Tell me about the American Civil War

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Tell me about the American Civil War

Positive Optimyst: Oct 25, 2010; by FactsAreUseless

I did a search looking for an American Civil War thread. I've been watching many documentaries, so I hope to add what I know (which is not a lot) on the subject.

I'm looking for any and all information about the US Civil War from the direct and indirect causes, strategies, the ending, to the Reconstruction period.

Thanks in advance.

# ? Aug 13, 2015 08:10

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 3, 2024 10:36

Vincent Van Goatse: Nov 8, 2006; Enjoy every sandwich.; Smellrose

The Civil War was caused by slavery.

# ? Aug 13, 2015 12:21

TROIKA CURES GREEK: Jun 30, 2015; by R. Guyovich

http://oyc.yale.edu/history/hist-119

It's a little dry and the guys manner of speaking can be kinda grating but it's a really good summary of everything you are looking for.

ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:

The Civil War was caused by slavery.

Yes that's the primary cause for the southern elite but it's far more complicated than that. For example, another huge driver was that the shared experience of the revolutionary war was gone- by the antebellum period all the people that had experienced the war were out of politics/dying or dead. Also people often confuse cause and support. While the cause that drove the elite to war in the south was primarily centered around slavery, it's hard to get everyone to fight for you when the majority of whites in the south never owned a slave. So the support- how the wealthy got the poor whites to fight for them- was focused on things like states rights, southern pride and so on. When they look at the reasons poor southerners fought they usually find slavery rarely mentioned, most of them correctly saw it as a system that was completely hosed them over, but they hated the yankees telling them what to do even more.

But if someone is pressing for a one word answer: slavery, because that was clearly the driver.

# ? Aug 13, 2015 14:21

Tekopo: Oct 24, 2008; When you see it, you'll shit yourself.

One good place to see what caused the ACW is the period immediately before it. The Missouri Compromise, Dred Scott, the fighting in Kansas, John Brown, the Mexican-American War and the Oregon Treaty are some of the most notable pre-ACW events that helped to shape the climate that lead to the war.

# ? Aug 13, 2015 15:03

dublish: Oct 31, 2011

The MilHist thread is where you want to be. ACW chat comes up there every once in a while.

# ? Aug 14, 2015 22:27

vintagepurple: Jan 31, 2014; by Nyc_Tattoo

Lincoln and Sherman get thrown around a lot on the internet as shorthand for "lololol gently caress the south nuke charleston" and you'll get dumbshit posters saying reconstruction wasn't harsh enough and so on. You'll also on the other side get confederate apologists accusing Sherman of mass killings or war crimes and calling Lincoln a tyrannical despot.

Don't listen to this drivel- Lincoln was a champion of benevolent reconciliation and Sherman's March to the Sea came with strict orders for troops only to destroy militarily relevant property (outside of a few fringe cases- he would support the torching of known prominent confederates' houses, but not random farm shacks) and to be kind to civilians (especially poor civilians, as he noted in his orders that the common southerner was likely to be ambivalent or pro-north while the aristocrats were secessionist firebrands). It was harsh by Victorian standards because in those days the idea of "total war" wasn't really a thing, but it wasn't the "LOL BURN IT ALL" bullshit that both idiot internet firebrands and idiot internet lost causers will portray it as.

# ? Aug 14, 2015 22:57

Von Humboldt: Jan 13, 2009

vintagepurple posted:

Lincoln and Sherman get thrown around a lot on the internet as shorthand for "lololol gently caress the south nuke charleston" and you'll get dumbshit posters saying reconstruction wasn't harsh enough and so on. You'll also on the other side get confederate apologists accusing Sherman of mass killings or war crimes and calling Lincoln a tyrannical despot.

Don't listen to this drivel- Lincoln was a champion of benevolent reconciliation and Sherman's March to the Sea came with strict orders for troops only to destroy militarily relevant property (outside of a few fringe cases- he would support the torching of known prominent confederates' houses, but not random farm shacks) and to be kind to civilians (especially poor civilians, as he noted in his orders that the common southerner was likely to be ambivalent or pro-north while the aristocrats were secessionist firebrands). It was harsh by Victorian standards because in those days the idea of "total war" wasn't really a thing, but it wasn't the "LOL BURN IT ALL" bullshit that both idiot internet firebrands and idiot internet lost causers will portray it as.

Columbia got what was coming to it, though. :colbert:

There's a pretty big difference between firebrands and Lost Causers, however. Most firebrands, in my experience, know drat well that Sherman's March was not particularly brutal or outrageous. However, it's good for a laugh, making fun of the South, or expressing disgust with the region. It's the most spiteful jab people can think of, even if it didn't hold much weight in reality. Lost Causers, on the other hand, tend to genuinely believe that Sherman was some monster who would put the Ostfront to shame. Those that don't often still point to it as an unprecedented attack on civilians on personal property, and an example of the cruelty of the Northern way of war, in which case the actual damage done doesn't even really matter.

What's your issue with people saying Reconstruction should have been harder?

# ? Aug 14, 2015 23:09

vintagepurple: Jan 31, 2014; by Nyc_Tattoo

Von Humboldt posted:

What's your issue with people saying Reconstruction should have been harder?

It's perfectly to hold that position intellectually, but generally it's not any sort of reasoned argument, it's just another way of saying "gently caress the south sweet tea is disgusting anyway", which gets tiresome.

Especially since, then and now, "gently caress the south" to any reasoned person reads "gently caress the poor, ignorant, and oppressed".

# ? Aug 14, 2015 23:25

Last Buffalo: Nov 7, 2011

I agree, it was harsh enough. After all, they started electing black people to congress. How horrible! It's a good thing it ended organically by way of a crooked backroom deal over to inaugurate a terrible president.

# ? Aug 14, 2015 23:39

Marlows: Nov 4, 2009

Last Buffalo posted:

I agree, it was harsh enough. After all, they started electing black people to congress. How horrible! It's a good thing it ended organically by way of a crooked backroom deal over to inaugurate a terrible president.

I wouldn't say it ended in an artificial manner with 1876/7. You aren't necessarily wrong, but from my view the movement was already dying by that point. Its a point of some contention, but Reconstruction was over in various southern states prior to 1876 and the "compromise" is more symbolic than anything. More important were the political battles within the Republican Party. By 1876, much of the party was already condemning Reconstruction as wasteful/unconstitutional and were content to let the southern Republican governments wither on the vine.

Its a shame, and I do wish Reconstruction had continued longer, but it was not politically possible. Of course it wasn't economically possible (in its current form) either for that matter.

That said, Reconstruction had a long positive shadow, and we far too easily forget that direct black political participation continued for decades in many southern states. One of the worst misconceptions about southern history is the notion of stagnation, and in particular, stagnation after Reconstruction. Instead the period after Reconstruction was vibrant and colorful, for reasons good and bad. The presence of labor alliances between black and white union workers in Georgia and Virginia and the cooperation of the white and black Farmers Alliance and People's Party demonstrate this. Of course, these alliances were tenuous and ultimately failed, but such spectacles demonstrate how a different, though still enormously flawed, South emerged after Reconstruction. The Post Reconstruction South wasn't a return to Antebellum life/politics, but something else entirely. To put a further nail in the coffin of Whig history, you can argue that the period of say 1898-1930 was worse politically and socially than that of 1877-1897 in the South.

Marlows fucked around with this message at 01:08 on Aug 15, 2015

# ? Aug 15, 2015 01:03

Spiffster: Oct 7, 2009; I'm good... I Haven't slept for a solid 83 hours, but yeah... I'm good...; Lipstick Apathy

For any rear end in a top hat that comes in and flaunts the states rights argument, I want you to track this post down. Here are some succession announcements.

Georgia posted:

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war. Our people, still attached to the Union from habit and national traditions, and averse to change, hoped that time, reason, and argument would bring, if not redress, at least exemption from further insults, injuries, and dangers. Recent events have fully dissipated all such hopes and demonstrated the necessity of separation.

Our Northern confederates, after a full and calm hearing of all the facts, after a fair warning of our purpose not to submit to the rule of the authors of all these wrongs and injuries, have by a large majority committed the Government of the United States into their hands. The people of Georgia, after an equally full and fair and deliberate hearing of the case, have declared with equal firmness that they shall not rule over them. A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state. The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution.
...
...
It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

It goes on but these were some highlights. To be honest Georgia tried to hide it Compared to the likes of Virginia or Mississippi .

Virginia posted:

The people of Virginia, in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in Convention on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the powers granted under the said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression; and the Federal Government, having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States.

Mississippi posted:

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

Seriously Mississippi that one line says it all.

# ? Aug 15, 2015 02:51

Clemocracy: Jul 21, 2015; by Ralp

Spiffster posted:

For any rear end in a top hat that comes in and flaunts the states rights argument, I want you to track this post down. Here are some succession announcements.

It goes on but these were some highlights. To be honest Georgia tried to hide it Compared to the likes of Virginia or Mississippi .

Seriously Mississippi that one line says it all.

Hundreds of thousands of white northerners in the 1860s did not join the union army to fight and die to free slaves. Its more complicated than that and I dont get why people are so resistant to that notion.

# ? Aug 15, 2015 15:43

the holy poopacy: May 16, 2009; hey! check this out; Fun Shoe

Clemocracy posted:

Hundreds of thousands of white northerners in the 1860s did not join the union army to fight and die to free slaves. Its more complicated than that and I dont get why people are so resistant to that notion.

Is it your position then that even had the slavery issue been settled amicably pre-1800 the Civil War was still inevitable and the South would have soon seceded for other unrelated reasons? Do you think a non-slaveholding South would have said "welp everything is going just dandy but HEY LET'S ALL UP AND REBEL JUST TO MAKE A PURELY ACADEMIC POINT ABOUT STATES' RIGHTS"?

# ? Aug 15, 2015 17:01

MOVIE MAJICK: Jan 4, 2012; by Pragmatica

I just moved to Columbia, SC from Canada and don;t really have any education about he civil war. Whats some interesting stuff about this city and what are some sites I could go see?

# ? Aug 15, 2015 17:37

Pellisworth: Jun 20, 2005

MOVIE MAJICK posted:

I just moved to Columbia, SC from Canada and don;t really have any education about he civil war. Whats some interesting stuff about this city and what are some sites I could go see?

If you have Netflix, Ken Burns' Civil War documentary series is really good.

Gabriel Pope posted:

Is it your position then that even had the slavery issue been settled amicably pre-1800 the Civil War was still inevitable and the South would have soon seceded for other unrelated reasons? Do you think a non-slaveholding South would have said "welp everything is going just dandy but HEY LET'S ALL UP AND REBEL JUST TO MAKE A PURELY ACADEMIC POINT ABOUT STATES' RIGHTS"?

I think he might be saying that the North wasn't really fighting an anti-slavery crusade and the motivations for the war are more complicated than simply slavery, which I think is true. Lincoln and the North are a lot more interested in fighting to preserve the integrity of the Union at the start of the war, slavery becomes a more important issue as the war goes on and then you have the Emancipation Proclamation mid-way through. Saying the South seceded over states rights' is disingenuous Lost Causer bullshit, but I think it's fair to say the North joined the war primarily anti-secession rather than anti-slavery.

# ? Aug 15, 2015 17:47

Tommah: Mar 29, 2003

The Confederacy wasn't for states' rights because Confederate states didn't even have the right to restrict slavery.

The Confederate Constitution posted:

Article I Section 9(4)
No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

# ? Aug 15, 2015 19:30

sullat: Jan 9, 2012

Clemocracy posted:

Hundreds of thousands of white northerners in the 1860s did not join the union army to fight and die to free slaves. Its more complicated than that and I dont get why people are so resistant to that notion.

Wasn't the issue, though. The South seceeded because they felt preserving slavery was more important than preserving the union, while the north felt that preserving the union was more important than ending slavery. But in the end, they got both done.

# ? Aug 15, 2015 19:47

the holy poopacy: May 16, 2009; hey! check this out; Fun Shoe

Pellisworth posted:

Saying the South seceded over states rights' is disingenuous Lost Causer bullshit, but I think it's fair to say the North joined the war primarily anti-secession rather than anti-slavery.

Saying that the North "joined the war" at all is disingenuous Lost Causer bullshit; the Confederacy struck the first blow at Fort Sumter. You might as well examine Serbia's motivations for joining World War I.

# ? Aug 16, 2015 06:02

Kazzah: Jul 15, 2011; Formerly known as
Krazyface; Hair Elf

"Battle-Cry of Freedom" by James M McPherson is like a thousand pages long, but it's generally considered the best single-volume history of the war. It's very readable, too.

# ? Aug 16, 2015 12:19

Vincent Van Goatse: Nov 8, 2006; Enjoy every sandwich.; Smellrose

Clemocracy posted:

Hundreds of thousands of white northerners in the 1860s did not join the union army to fight and die to free slaves.

Not at first, no, but by the end the war abolition was definitely the ultimate objective along with maintaining the Union.

quote:

Its more complicated than that and I dont get why people are so resistant to that notion.

Blame more than a century of apologists for the Confederacy.

# ? Aug 16, 2015 15:52

Schenck v. U.S.: Sep 8, 2010

Krazyface posted:

"Battle-Cry of Freedom" by James M McPherson is like a thousand pages long, but it's generally considered the best single-volume history of the war. It's very readable, too.

I would also recommend "Reconstruction: America's Unfiinished Revolution" by Eric Foner, which is the classic text on the Reconstruction era. Off and on, I've been reading "The Half Has Never Been Told" by Edward E. Baptist, which is a recent and superb history of slavery in the 19th century, and it's central place in the development of capitalism.

# ? Aug 16, 2015 16:02

Positive Optimyst: Oct 25, 2010; by FactsAreUseless

Tekopo posted:

One good place to see what caused the ACW is the period immediately before it. The Missouri Compromise, Dred Scott, the fighting in Kansas, John Brown, the Mexican-American War and the Oregon Treaty are some of the most notable pre-ACW events that helped to shape the climate that lead to the war.

From my readings and youtube documentaries, the more one reads into the cause of the CW the more complicated it gets.

Yes, slavery was the main cause - but it was whether to expand slavery into the Western territories or have these areas as Free States/territories.

Yes, the Missouri Compromise and intense fighting in Kansas that was excessively violent (e.g., the Bushwhakers).

South Carolina publicly talked of secession because of the Tariff Act of 1828. Southern states were hurt by Northern tariffs. Congress also passed some Acts strengthening the Federal government when there were disagreement with states.

Vice President Calhoun resigned his position at VP the return to South Carolina to deal with the issue.

And interesting and complicated history.

# ? Aug 17, 2015 02:12

Vincent Van Goatse: Nov 8, 2006; Enjoy every sandwich.; Smellrose

Positive Optimyst posted:

From my readings and youtube documentaries, the more one reads into the cause of the CW the more complicated it gets.

Not really, the issues involved all ultimately centered on slavery and the closely-related Southern paranoia about losing control on the reins of power.

# ? Aug 17, 2015 03:56

Mirrors: Oct 25, 2007

Oh also there's some stuff about the south being super hawkish because they absolutely needed more land where the north didn't really care that much.

Because slavery you see. The slave economy is intrinsically tied to the acreage you're working. This is why the Spanish American war happened and why they were toying with invading cuba and it's why the south was so concerned about new states being slave states because they had to be for the slave economy to grow.

# ? Aug 17, 2015 14:23

Tumblr of scotch: Mar 13, 2006; Please, don't be my neighbor.

Tommah posted:

The Confederacy wasn't for states' rights because Confederate states didn't even have the right to restrict slavery.

It's even better than that. In addition to taking away the states' rights to decide on slavery for themselves, if you look at a comparison of the two constitutions, the CSA took away other rights from the states, too, and while it did give them a couple more rights as well, the rights it gave were minor and inconsequential while the ones it took away were big poo poo, like, as you mentioned, slavery.

That said, they also had a couple things that I think we could benefit from incorporating today, like amending our constitution so that any bill has to be about one and only one thing, to keep people from tacking on a thousand different riders on a million different subjects.

# ? Aug 17, 2015 18:07

Cyrano4747: Sep 25, 2006; Yes, I know I'm old, get off my fucking lawn so I can yell at these clouds.

Clemocracy posted:

Hundreds of thousands of white northerners in the 1860s did not join the union army to fight and die to free slaves. Its more complicated than that and I dont get why people are so resistant to that notion.

Because the causes of a war aren't the same as the motivations of an individual footsoldier. Plenty of confederates fought because it was the done thing if you were a 18 year old kid in 1861 and plenty of Unionists fought because it was four square meals a day and some adventure. By the same token plenty of Germans fought in 1940 because they were drafted or thought it would be an exciting adventure, not because they were proponents of genocidal wars of conquest. How many Vietnam Vets do you think gave two hard shits about domino theory or the Gulf of Tonkin resolution?

If it makes you feel better to imagine that your great-great-(etc)-grandfather in Virginia wasn't fighting to preserve the institution of slavery, fine. You might even be right. That said, read what every single major southern politician at the time said and it's clear that the political leaders started that poo poo for one reason: because they were terrified the US was going to ban slavery.

edit: to give you a few statistics off the top of my head (if you really care you can research them yourself): about a third of southern families owned slaves. On farms with more htan 20 the value of the slaves exceeded the value of the land and buildings. No one less than Thomas Jefferson calculated that the "natural increase" in the value of his slaves (read: their reproducing) was worth enough that Monticello didn't need to farm at all. His business was profitable purely based on the reproduction of his labor force before you even begin to calculate what those people spent all their time doing. For the elites making the political decisions in the south emancipation wasn't just a moral issue, it was a direct threat to their entire economic base.

# ? Aug 17, 2015 23:54

vintagepurple: Jan 31, 2014; by Nyc_Tattoo

The governments of the various southern states seceded to preserve slavery.

The North fought not to end slavery but to save the Union, and the Emancipation Proclamation, wonderful as it was, was a means to this end.

The average johnny reb did not fight because he was especially racist for the 1860s and probably would've named his causes as "states' rights" and "protecting Are Country from the yankees"

The civil war happened because of slavery

90% of civil war slapfights happen because retarded ineffectual leftists who cannot even for a minute check their privilege resort to "OMG LOL BURN THE SOUTH" rather than considering that the south is hella poor and exploited and quite literally the american stronghold of the opressed proletariat, black and white alike

# ? Aug 18, 2015 00:53

Spiffster: Oct 7, 2009; I'm good... I Haven't slept for a solid 83 hours, but yeah... I'm good...; Lipstick Apathy

To touch on the adventure aspect a bit, war was still highly romanticized at this time and many signed up in hopes of achieving a quick and just victory.

Many on both sides (north was the biggest offender though) thought that they would kick the opposing sides rear end real quick and bring order to the union. This is shown at the first battle of Bull Run where civilians followed the Union army and set up picnics to watch the war end before their eyes. This led of course to a bloody and humiliating defeat by the union. Plus with this war being highly documented by photography, many people finally saw first hand the horrors of war and Romantic notions eventually went away.

# ? Aug 18, 2015 03:35

Von Humboldt: Jan 13, 2009

vintagepurple posted:

90% of civil war slapfights happen because retarded ineffectual leftists who cannot even for a minute check their privilege resort to "OMG LOL BURN THE SOUTH" rather than considering that the south is hella poor and exploited and quite literally the american stronghold of the opressed proletariat, black and white alike

This is the second time you've brought this up, and I'm honestly curious - where are you seeing this sort of feeling?

The actual experience of most people is quite the opposite - people from across the United States getting upset that the Civil War, and often more specifically the Confederacy, is associated with slavery or that it is in any way on the wrong side of history.

You've something of a point about oppression, but there's a lot more to it than it first appears. A lot of identity is focused around the Confederacy (and I really mean all aspects of the South during the Civil War for purpose of brevity when I say this,) for various reasons, and its bled out far further than the American South over the last hundred years. You'll find plenty of people in no way associated via their ancestors or homes with the Confederacy actively flying its symbols or vocally supporting it because it represents a way of giving the finger to the government, standing up for yourself, standing up for your culture, or one of a hundred other reasons. This identity is certainly popular with those who are economically or socially oppressed, and it can be a form of reaction to the above. The problem is that it isn't an identity unique to oppressed people - it is an identity that has very far reach and appeal, and it is an identity that either impacts (or is exploited by, depending on your perspective,) those in power.

The tricky thing is that identifying with the Confederacy or the Rebels is taking on an identity at least partially supportive of racism and slavery. Even if you personally disavow those things, part of your identity still draws upon symbols associated with these concepts, and there are plenty of people using the same symbols and ideas for horrible things. It's very difficult to separate these things out. You can personally have no racist feeling whatsoever and have the noble intention of remembering an ancestor (who, we'll assume, wasn't that racist and just wanted the glory,) but you will still be judged by the company you keep, so to speak, when you fly the flag. And any oppression dealt to those that identify with the Confederacy has been dealt out thrice over to the black population of the United States, forever enshrining in the ideology that, no matter how screwed you are, there are still people worse than you out there.

So you end up with two different things. You have the Confederacy as an identity shared by tens of thousands of people across a diverse geographic area, providing a common cultural background as a way of either resistance, unity, or even just community. It is also an identity with a history of racism and of attempting to keep racial feeling strong in the United States, oppressing others even worse and inflicting tremendous violence upon them. The 50s were not that long ago. Oppression, applied to this group, is laughable - it only exists for them to perpetuate it, just as they perpetuate hateful stereotypes and ideas. This is what the people you criticize are saying should have been burned once again.

Then you have the above - identity and range - but it is a movement with none of that negative baggage. Just resistance, unity, or common background. These are the dopes you see rolling coal and flying the battle flag who are just honest good working guys, who like the Rebel flag as fashion more than political statement. Often, these people could be considered oppressed - and having known many of them personally over my life, they really should be. No one wants these guys to have their homes burnt to the ground, but when you insult the first perspective, it is felt you have insulted the second. And if you let the second go by uncommented, other people feel that you have just implicitly encouraged the first.

Hell of a mess.

# ? Aug 18, 2015 03:46

Patter Song: Mar 26, 2010; Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man.; Fun Shoe

Positive Optimyst posted:

Yes, slavery was the main cause - but it was whether to expand slavery into the Western territories or have these areas as Free States/territories.

Yes, the Missouri Compromise and intense fighting in Kansas that was excessively violent (e.g., the Bushwhakers).

It was the repeal of the Missouri Compromise by Stephen Douglas etc. in the 1850s that provoked Bleeding Kansas etc. The decision that the territories would have "popular sovereignty" to submit a slave or free state constitution was seen by many (correctly) as a massive Southern powergrab because without it, New Mexico and Arizona and Oklahoma would eventually be admitted as slave states while the entire rest of the West would be admitted as free, which would be a huge boon to Northerners. The repeal of the Missouri Compromise directly led to slave and free contentions throughout places like Kansas over whether they'd submit free or slave constitutions.

TL;DR Popular Sovereignty actually made tensions worse by looking like a massive Southern powergrab to extend slavery into places the 1820 Missouri Compromise would've put off limits.

# ? Aug 18, 2015 03:55

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 3, 2024 10:36

Cyrano4747: Sep 25, 2006; Yes, I know I'm old, get off my fucking lawn so I can yell at these clouds.

Von Humboldt posted:

This is the second time you've brought this up, and I'm honestly curious - where are you seeing this sort of feeling?

I agree with most of what your saying, but what he's (rather inarticulately) describing is the basic negative stereotype of the south. It's one that I've especially seen in the NorthEast but I'm sure it's prevalent across most of the north half of the US. It's the basic Southern Rednecks / hillbillies / ignorant neanderthals angle and frequently points to a lot of the more conservative politics in the region as proof. Gun owning, uneducated, fundie christians who hate gay people and would prefer that their daughters not date blacks. Hang around any place that has a strong liberal angle to it (I see it a lot on college campuses) and it won't be too hard to dredge up. poo poo, that even happens in the goddamned South. I spent a lot of time in Chapel Hill in North Carolina and there were a LOT of people on UNC-CH's campus who would pat them selves on the backs about being oh so progressive and joke about the red-state cretins that existed just over the county line.

Frankly, though I don't think that is caused so much by the legacy of the Civil War as the underlying social and economic differences between the North and the South, although a lot of those factors certainly are intertwined in how the Civil War happened and played out in the subsequent centuries. A lot of the political steriotypes I listed above happened because of how domestic politics played out in the 60s-80s - the big shift in the democratic party during civil rights legislation, the rise of religious conservatism as a major power in the republican party etc. Even if slavery had been peacefully abolished in the late 1860s with no war you would still have some hosed up racial issues in the region and a lot of those have propelled both domestic politics over the last half century and many of the negative images of southerners in general.

# ? Aug 18, 2015 14:10

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Tell me about the American Civil War