Unsung Scots in American History #1

[McMurdo]

Of all of the things I hate about the Civil War is the portrayal that it was all about slavery and it was not all about slavery. Slavery was nothing more than a piece of propaganda. If slavery had been an issue, why did it take Lincoln until 1862 to do something about it? By that point the war had been going on for 2 years. Would you go to war so that some rich plantation owner could keep their slaves instead of working the cotton fields yourself? And while Abraham Lincoln gets all of these accolades for freeing the slaves... in truth he was a hypocrite. This is what he thought about it.

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that ... See Morethere is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything. - September 18, 1858 - Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas
at Charleston, Illinois

Now you could say that it was before the Civil War and that sometimes a man has a different view and can be turned around to see the ugly awful truth.

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, ... See Moreand the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. - August 22, 1862 - Letter to Horace Greeley

In the end the Civil War was about State Rights versus Union Rights and the seed was the very thing that spurned the American Revolutionary War. Taxation against Representation. The South was being deliberately kept in a poor state. The industrialized North needed the products that the South produced but there were multiple tariffs (taxes) put on the products so the farmer got almost nothing in the end, but the North got rich by selling their goods.

There is a little more to it than just that but that is the best summary of it.

[macwilkin]

Post deleted.

T.

[Arlen]

O.K. Folks. This is your one and only warning. We've had a rash of these threads lately and it has been a full time job trying to monitor them all, close what needs closed and deal with the commenters breaking rules.

This thread needs to get back on topic or, like the others, it will be closed down.
There have been so, so many warnings about these types of threads and comments in the last few days so you should all know better.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

I think McMurdo has rather accurately summarized the root cause of the American Civil War. It was a test of wills over which would be more powerful: a central Federal government increasingly dominated by North Eastern regional interests, or the governments of the individual States, each exercising their own sovereign rights. Had President Buchanan had a second term of office it is unlikely that there would have been a war, and it is most likely that the Confederacy would have succeeded as a separate nation. To suggest that the Civil War was fought to free the slaves is as naive as suggesting that the Second World War was fought to liberate concentration camps. Both of these events were consequences of the conflicts, but neither was the purpose for going to war in the first instance.

For those who might care to reach an independent conclusion concerning the causa bellum between the Federal Government and the States, you may wish to read WAR FOR WHAT by Francis W. Springer, pub. by Bill Coats, Ltd., 1990, ISBN:0-931709-11-3 (paperback).

The author was born in Washington DC, raised and educated in New York, served in the New York National Guard, and was married to a lady from Boston. Despite having what, on the surface, may appear as "regional prejudices", his book provides an interesting assessment of the causes of the conflict.

Now, since it would appear that further discussion will center on topics displeasing to some, and for which two warnings have been issued (something I would hardly have characterized as "so, so many") I will ask the Mods to close this thread to further discussion.

[BoldHighlander]

There is so much I could say on the subject, but I learned a long time ago to never poke a stick into a hornet's nest

Peace.

[macwilkin]

I think we would do well to follow the example of these two fine gentlemen:



Johnny Reb on the left, Billy Yank on the right. Note the Odd Fellow badge on Billy's jacket.

"...that man tae man shall brithers be, for a' that." So mote it be.

Loyally,

Todd

[Steve Ashton]

Thread closed at the request of the Original Poster.