This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
The True Cause of the American Civil War
Hello Tedsters, I'm a student of an Advanced Placement United States History Class or APUSH in short. Recently for the class, we had to write an essay about the Civil War, and it's inevitability due to extremism and failure of leadership. We discussed how the cause for the Civil War was not merely slavery and definitely not only slavery. Our teacher also emphasized that we should "DIG DEEPER". One of the few examples she gave us was; the riots of John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry led to the South's nervousness and responded to Lincoln's victory in the Election of 1860 by establishing the Confederacy and proposing secession.
One of my arguments was that the South wanted economic freedom to continue their agricultural lives, practice of slavery and trade with Britain. I agreed with a comment stating this was a Second Revolutionary War, due to the South desiring to escape the economic restrictions from the North (such as the Tariffs), like how the colonies did from Britain during the American Revolutionary War.
Now when I look back to the regular history classes I've taken in the past years, I thought to myself, why isn't this taught in basic classes? Must a student be eligible to be in an AP class or wait till College just to realize history isn't that vague, and everything taught in the textbooks isn't exactly true but merely one of the many perspectives on a single issue? So I have two main questions:
Why isn't this concept of thinking taught in basic classes in middle school or high school? Is it because there's a fear that students can't learn or understand such concepts? Isn't it a bit problematic that while I can argue a couple of deep causes to the Civil War, a few of my friends believe and only believe the true cause is slavery?
My second question is:
What do you think the true cause of the Civil War was? If you’re going to say without an explanation, slavery and only slavery, I’m afraid I’m going to have to ask you to dig deeper or at least explain why.
Justin Yuen
On another note, we are sadly in a society in which students are categorized and separated as "honor" students or as an average student, rather than a place where all students are pushed to be inspired to become successfully smart and to actually care about what they're doing. Now when most teachers or adults view students who don't care about school, or don’t bother to take that extra step to pass with a better grade than just a passing grade, they disregard them and walk away saying "let it be." I do not believe it’s always the teachers fault, or the school systems fault, but the students and their parents. If only parents would encourage their children and get them determined, then perhaps they would actually care to attempt to learn, to comprehend or to understand the lessons behind every class. It’s depressing that the students give such little devotion and care.
Before I begin to get non sequitur, I’ll conclude that there is simply many faults in education, pertaining to the dictating and restrictive textbooks to the careless students who don’t have the determination or capability to excel and learn something more than “basic education” (although basic education has already been dumbed down.)
Justin Yuen
Anyhow, I read and saw a couple of very interesting perspectives about both questions. As my APUSH teacher says, matters usually should be argued to a certain extent. It's difficult to claim an argument to be completely true or false, and acknowledge it as the only correct perspective (especially without, in anyway, insulting or stubbornly disregarding the possibilities of other perspectives.) Therefore, we can't say what completely caused the Civil War; we can only state the factors that helped lead to the Civil War. Some argued that the war, like most conflicts in political history, was all about money. We can't say what Lincoln truly desired because we weren't there to read his mind. We can argue our points backed with documents, inauguration and actions passed by Lincoln and his cabinet, but we can never truly claim that's the complete truth. We are only capable of arguing how Lincoln was, to an extent, a dictator, or the Great Emancipator, or someone as vile as Hitler, or as the Savior of the Slaves. Hence, I must say that I agree with most of you, but only to an extent because if I didn't, then I wouldn't be any better than those who only believe in a single possible answer, such as claiming slavery is a cause and not an issue.
Barry Palmer 50+
When said to an adult, these words amount to a slap in the face. But it is certainly true that young children cannot be taught the full raw truth. I agree with Fritzie Reisner and Mike Colera, that primarily it is a matter of finding the right explanation suitable to the knowledge and development of the students. Another factor is social acceptance. Text books that do not support accepted stories will not sell very well.
Mark Meijer 100+
Justin Yuen
That is an utterly upsetting reality. If only the world didn't revolve around money and instead focused on the knowledge and development of students so they may excel to be able to comprehend better explanations of the full truth.
Barry Palmer 50+
However, the reason for this is that the textbooks are selected by local school boards, which are elected locally, largely by the parents of the students. This system has its faults, but I would not change it. The obvious solution is better educated adults, so let us hope that we can improve the whole system, produce a better educated population, which will result in an even better education system.
Mike Colera 10+
Justin seems concerned that his friends don't understand the causes of the civil war as he does. I would only be concerned if these students were in his AP class. I think the real question is: what is acceptable for the level of knowledge of high schoolers or middle schoolers.
Justin Yuen
Mark Meijer 100+
Hope you get what I'm getting at. Don't stop questioning. You are not crazy. But maybe I am :).
Mark Meijer 100+
We are too much attached to our own perspectives, because we want to maintain the belief in our own beliefs, because our sense of individual identity is at stake. We can't stand the idea of being totally wrong, even though throughout history, virtually everyone has been totally wrong about virtually everything virtually all the time. And so we can't stand the idea of honestly exploring different perspectives, unless and until (and only to the extent that) our curiosity outweighs our fear. That's why opinions are the only real opium. We need to believe that our beliefs tell us who we are, because without them, we are not.
In my opium... it's very good to dig deeper. Until such time that you are forced to recognize the fact that all you can ever dig up is those different perspectives. Just different stories "about" the "true cause". Is any of them THE correct perspective? Is any of the narratives THE true one? Even if we skip over the fact that you can't possibly know what "really" happened, even if you were actually there and witnessed it all directly (although, could anyone actually witness it ALL directly?)... even then, would you really have anything to go on besides just more narratives? Is there a fundamental difference between story and opinion?
Is any story not fiction?
Justin Yuen
I agree with your second paragraph as well. History is practically all written by the "victors" as Howard Zinn states it, and is probably written all wrong. We can't know for sure what exactly happened and that fear of not being able to know or understand it is frightening. That's possibly why so many people tolerate and become so gullible to what we are told because we don't know what else to believe in.
Additionally, we should also question everything. We should always remain hungry to know more and to ask about everything. We shouldn't fear the notion of not knowing something or to not be able to find answers, we should accept what we've achieved so far and enjoy the curiosities we're capable of making.
edward long 100+
Your Q#2) Lincoln felt secession would destroy the whole nation. Slavery was not on his radar. As POTUS he sacrificed 600,000+ American lives and the sovereign rights of states to preserve the Union. Noble as it sounds he defied the founding documents and tenets of our once great nation. Today we have almost all revenue going to Washington D.C. and being redistributed as "they" see fit. Lincoln would have supported and preserved slavery if it would have served his purpose to do so. Centralizing the government was the true cause of America's most tragic war.
Mike Colera 10+
If we were totally truthful to the children?? How would we answered the question.... What if Lincoln had failed in his efforts or held to the constitution and there were two nations where now there is one.
Would these two countries been as effective in WW I. Let alone WW II. Germany and Japan had planned to conquer North America and divide the spoils along the Rocky Mtns. Could the 4 counties of North America (Canada, USA, CSA, Mexico) come together to prevent that? I hate it when kids ask tough questions.
I like to think I don't have a nefarious bone in my body, I am just too embarrassed to show my ignorance to wide eyed youngsters who look up to me.
OK, I am not sure that Lincoln foresaw the retention of the Federation would lead to the powerful central government. I think that was a snowball that just rolled downhill. I do think that he had to free the slaves to give the country the noble cause to engage in the war. He was losing congress before he made that leap.
Not that he gained much support for his efforts.
edward long 100+
Mike Colera 10+
edward long 100+
Mike Colera 10+
It all went down hill from there. At least, that's how I understand it.
Justin Yuen
edward long 100+
Mike Colera 10+
Justin Yuen
greg dahlen 20+
You say that the South wanted to continue its agricultural practices, trade with Britain, and slavery. After the Civil War, the South continued to do agriculture, and I imagine to trade with Britain. The only thing that changed was the cessation of slavery, right? That would suggest that slavery was the problem that led to the war, no?
Since you haven't proved that slavery wasn't the main cause of the war, it's hard to comment on your other questions on what is taught in less advanced classes.
Robert Winner 50+
Gail . 50+
Did you know that states actually do have the right to secede? I know that you have learned about the Federalist Papers and how the Federalists are our founding fathers, but how much time was spent looking at the anti-federalists and their concerns - that turned out to be prescient. Do you even know that there are anti-federalist papers, and that the Federalist Papers were rejected, along with the Federalist's constitution?
Only after an agreement was reached did the Federalists submit to the will of the people and the states. There had to be a Bill of Rights that turned the all-powerful government into a VERY limited government that existed as a treaty organization, not a central government.
But the Federalists orchestrated a coup d'etat using the Supreme Court that never had the power to declare anything unconstitutional. But in McCulloch v. Maryland, it threw out the written constitution as the law of the land and replaced it with British Common Law. Now our constitution is "unwritten", just as all other countries that use British Common Law have unwritten constitutions.
You hear much about our Constitution, but those who have actually read it know that it is meaningless - thanks to the coup d'etat that isn't taught in schools. (But for which plenty of documentary evidence exists).
As to the Civil War - it was about State's Rights and the legitimacy of the "written" constitution. Lincoln, who didn't care about the issue of slavery, was a staunch enemy of the written constitution - as all documentary evidence verifies. He preferred the all-powerful central government that was imposed on America in the 1819 Coup d'etat.
Had Lincoln removed troops from Ft. Sumpter, and allowed SC their legal right to secede, there would have been no war. Slavery would have ended when the tractor was invented. Government wouldn't be working so hard to keep U dumb.
Justin Yuen
Lincoln definitely didn't want any secession which would help prove the inevitability of the civil war. Unless Lincoln had a sudden change in mind. Also, even with the inventions of better machinery and tools for agricultural jobs, would they still abandon slavery? Industrial business leaders were able to make huge profits even without slaves, especially in the south, by lowering the wages of their workers.
Gail . 50+
The tractor was invented near the end of the 1800s. Because of it, tenant farmers (former slaves and poor whites) were forced off the land because a tractor could produce more income for the land-owner than tenant farmers could. One tractor could plow all the fields in very short order compared to a horse-drawn plow. There is a very interesting history of this at the "Museum of Rock & Soul" in Memphis. It showed how these evicted tenant farmers went up the Mississippi and joined in Memphis before moving on. The focus was the history of popular music, but it began with the mass migration north - caused by the tractor that forced them out of work.
I don't doubt that industrial leaders made huge profits without slaves. Not all parts of the south were agrarian plantations. Slaves were most common in the fields and in the shipping ports - where their owners sent them to work, collecting their wages.
Barry Palmer 50+
IMO, we will never fully understand the fundamental cause.
I have heard a very good argument that the true cause of the Civil War was that a very few leaders in the South just could not abide having Lincoln as President. Their attitude was much more emotional than rational. Having Lincoln as President did not really change the power balance in Congress, and future compromises were still possible and likely. But Lincoln's statements about slavery, and especially about secession, stirred up so much anger that having him as President became unbearable. These leaders then led the South into secession. Lincoln responded as he said he would.
Perhaps this is what you mean by failure of leadership,
I completely disagree that the Civil War was inevitable. People made choices. These choices were the result of a sad mix of principles, arrogance, emotion and poor information. No human act is inevitable. We are each responsible for our actions. The true cause of the Civil War was that people chose to go to war. If you remove choice and responsibility from the cause, you will never understand the true cause.
Justin Yuen
george lockwood 20+
pat gilbert 50+
Ken brown 30+
If anything, full historical facts were not ignored intentionally but a divisive up and coming superpower would always put forth the winner to encourage unity until such a time as now where it can be addressed without airs. It's just a countries history, not a blight in their past.They were a mix of old European cultures that wanted nothing more than to be their own defined society and were willing to fight for it, whether it was to continue with a business practice that was becoming increasingly unpopular elsewhere in the world or to discontinue it doesn't matter though i would venture to suggest that it would have continued due to the States relative separation from the rest of the known considered view of the world which was Empire.
Robert Winner 50+
I believe that you have discovered the major points and have validated your argument on Lincoln. It may interest you to also know that Lincoln had a Admiral Fox stationed off of Fort Sumtner for a very specific purpose. This will be interesting for you to read also. Lincoln was a lawyer for the railroad and made some decisions on inside information ... look up his land buy in Iowa and how he steered the railway to his property. It casts some seroius doubts on the title "Honest Abe".
Your question of why are we taught what we are .... Educators and teachers are far down the ladder in the process. The educational textbook publishers and the test writers and developers are the very essence of what is and has been taught. You are only tested on what is made available to you ... thus the textbooks.
It is my opinion that APUSH is great. What you are experiencing is a combo of Poli-Si/Econ/History. You have learned a valuable lesson at a young age ... your friends are not always right .... do your own research and thinking ... keep an open mind ... and the value of the subject of economics.
I will be waiting to hear a summary of what you gained from this conversation and please include what your teacher gives as feed back to the assignment.
I wish you well. All the best. Bob.
pat gilbert 50+
Thanks Pat
Justin Yuen
The assignment was given back a while ago actually and my teacher said she liked some points but I could have went further. I guess I didn't satisfy her with enough connections between my reasons. In class before we handed in our essays, she gave us a couple of deep causes for the Civil War that was written in someones essay. I didn't want to feel obligated to use all of them but I guess that's what she had wanted.
Sorry for the late reply and I posted a summary not too long ago. I hope it makes sense of everything that was discussed in this debate but I apologize once again. I've been busy with APUSH work and haven't had much time to come back onto Ted.
pat gilbert 50+
You teacher is an anomaly which is why others have not taught this.
IMO the reasons always boil down to money. In this case the Federal government was funded by tariffs (before income tax and other taxes) and if they allowed the South to secede they would have lost a lot of money. Lincoln was an evil man right up there with Hitler who caused more Americans deaths than any war in history. He also irrevocably changed the constitutional makeup of the country.
We discussed this a while back note Ted Lovers comments:
http://www.ted.com/conversations/14392/was_abraham_lincoln_a_hero_or.html
John Smith 30+
Aren't you the type of person who wants to own guns to defend yourself against a tyrannical government? Doesn't that indicate you are willing to kill people for your freedom? Wasn't the Confederacy a tyrannical government from the perspective of the slaves that its armed forces, police and courts helped to keep enslaved? Wasn't the Confederacy the ultimate example of that "tyranny of the majority" term you keep throwing around? Do you think lives may only be spilled for the freedom of white people?
pat gilbert 50+
I'm for real John Smith is not and lives in the shadows as a pseudonym and a troll.
I rarely reply to his posts I only do so here to protest his post being allowed to remain.
John Smith 30+
pat gilbert 50+
Lincoln got 620,000 Americans killed over something that could have been resolved peaceably.
But you are the one who chooses hate, which says something about you.
Fritzie Reisner 100+
You may get a clearer picture of where Pat actually stands if you probe his views through open questions about his views.
Gail . 50+
Justin Yuen
John Smith 30+
"I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel."
He also opposed the expansion of slavery to new states and territories, however he did initially say he'd temporarily postpone forced abolition (pursuing it through diplomatic means and paying compensation to slaveowners) if it would save the union, when they refused he supported military abolition. Lincoln was of course not a dictator: much of his constituency, party, government and generals wanted military abolition.
Btw, Britain and France declared war on Nazi-Germany without being attacked themselves, did that make their leaders responsible for the deaths of WWII? Does it even matter how many SS soldiers and Confederate volunteers died defending the indefensible, why should we mourn them? If some men would enslave your people would you fight them or would you think "hey, there's 20 of them, if I kill them all I've killed more people than Jared Loughner, so let's just wait another century, during which maltreatment will kill thousands of my people, before they voluntarily let my people be free". We both know the answer to this. People who compare Lincoln to Hitler are selfish armchair generals who would go back in time and change the outcome of the civil war, delaying abolition by decades, destroying millions upon millions of lives, if it meant they'd have to pay a couple of bucks less in taxes today.
@below
I believe the writings of Lincoln (some of which didn't become public until after his death) show his personal opinions, that's what we assume for all other historic figures.
I understand why some people would see the tragedy in people dying for the wrong cause, but that doesn't mean we should let them do greater evils on innocent people. Being a slave is much more tragic than dying while defending slavery.
Justin Yuen
When you say his party, government and generals wanted military abolition, do you mean his political party, the Republicans? The Republicans were highly influenced by the Radical Republicans at the time and did desire the emancipation of slavery but I'm not sure if they desired it for military purposes. But it is a possibility, considering the Radical Republicans after the Civil War wanted the South to pay greatly for their betrayal to the Union, thus desired to free all the slaves to punish the South and harm their economy.
Also about your statements of whether who's responsible for the deaths of war, I guess most would like to point to the leaders of nations because they're the image of their nations and are known to be responsible for whatever may happen to that nation. Additionally the reason why the numbers and statistics of deaths may seem to matter is probably because it's seen as to be shamefully unnecessary. People question if thousands of people truly have to devote their lives to a cause they believe in, when in the end, the cause is illogical. So I guess people may mourn for the Confederates because they feel pity for them. The Confederates actually thought they were being the better "American" figure and were preserving the Constitutional right of owning private property and states rights.
Gail . 50+
Gail . 50+
Start with the Emancipation proclamation. It didn't free slaves, as too many think. It unlawfully freed slaves and only in states that seceded. Even in that case, it didn't free ALL slaves. It left enslaved those who were forced to work in places like the port of New Orleans, it exempted Kentucky and even Maryland that was rife with cotton and tobacco plantations. It did not end the practice of a master's selling his slave's labor to ports of Baltimore, Philadelphia, & New York.
When the war was over, he wanted all blacks deported - either to Africa or the Carribean, but had to let the idea go
Lincoln was no hero. He was a traitor.
Fritzie Reisner 100+
pat gilbert 50+
Hitler was responsible for 400 and some thousand Americans dying Lincoln 620,000 as far as Americans are concerned Lincoln did more damage.
It is good you are looking at the revisionist perspective
John Smith 30+
It freed all of them as the 13th amendment required, segregation partially destroyed those freedoms later on but that was after Lincoln's death.
"Lincoln did not care about ending slavery and stated so."
The opposite is true, as demonstrated by my citation of an 1864 letter by him a few posts up.
"Hitler was responsible for 400 and some thousand Americans dying Lincoln 620,000"
The Confederates stopped being Americans the second they succeeded. The Union killed 75.000 Confederate soldiers and in doing so freed 4 million slaves and their descendants and prevented further instability and wars in North America (the weak Confederacy would eventually find itself at war with Mexico and colonial powers), the Confederates killed 140.000 Union soldiers and had systematically destroyed the lives of millions of slaves. Nazi-Germany killed 6 million civilian Jews and 9 million Soviet civilians. You are not speaking for all Americans, or even a majority, when you say all of this makes Lincoln worse for them.
John Smith 30+
Justin Yuen
On your note about the teachers, that too is arguably agreeable. Teachers are supposed to teach lessons following the system but it is their responsibility to know what they teach, how to teach it and know how to justify what they teach.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Justin Yuen
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Fritzie Reisner 100+
In some places it is taught earlier and in some not, but in a big-picture sense when ideas are introduced depends in part on what curriculum developers think students are developmentally ready for and what sorts of foundational material has been laid in place. Introducing details, nuances, and a proliferation of social, economic, political, and psychological story lines before laying a foundation leads to misunderstandings that once in place can be hard to dislodge.
What is also true is that early grades teachers tend not to be specialists in every subject they teach, given that they arew expected to teach every subject, unlike later grades teachers who teach either math or French or history...
Of course there will always be those who prefer nefarious or conspiratorial explanations, but I would encourage you to consider what legitimate reasons from the standpoint of cognitive development might underlie putting forward simpler versions of stories first and then filling in the details.
Justin Yuen
I guess there must always be a certain foundation for everything before you lay out the additional specifics.