Talk:American Civil War

The FAQ...stinks

Ok, so I get that Wikipedia wants to be politically correct. The Lost Cause is a view of the Civil War which has fallacies obviously, but so is the idea that "it was all about slavery." Many of us from the South feel that our viewpoint is not as accurately portrayed, because as the general rule goes, the "victors write the history." Can we atleast have a section that is titled: differing views of causes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.250.209 (talk) 05:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the American Civil War. As such, we discuss the actual causes, as documented by reliable sources. Slavery was the most important cause of the War. There were other minor issues, such as the tariff issue, or states' rights. We discuss them as minor issues. Well after the fact, a number of people decided the War was actually about (in whole or in part) the "virtues of Southern nobility", states rights and Northern cultural and economic aggressions. They also decided that, come to think of it, slavery was a good thing. We present this post hoc argument in a separate, subordinate article, Lost Cause of the Confederacy. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with SummerPhd. I was raised in the South, and could tell you some things about that region.Jimmuldrow (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm from the North and I agree that slavery was not the main cause. According to the Constitution, the States were souvreign and the Federal gov't was not. The Civil War took that away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.27.56 (talk) 05:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia reports what reliable sources have to say. Where you are from, what you feel the main cause was (which you don't actually say) and your interpretation of the Constitution have no relevance to this discussion. The best historians agree that slavery was the most important cause of the war. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Jimmuldrow could we please discuss the issue instead of insulting the culture of the south. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Derk Mcgerk (talk • contribs) 20:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a lie. The Civil War was very much impossible without the existence of slavery. The tariff could not have provoked a civil war on its own, as the South Carolinians found out in the 1830s. The issue of states' rights also takes on severely misleading tones when one realizes that for most of the 1850s the South ran roughshod over Northern personal liberty laws. Their claims of states' rights ring hollow after an entire decade of forcing on the North laws that the Notherners themselves vehemently objectied tpo. Battrarules 12:46, 12 August 2010. >>>So much to address so little time.>>>>>>Slavery was the most important cause of the War. There were other minor issues, such as the tariff issue, or states' rights. Now this simply manages to miss the point.People in the North of the country did own slaves as well. And anyone who has taken more than middle school history can tell you a war is never as transparent as one cause. The fact remains that the region felt threatened by alot more than slaves being taken away. Simplfying the cause of the war allows people to wrap it up easily with a bow.Its not quite that simple though.The way wikipedia portrays this issue is simple and short sighted >>> The Civil War was very much impossible without the existence of slavery.....I disagree and this is something usally wiki allows for.The fact remains that there are plently of articles on here that show mutiple viewpoints why cant this one? Its foolish that there is no place for breaking down the viewpoints that could be at fault.Sure the article points out other things as minor points but this thing reeks of being written by a high school history buff.Everyone who has picked up a book about the civil war era or any other war era knows that alot goes into it because no war is simple.All we ask wiki is to make an article that represents all the possiablighties not a northern centric and frankly racist perspective.Rember all americans where wrong to participate in the war not just the south.Wikimakesmart (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Obviously slavery was a very major issue, but it certainly was not the only issue. There were other major issues. The majority of Confederate soldiers did not own slaves, and the majority of Union soldiers did not really care about the institution. We are told by 'reliable' sources that the Union was 100 percent right because they were raised in a culture that glorifies that side. That does not make them 'reliable.' The only 'reliable' historians I would trust on this issue would be non Americans. They wouldn't have a regional bias —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.250.209 (talk) 05:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Asked and answered. Slavery was the most important cause of the ACW. There are other minor issues. There is a difference between "the victors write the history" and "surviving vanquished disclaim their earlier writings and attempt to re-write history". The first is a reasonable gripe about the historical process, the latter is a lost cause. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm doing a school project on this and thank you for everyone who disagreed with me on this. You are going to be my example that this viewpoint of the war is shoved down peoples' throats (the idea that the north was completely in the right). Thank you summerphd for giving us the answers you probably got from a textbook! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.250.209 (talk) 00:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

You started this topic in July. Now, well after the fact, you dismiss it as a "school project". A modern lost cause. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

No I have personal interest in the Civil War but I am definitely quoting this to show belligerent and controlling viewpoints —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.250.209 (talk) 05:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

There could be a social explanation for the War. Not one President prior to the War and at the very beginning of the War challenged to end slavery, not even President Lincoln. Not one party proposed to abolish slavery. It was only after the War began that slavery was challenged. The nations were becoming separated by their own values. One set of values said blacks were inferior and they were born to be slaves. Another set of values said blacks were humans and deserved to be free from bondage. The United States was united in name only. Although the United States today is not devided over slavery, the race issue has never fully been resolved. Coupled with these opposing values America was a militaristic society. Both north and south strongly supported the militia stemming from the heritage of the Revolutionary era. These divergent social characteristics could only be settled by battles, armies, and navies, rather then political discussion. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from ShineOnHarvestMoon, 27 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} In introduction between first and second paragraphs:

"Despite the popular invocation of slavery as the root of the United States Civil War, the conflict was largely a dispute between the Southern landed aristocracy and the rising Northern industrialist class over the issues of trade. Protectionist tariffs designed to foster fledgling Northern industry against foreign competition proved troublesome for the Southern plantation economy, which relied on more liberal trade conditions."

ShineOnHarvestMoon (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

the requested statement reflects the notions of the 1920s (especially Charles Beard) that have been rejected by nearly all scholars in the last 60 years. The businessmen of the Northeast did not want war, they wanted rich southern customers. The Southern planters sold their cotton at very high prices (which kept going up) to Northeastern and English textile mills, and they prospered from the system.Rjensen (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I wish there was a more efficient way to keep Lost Cause editors off of Wikipedia. The requested paragraph is factually inaccurate, since the South had dictated the national tariff policy since 1828; its implication is that it would've been the North seceding from the South. -- LightSpectra (talk) 19:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 21:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The blanket invocation of 'rejection by nearly all scholars in the last 60 years' is an appeal to authority and a logical fallacy. Certainly the Northern industrial businessmen did not want war, but they needed protectionism, as the well-developed British industrial infrastructure was threatening to keep their industry from ever gaining traction. Triangular Trade routes were still largely in place at this time, through which the US was kept a mainly agricultural economy, shipping cotton to British factories to process, the textiles from which were then taken to Africa and exchanged for slaves to work again on US plantations. The civil war was the attempt of Northern industrial business owners to stop this trade so that am American industrial system could compete with Britain and drive an imperial economy on strategies of mercantilism like Britain's. Your lament that alternative theories should be better curbed from wikipedia undermines the democracy and legitimacy of the website. -ShineOnHarvestMoon

worse than a blanket invocation is no invocation at all. ShineOnHarvestMoon needs to share the titles of the RS he is citing. Rjensen (talk) 20:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Union, Confederate, and United States armies and navies

President Lincoln calling for troops after Fort Sumter was surrendered can be the dividing line for calling the United States Army or Navy the Union Army and Navy. The Confederate Army and Navy can begin with the formation of the Confederacy. However, when did the War officially end? When did the Union and Confederate Armies and Navies dissolve and the United States Army and Navy begin again? Cmguy777 (talk) 04:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Poor Wording, Battle of Fort Sumter

Just pointing out that "North and South the response to Ft. Sumter was an overwhelming, unstoppable demand for war to uphold national honor. Only Kentucky tried to remain neutral. Hundreds of thousands of young men across the land rushed to enlist, and the war was on." sounds rather poorly constructed, if anyone is eloquent enough to revise, please do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.221.87.4 (talk) 15:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Another editor said that neither side saw Sumter as a provocation, which I don't think is correct. The South saw itself as a separate country and saw Union control of the fort as a provocation. The North saw Lincoln's call for volunteers as an attempt to defend Union owned federal property. Opposite interpretations led both sides to see the Fort Sumter issue as a provocation leading to war, which is the wording I would suggest.Jimmuldrow (talk) 16:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

As the RS make clear, the people north and south reacted massively, immediately and with great anger--they demanded war immediately and they joined up, and the article must emphasize the enormity of the event. --compare the reaction to Pearl Harbor or to 9-11. ("Many Americans considered the attacks on 9-11 as a provocation"; "The attack on Pearl Harbor provoked Americans" is bad history because it tells the reader the wrong story.) (The attacks on the Reuben James (1941) or Tonkin Gulf (1964) were provocations) Rjensen (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

O.R.Synthesis and pov in the first paragraph?

The "slavery" terminology in the first paragraph seems self-conflicting and by inference simultaneously,awkwardly carves in stone the pov that slavery was the only factor in how states alligned to fight the war:

• By inference, suggesting through identification as "free" and "slave" states that slavery was the singular cause for the way states took sides, whereas historical reality shows that the Emancipation Proclamation was issued 1.5 years after the civil war began, and even then allowed for slavery to continue (basically using it as a bargaining chip). "On September 22, 1862, Lincoln announced that he would issue a formal emancipation of all slaves in any state of the Confederate States of America that did not return to Union control by January 1, 1863."[1]
• Self conflicting since 5 slave states were also Union states; the way it reads now is awkwardly relabelling 5 "slave states" into "Union" states when they joined the fight on the side of the North; this exercise is just too "square peg into a round hole"ish when juxtaposed with the inference of the paragraph that slavery was the primary determining factor as to how the states were alligned.

I propose that there is no logical reason to reference slavery at all in the first paragraph,especially since it is covered thoroughly as one of the causes of the war in the body of the article, and that instead the first paragraph read something like this: "The American Civil War (1861–1865), also known as the War Between the States (among other names), was a civil war in the United States of America. Eleven Southern states declared their secession from the United States and formed the Confederate States of America, also known as "the Confederacy." Led by Jefferson Davis, the Confederacy fought against the United States (the Union), which was supported by all of the Northern and far west states."

I think this is more accurate and less synthesizing. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The long standing reference to slave states and border states is perfectly accurate and is consistent with the way the war is described in most reliable sources. Despite your claims, slavery was not simply "one of the causes of the war" but was the dominant cause and, as such, its mention in the first paragraph is totally appropriate.

I have restored the previous status quo and I hope you don't add your changes again unti a consensus to do so is reached on this discussion page. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

ok, I can see where it could be mentioned in the first paragraph that slavery was the dominant cause, but the categorization labels of "slave" states, "free" states and "border" states are just too leading in terms of directing the Readers into seeing slavery as being the sole determinent of which side a state took. Then, the elephant in the closet appears when the Readers see that 5 of the Union states were also "slave" states. If I was an 11 year old Kenyan reading about this for the first time, the first paragraph as it stands would be confusing, at least I think it would. Perhaps it could be rewritten somehow? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Tom, I suppose the thing I feel when I read the first paragraph in its present wording is that I am immediately feeling a Doublethink state of mind; i.e. the premise(promoted by the slavery status categorization) that the states alligned themselves for war in accordance with their slavery status yet they did not do that because of the 5 border/slave states allignment choice...5 out of whatever, 30?,is too many for me to digest as being an exception to the premise. Can you help me out here? Maybe I'm just reading it wrong? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 12:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The alignment becomes clear if you look at the percentages of the populations of the slave states that (A) seceded early: 44–55% slaves, plus Texas (30%); (B) seceded late: 25–33%; and (C) didn't, or were prevented from, seceding: 2–20%.[2]

—WWoods (talk) 17:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Note that every one of the states that succeeded was a slave state. Succession was a radical act. Maintaining the status quo -- remaining in the union -- is easier politically. That some slave states stayed with the union, then, is not surprising. Removing the main cause of the war from the first paragraph is an odd idea. If anything, the paragraph should more directly state that slavery was the main cause of the war. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The fact that states with the most slavery formed the Confederacy, and the fact that free states and five states with less slavery formed the Union, is simply to state among the most obvious and well-documented facts about the war.Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

If the most basic facts are "too leading", it sounds like someone doesn't like the basic facts.Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The basic fact -- which should probably be more explicitly stated in the first paragraph -- is that slavery was the most important cause of the war. The first paragraph should not "lead" to that conclusion. The first paragraph should explicitly state it. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• Show me the beef,please. Where are the quotes from reliable sources which explicitly say that "slavery was the most important cause of the war."? I admit that I have not spent any time on this article and know very little about the subject, but here is what I am seeing as a fresh observer; There are classic cases of synthesis in our article's text, in my opinion, starting off with statistical extrapolation: "Support for secession was strongly correlated to the number of plantations" and continuing with cause and effect speculations like "..split the Democratic Party in two, which all but guaranteed the election of Lincoln and secession." Also, one of the quotes in the slavery section from John Townsend is: "our enemies are about to take possession of the Government, that they intend to rule us according to the caprices of their fanatical theories, and according to the declared purposes of abolishing slavery." That quote puts slavery as the #3 issue, behind loss of government possession(federal I assume) and capricious theoretical rule. Having said that, if SummerPhD has the RSs to back up what he is saying, then I prefer making it explicit because then we won't have the confusion/doublethink problem I see in the current wording of the lede paragraph. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 01:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Slavery as the most important cause has been discussed to death with an ever-changing cast of "Lost Cause" supporters. Please see Talk:American_Civil_War/Archive_1#Causes_of_the_Civil_War, Talk:American_Civil_War/Archive_1#Origins_of_the_conflict:_version_B, Talk:American_Civil_War/Archive_1#Origins_of_the_conflict:_version_J, Talk:American_Civil_War/Archive_1#NPS_version, etc. (that's just the first of 11 archives, there's plenty more). After all of that, we came up with the FAQ at the top of this page, including the consensus that yes, slavery was the most important cause of the war. If you wish to re-open that question, you will need to do so directly, not with a claim that the first paragraph is "too leading" (with the leading being toward the consensus view). Incidentally, if you dislike the "leading" of the first paragraph in this article, you'll truly hate the opening of Origins of the American Civil War: "The main explanation for the origins of the American Civil War is slavery, especially Southern anger at the attempts by Northern antislavery political forces to block the expansion of slavery into the western territories." - SummerPhD (talk) 01:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC) - SummerPhD (talk) 01:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

For those who haven't had time to read many books on the subject, call me a nerd, but I read many books on the subject, and SummerPhd does sum up what many good historians have to say.Jimmuldrow (talk) 03:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I wonder whether it could've been simply about money,power and control, like most wars, with slavery as the hot button or catalyst? But if the RSs say slavery was the cause,then so be it. I also wonder why there is such a lot of content here dedicated to the causes of the war? I see no specific sections or subsections at all (relating to the causes of the wars) in the Korean WarVietnam War or Iraq war articles, so why is it such a big deal in this article, occupying the lead section and 9 sub-sections? In addition, if slavery has already been agreed upon as the most important cause, that can be said in 1 sentence and all of the other minor causes may not even be notable enough to go into the main article at all, much less occupy sub-sections. Also, since there is Origins of the American Civil War, why would not all of the content related to causes be shipped over there? I will spend more time reading the article and the "origins" article to try to get a better understanding of why such attention is being given to how the fight got started. Perhaps its a good thing to do with all the other war articles too, if there is enough RS material available. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Your wondering about other possible causes is moot. The reliable sources say it was slavery. The other articles you cite as not having "sections or subsections" about their causes do discuss the causes, usually in sections and subsections called "Background". For example, the third sentence of the first you mention, Korean War, is: "The war was a result of the political division of Korea by agreement of the victorious Allies at the conclusion of the Pacific War." After the introduction is a lengthy section (with five subsections), "Background" which leaves little to the imagination as to what the causes were. The existence of a daughter article, such as Origins of the American Civil War, is not a reason to scrub discussion of the causes of a war from the main article, any more than The Beatles shouldn't discuss their albums, concerts, members, etc. or, more directly, that World War II (with considerable background on the war's cause, despite Causes of World War II) shouldn't discuss The Holocaust. Slavery is the most important cause of the American Civil War. This has been established. The most important cause of a war clearly belongs in an article about that war. Get it? - SummerPhD (talk) 05:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

As i say, I plan to take some time to read up so I can better contribute. I do think the content which extrapolates statistics "Support for secession was strongly correlated to the number of plantations" should be supported by a direct quote or citation to avoid being synthesis. I will look for such later. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

one proposal

I suggest "Support for secession was strongly correlated to the number of plantations in the region." adds nothing but synthesis to the article. Perhaps just that sentence might be removed? The statistics can stay as they are much more objective and verifiable and can speak for themselves. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 16:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Multiple historians (see Freehling and McPherson as two examples out of many) mention that the seven states that led the South in secession had the most slavery. The four upper South states that seceded only after the Fort Sumter crisis had less slavery than the lower South, but more than the border states. The five border states (including West Virginia, which split from the rest of Virginia during the war) had less slavery than the upper South, and sided with the free states. The states that were more in between than the rest (Kentucky had more slavery than other border states, and Tennessee had less slavery than most of the Confederacy) were very divided. Many Kentuckians fought for the South, and many east Tennesseans especially fought for the North. About 90 percent of the leaders of secession in South Carolina, the first state to secede, were slave owners. Also, the leaders of secession listed many slavery related complaints against the North, both in their declarations of reasons for secession and elsewhere. Sorry if you don't like this.Jimmuldrow (talk) 17:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, is it possible that you don't like many relevant facts, and feel emotional about them? Could this be the problem?Jimmuldrow (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

As for "synthesis," it was a number of historians who synthesized the obvious from known facts.Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Lipset looked at the secessionist vote in each Southern state in 1860-61. In each state he divided the counties into high, medium or low proportion of slaves. He found that in the 181 high-slavery counties, the vote was 72% for secession. In the 205 low-slavery counties. the vote was only 37% for secession. (And in the 153 middle counties, the vote for secession was in the middle at 60%). Seymour Martin Lipset, Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics (Doubleday, 1960) p. 349. Rjensen (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, and I apologise if I get too esoteric. I am now convinced there was a "strong" statistical correlation between slavery and cessation,especially by the Lipset #s shown above, and I am not trying to ignore that correlation nor any relevant facts. I have no opinions at all on this subject matter. I assume that within 1 of the sources already given that the correlation is stated specifically. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Kcraven20, 22 November 2010

Template:Weapons In the Civil War
The Civil War was a new age for weaponry. In the 1840s, new types of weapons were being developed leading up to the Civil War. These weapons were more advanced than the weapons used in the American Revolution. They gave soldiers more range to fire from a longer distance, had a better accuracy, and a heavier striking power. When South Carolina and other states started to leave the union, the North and South started to modernize and accumulate the manufacturing of firearms. Civil War soldiers used a wide variety of arms. Primarily, single shot muzzle-loading smoothbore muskets were used in the first year of the war. As time went on, the shoulder-fired rifle-muskets were adopted. It was known as the Springfield or the Enfield model. This weapon caused about eighty-five percent of the deaths in the Civil War. The most popular rifle muskets were the .58 caliber model 1861 and 1863 Springsfields . They were manufactured in Springfield, Massachusetts. The .577 model of 1853 and 1856 Enfields were popular models also used in the Civil War. The Enfields were not manufactured in Enfield, Connecticut; they were imported from Great Britain. These were the most common weapons used in the battlefields by the North and South. Soldiers carried small arms as well. All officers would carry a saber or a sword but they often relied on revolvers. Carbines and pistols were carried by Civil War cavalrymen but also were carried on navy ships. Kcraven20 (talk) 14:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you looking for List of weapons in the American Civil War? ..or Category:American Civil War weapons? I think that there may be too many entries to make an effective template.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

International war

Was the Civil War an international war? Britain made ships for the Confederate Navy and paid reparations in the Alabama claims. Also, France invaded Mexico while Union and Confederacy were fighting each other. There is the French Erlanger bond sales supported by cotton credit, in addition to cotton being used to barter military supplies from Britain? Does this make the American Civil war an international war? 74.38.22.42 (talk) 01:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

There were international aspects of the war, but they did not involve governments. It was a private shipyard in Britain that made ships for sale to the Confederacy, against official British policy. The Erlanger bonds were sold by the Confederates to private investors in Paris, not to the French government. Cotton was not used to barter military supplies from Britain. (The blockade runners bought the cotton and sold military supplies to the Confederates, but they were private British businessmen and did not have any authorization from the British government). The French were certainly involved in Mexico, but that was quite a separate operation from me American Civil War. Not a single nation in the world recognized the Confederacy. Rjensen (talk) 02:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Rjensen! Good information. Would the French have invaded Mexico if there was no Civil War? Cmguy777 (talk) 06:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I think France probably would have stayed out.Rjensen (talk) 09:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Were there British made or French made weapons used by the Confederates? Was the Union blockade fullproof or how much access did the Confederates have to other nations overseas? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

150th Anniversary

How should wikipedia approach the 150th Aniversary of the Civil War? Controversy seems to be mounting, especially with "Confederate heritage" insistance that the Civil War was not caused by slavery. Almost 150 years later there remains controversy. Also, in the South there seems to be a celebration over succession, rather then the Civil War as a whole. There appears to be section difference over the meaning of the Civil War. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Harriet Beecher Stowe Caused the Civil War

Abraham Lincoln, when he met Harriet Beecher Stowe, said "So you are the little woman who wrote the book that caused this great war". It was the rabble-rousing abolitionists who caused the Civil War. Northerners and Southerners had been intelligently debating the issue of slavery for decades; there was even talk among Southerners about abolishing it in the South but the Southerners found that suddenly releasing millions of uneducated blacks with limited skills would add greatly to crime in the South--which already had to deal with the criminal white trash element. They simply could not free the slaves because of the enormous crime wave it would cause. In 1832, Governor John Floyd of Virginia asked the legislature to phase out slavery, but they rejected his proposal by a vote of 73 to 58 after some well-reasoned debate--millions of suddenly freed blacks was too large a logistical problem (how would they be incorporated into society?). Even blacks owned slaves--Andrew Durnford (a black man) of New Orleans owned 77 slaves. And slave drivers (straw bosses) were black. And slaves were expensive, up to $1,800 for a prime field hand--so slaves were taken good care of, although there were whippings. Planters preferred to use Irishmen or freed blacks to perform dangerous labor, since they didn't want their own slaves damaged. And few Southerners owned slaves--in 1860 only 2,200 planters owned more than 100 slaves. In the late 1850's the price of slaves soared so that only the very wealthy could afford them. (Does anybody actually believe that poor white Southerners would go to war to protect the financial investment of a few wealthy slave owners?) A slave produced about $100 in value each year but cost about $50 to feed, clothe and shelter. So owning slaves was a big financial risk. And remember, after 1808 it was against federal law to import slaves. Slavery was on the way out, but because of long-standing feuds, the fear of slave rebellions, the rabble-rousing abolitionists, States' rights, the right to secede, the agrarian/industrial dichotomy, the National Bank issue and other such matters of discord, the North and South were basically two different countries. "Uncle Tom's Cabin" raised the emotional ire in people and pushed the nation into Civil War. It was this book that caused the Civil War.66.122.182.231 (talk) 05:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

So what would abolitionists have to talk about if slavery was phased out? Two reasons Southerners refused to do so: 1) Cotton was extremely profitable in 1860 and 2) fears of racial equality were more extreme in the South because 99 percent of blacks lived in the South. Southerners expressed fears of blacks voting, serving on juries, marrying whites and otherwise enjoying complete social equality with whites.Jimmuldrow (talk) 14:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

66.122.182.231 doubtless feels that the South should have stayed in the Union and not opened fire on Ft Sumter. Rjensen (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis were not in anyway victims to an oppressive North. John Brown had been defeated and hanged. Lincoln never made any threats of war while he was President. The issue over slavery's expansion or contraction was what caused the American Civil War. The Confederates did not want to travel to another state and not have their slaves. Lincoln was correct on Stowe, in that words are very powerful, and can influence people. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems money was a driving force behind the war. I crunched some numbers...cotton was the most important American product (not just Southern, but American product). During the 1850's an annual crop of four million bales brought in more than $190 million (a bale of cotton might weigh 600 pounds) into the American economy from overseas. That money greatly benefitted the North, not just the South, and I'm sure Washington, D.C. wanted to keep their hands on that money. Cotton constituted 2/3 of America's exports! In 1850, 1.8 million of the 3.2 million slaves worked it. Other slave crops were tobacco, sugar, rice and hemp (for rope). It seems the North had a vital financial stake in the South and did not want to let it go free (paradoxically). And the Southern slaveholders didn't want to have their expensive slaves confiscated--I'm currently looking at an invoice copy from 1835 listing slaves from $400 to $500. A slave was worth more than a house! There were 4 million slaves at the start of the Civil War, which would have been several billions of dollars back then. Anybody know the rate of inflation from back in the Civil War? We must be talking trillion$ of dollar$ worth of slaves. The South certainly didn't want it's economy devastated by freeing its slaves. And the North didn't want to lose the South because of the revenue the South generated for the entire nation from cotton... So the North wanted to have its cake and eat it too, they wanted to free the slaves but they wanted the cotton plantations to continue. 64.169.155.54 (talk) 06:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

This article is about the American Civil War. As such, we discuss the actual causes, as documented by reliable sources. Slavery was the most important cause of the War, despite your research indicating otherwise. There were other minor issues, such as the tariff issue, or states' rights. We discuss them as minor issues.- SummerPhD (talk) 19:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou for your input. The problem I'm having is that throughout history I cannot find an instant of a country going to war to free slaves. We have instances of slave uprisings, such as Nat Turner (apparently there were about 250 slave uprisings in the South but Nat Turner gets the focus of attention); Spartacus; Vercingetorix leading a rebellion against the oppression of the Romans; the ancient helots, etc. but I can't find any instance of a nation actually going to war to free some slaves. Anybody got any historical instances? Indeed, when the North invaded the South, they would burn plantations and sometimes hang the black slaves. That's why I think such things as private property investments, sectional pride, etc. have to take on more importance than they are currently ascribed. I think Robert Ardrey's "territorial imperative" (q.v.) played a great deal in fueling the Civil War. I don't think "slavery" was the issue per se (apart from the abolitionists)--I think it was the amount of money tied up in a slave economy and the threatened way of life that caused people to go to war. So people confuse issues related to a slave economy with the issue of slavery itself. This Wiki article lists contributing causes of the war but they should be given much more weight. Slavery by itself would not seem to be sufficient reason to get killed in a war, and indeed many Northerners opted out by paying someone else to be conscripted in their place. If you were a Northerner would you die to free a black man you didn't even know hundreds of miles away? There were just too many divisive issues between 1830 and 1860, which ultimately flared into war. I think we have to understand the Zeitgeist of the times to understand how people thought--remember, they would have pistol duels over some mere perceived offense. With the 150th anniversary of the Civil War now with us, they'll be a lot of re-visiting of history and we should all be prepared for some robust debate. 64.169.155.54 (talk) 00:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

If you feel the article is in error in presenting slavery as the most important cause of the the war, this is the place to do so, by presenting reliable sources that directly state otherwise. If you are here to dicuss this conclusion so that you may understand it or debate this conclusion based on your reading of history, this is not the place. This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article. Changing the consensus view, presented in the FAQ linked at the top of the page, will require considerably more than your opinions, inability to find historical parallels and selected examples from antiquity. We need reliable secondary sources directly stating that the primary cause was something else. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The Union did not "go to war to free the slaves" - but Southern states declared secessions in order to preserve slavery and "went to war" to enforce their territorial claims (which they felt were being challenged by continued presence of federal troop) AND to preserve their constitution, which was founded to preserve slavery (which they felt was endangered by Republican victory in 1860). The quote attributed to Lincoln about Stowe is not fully reliable, but saying abolitionists (singly or as a group) caused the war is hyperbolic. Abolitionists contributed to tension over the issue of slavery, but they had been around for some time. They had not created any unavoidable groundswell to abolish slavery in states where it was legal. Their greater influence was to disgust Northerners from assisting in the return of fugitive slaves. They did not trigger the attack on Sumter -- "their side" did not start the shooting. For Sumter to happen there had to be Southern reaction not only to the abolitionists, but to any restriction on slavery.--JimWae (talk) 02:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Spelling mistake - edit needed

Resolved

"Civil War soldiers were able to by personal armor independantly through private sellers."

• buy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.100.68 (talk) 02:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and "independantly" as well. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow, what a mess... - SummerPhD (talk) 03:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The First Slaveowner in Virginia was a Black Man

Perhaps this Wiki article should have a section on the origins of slavery in the US, to shed some light on how it came to be an institution that helped provoke the Civil War. For starters, Anthony Johnson was the first person to own a slave in Virginia by a decree of the court--and Johnson was a black man! The name of his slave was John Casor, also black. (Both men and their stories can be found at their respective Wikipedia sites.) Also, John Rolfe (Pocahontas' husband) started slavery when he acquired Spanish tobacco seeds and then on Aug. 31, 1619 he acquired black slaves to grow tobacco, tobacco being labor intensive. (Again I refer to the Wiki site). And of course when slaves were moved to Liberia they started their own slave plantations... 64.169.155.54 (talk) 02:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)