It was primarily about maintaing "the greatest material interest in the world", slavery. I don't know know why many around the Nation, and especially those in the South are suggesting otherwise but you can read for yourself why each CSA state seceded from the Union, in their own words (hint--to maintain slavery). http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html I only ask for two things: -share this link to stop the literal whitewashing of history -like this post
From your link... 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. Gee, that sounds like "states rights" to me...LOL...the right to enrich themselves off the backs of slaves
Actually the main reason was expansion of slavery into the new states being formed and whether it would be legal. The main drive behind this was that the South did not want to lose representation in Congress and have the North being able to dictate everything to them.
Clearly slavery was a large motivating factor behind the civil war, especially from within the aristocracy. But the war was reflective of glaring issues in the 1787 constitution. The problem with the Confederacy was that it wasn't actually a confederation. It was quite strongly centralized, almost as much as the Union. That and slavery , of course. If they had created a genuine alternative wherein states had a great degree of sovereignty and the confederation had strictly limited powers relating to defense - it would have almost certainly survived. So in short - the confederacy gained a lot of support due to its faux competitive federalism, the aristocracy wanted slavery, and this ambition compromised the former. I will say, however, that slavery is not incompatible with competitive federalism. It's internal policy which should be left to the federal bodies. The problem was that they wanted states rights as a means to that slavery, but had no interest in states rights on their own as the runaway slave act demonstrates. A real states rights secession would look like the writings of the anti federalists: Brutus, Cato, DeWitt, Patrick Henry, etc - or the nullification crisis.
States had all the sovereignty they could want under the Articles of Confederation but the problem was that this was wholly ineffective. They needed to centralize power for the Union to survive.
Thousands of Federal troops fought on the side of the North to keep the United States together and free the slaves. That decision was made by Abe Lincoln and it was a noble one. And thousands of those boys lost their lives or were maimed. On the Rebel side thousands of boys were also killed and maimed fighting for a cause they had no interest in, because they did not own slaves, didn't understand the difference between states' rights and a central government, but were caught up in a narrative. Even the gallant general Robert E. Lee was caught up in a cause. He resigned his Federal commission to fight for the Rebels because he didn't want to "fight against his native state". WTF was he thinking! Today, if you got an honest answer from southerners you would see that 99.9% are glad the North won, the union was kept together, and we don't have slaves. In case you are wondering I come from a long line of southern people and my wife had an ancestor who was an officer in the Confederate Army.
So did they have to seccede to maintain slavery? This is where state rights come into play. The role of the federal government and states at that time can be thought of as a classical liberal approach. The federal government would protect the right to property and that's it. The states would do whatever they wanted to do, abiding by the right to property of course. So when the issue of slavery came up, that can be seen as an attack on property. The federal government with the rise of the Republican party was going to take away that right. So it's really a mix of both.
You see the situation from the perspective of the 21st century in which the federal government is all powerful and states are mere administrative agencies of Washington DC. In the 1860's, a persons State had more influence on and loyalty from a person than the Nation. Remember, many adults in the 1860's literally knew or had recent relatives who lived in and perhaps fought in the Revolutionary War. People in the 1860's were much, much closer to the ideal of the Constitution than people are today. In General Edward Porter Alexander's memoirs, written only for his family and a very limited number were printed, and never intended to be published for the public, Alexander recounts numerous conversations he had with his fellow soldiers both Southern and Northern. States rights was by far the major topic of these discussions - not slavery. For example, in several discussions and letters with Lt. James B. MacPherson (Ohio, remained with the US Army, rose to Major General, killed in 1864 in the Battle of Atlanta), the issue was always states rights, loyalty to ones State, and the reality that the South would not win and Alexander should look to the future after the war. The summary was Alexander said "Mac, My people are going to war, & war for their liberty......", MacPherson replied "I suppose in your situation I should feel as you do". In the vast majority of personal papers and personal letters from the time just before the war, the issue of states rights was first and foremost on Southerners minds. After the war started and the initial enlistment surge was over, a major motivation for additional Southerners joining the fighting was their home state was invaded by the North. And remember that the North did not free the slaves until 1863 when it was strategically militarily advantageous, and then only slaves in the South.
States rights... The state right to have slavery legal All of the other states rights issues were there before lincoln was elected But after lincoln, the south knew that on that particular issue The clock was ticking
Exactly. What I find hilarious is the recent discussion of whether the Confederate flag should be banned from southern statehouses as advocated by Mitt Romney. All of the GOP presidential candidates are hiding behind "it's a State's rights issue" for their response.
It was far more complicated than just slavery. The expanding North (more states, more population) was over-represented in Congress and imposed legislation designed to benefit the North at the expense of the South. The industrial North wanted the South to provide raw material to Northern factories and then buy the finished Northern goods, they did not want the South to buy & sell with Europe. The South was seen as a captive market, and the North had the power to impose its will. The election of a Northerner to the White House - any Northerner - was about the final straw. A few more states that sided with the North and the South would have no actual voice in the federal government.
Was it worth a million dead to end slavery? Do you really think slavery was going to continue to provide for a growing nation? Farm implements were already being developed that could out pace manual labor. Lincoln himself was a racist. And a bitter mean bastard. Mr "great statesmen" was out smarted by "foolish southerners". And his only recourse was to wage war on his own people. Today we call that a "terrorist regime".
