it. This concept began before the Civil War, where writers compared their Southern brethren as the last bastion of chivalry, defenders of morality, church and women, not to mention the Holy Light of the Revolution itself.

And yet, when you look at who led the fight for secession in the South it was the cotton growing states. These states were closer to a feudal society than any northern state. When the prime land in these states is owned by plantation owners, who work the land by forced slavery then the argument turns against itself. Where was the voice of the freeholding small Southern farmer who did not own slaves? You will have to look hard to find it. Cotton was the economic engine of the South (and of the US.) Cotton is what drove the demand for slaves. Cotton provided the largest export by far of the United States, the Northern industries were actually not competing at all on the international market, they could only compete within their own domestic sphere. Most Northerners were small landholders--much closer to the yeoman class that you romanticize about. It was the cotton aristocracy that pushed for expansion of slavery in the new territories. The wealth produced by cotton and the slave trade demanded by the cotton plantation owners channeled the politics of the South. This wealth drowned out the voices of others.

When you actually do look closely at the South in the Civil War you will note that there was considerable dissent amongst the non-slaveholding white freeholding farmers. Virginia lost all of its northwestern counties, the North Carolina governor had to maintain a large Home Guard just to keep the mountain areas of the state from breaking apart, a Northern regiment was actually raised from Huntsville, Alabama. Union regiments were raised from Tennessee. The areas of the Southern states where most of the non slave holding whites lived were not enthusiastic defenders of the Southern cause. The irony of your argument lies in the juxtaposition of the term "freeman" with all of its noble trappings and the reality of an aristocratic slave holding class who owned not only slaves but multiples of acreage.

Bringing religion into the argument is a trap as well. I am glad you did not want to wade too deep into that for you would find that the religious arguments that buttressed the defense of slavery prior to 1861 waned during the realities of the war itself. There was a wing at the Museum of the Confederacy in Richmond that was devoted to an exposition of the role of religion in the Southern cause. The point of the exposition was that by 1864 the Southern church goer was losing faith in their cause. It argued that in 1865 the South still had the resources to carry on the fight but it lost the belief in its argument.

So why did most Southerners who took up arms for the CSA fight? I would argue that it was the sense of territory, of defending your home that prompted most. The non cotton growing states did not join the Southern cause until after Lincoln called for the 75,000 volunteers. These 75,000 were to be raised by all the states still in the Union. This put before the hesitating states the reality of raising troops from their own citizens to put down a possible insurrection within their own state against their fellow citizens. This is what drove Virginia, Tennessee and North Carolina over to the CSA. The South had a militia tradition. These militia units were a part of the social fabric of Southern society. Most of the Virginians who had "Colonel" in their appellation were at one time colonels in county militia units. It was a matter of civic pride and duty to be a part of the local militia units. These militias were funded at the state level and the state governor controlled their call up. The concept of defending your homeland against foreign invasion (and the possible slave revolt) was the base of the emotional fervor found in the South in 1861. The men who flocked to volunteer in the militia units in the South in 1861 saw themselves as defending their homes, their sweethearts, their neighbors. The idea of actually "invading" the North to preserve their country was debated fiercely and had great opposition on moral grounds. The well of volunteers was not a deep one in the South and the CSA was the first to institute a forced draft and to extend the enlistment period.

In short, Southern apologists have argued since the mid 1800's that the South was forced into the war due to a fear of economic and political domination from the North.
They saw themselves as the true defenders of the traditions of morality and liberty. They held as their trump card that the states had a "right" to secede. Each argument of course has another side, whether viewed from the mindset of 1861 or 2009.

[norb]

Good article Dale. It's easy to see how people on both sides could be drawn into the war. There are enough reasons for the war, that if one didn't work for you another would. I always consider the point about Lincoln raising his army and whether or not that might have been the main catalyst for turning this thing into a country wide fight. I think that it did for some, but certainly not for all. I can understand Lincoln, for knowing what had to be done to make our country great. But it's also easy to see the point of the slave owner, knowing that without this labor, their business's would fail. Probably not true, but it's easy to see how they could think that. I see the men from the north and south eager to join their local group going off to war. Understanding the southern man, afraid of king like power that Lincoln was weilding, is not hard either. Without the means of communication that we have today, I doubt that the fighters had any clue about all these different reasons. They fought for what worked for them, and they probably believed that's what the war was about.

Maybe if there was a good blog about slavery that the guys could have read from their iphones, they might have joined the other side