The Civil War started in 1861, and though it was more than a century ago, there is still controversy and many questions arising about the subject. What were they really fighting over? Should the South have been able to succeed? What were the South’s true reasons for succeeding? Was the North’s only reason to go to war to free the slaves? Were Slaves truly treated as cruelly as we are to believe they were? Did the Abolitionists have other motives hidden behind tightly shut doors, which were not made public? These are only a few questions people want to know the answers to regarding the American’s War against themselves. Some of these questions are hard to give a definite answer to, and say what is exactly is correct. History textbooks in the public schools, private schools, even homeschool’s, answer these questions, but are they really the truth? The textbooks are written in the North’s point of view, the winners of the war.
They are telling us what they want us to think the reasons for the war really were. But they might leave out little key parts that aren’t beneficial to their view. Did the Northern industrialists want a war to end slavery? No, not to end slavery, but to end the South or, put more accurately, they wanted an end to the Southern power and influence in the Nation. They, or those members of the industrialist clique, who dominated the Republican Party then, were determined to dominate the country by whatever means; but slavery was too profitable for it to be ended until they could “bring off their grandiose plan of domination.” There was no way they could have both the profits of slavery and domination of the nation; and domination was far more important. Forcing an end to slavery was the handiest method of destroying the South. The Industrialists did not originate the abolition crusade.
... this vexed question [of slavery in the US] from politics" (D) posed by Stephen Douglas can be answered in this way. The reason why ... of hatred toward the North, but the government also. The South Carolina government said "this government... [has] been defeated and the ... of this country controlled the extremists on both sides the war could have been avoided" is totally false. The Civil ...
That developed coincidentally and played into their hands as conflicting interests moved the two sections toward confrontation. The Industrialists knew that the abolitionists were not going to end slavery. The Industrialists were realists; the abolitionists were not. But the abolition movement was creating a climate for war, and that was what the industrialists wanted.
It was as simple as that, too simple for most people to appreciate. Slavery was the real reason for the war. It was the emotional part of the war. The Northerners knew that if they found every newspaper clipping having something negative to do with slavery, and publish it, making it seem as if all of the South was beating and torturing the slaves, people’s emotions would start to flare up. Which is exactly what happened. Civilians started getting the impression that the slaves were being treated horribly, and they were ready to intervene.
The big behind-the-scenes northern industrialists with their enormous financial resources were making political decisions, and these hardheaded people were not playing for sunflower seeds. They were out to win more enormous wealth and power. The fifteen states in the Southern block were Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia (including what is now West Virginia).
These fifteen states comprised all the land in the country where Slave labor could be used profitably in large numbers and to better advantage than white labor.
The South had reached its peak of expansion. There were eight million white people and four and a half million Negroes, and nowhere could the South look for additional political strength. In the North there were nineteen million white people and one-forth million Negroes and a vast area of undeveloped territory which was rapidly being settled with people whose economic interests would not be with the South. Against such odds, the South could not hope to hold its own against the Union.
... an accurate account of profitability of slaves, firstly he states that the profits received by the South from slavery helped change public opinion towards ... root and the anti-slavery opinions were only at their strongest in areas of the North. The Southern people were regularly harassed by ...
On every issue, the South was being and would continue to be outvoted, especially on commercial regulations. Paying high prices for what it bought and getting low prices for what it sold would have brought the South completely under the domination of the North, the “North” really being the rest of the country. The South is always looked on as if the only reason they wanted war was to be able to keep their slaves; they wanted slavery and being able to own someone else’s gave them a thrill. This is another lie. The attitude of the South has never been well understood because the insistence of the abolitionists upon instant and unconditional emancipation forcing the South to defend slavery whereas the South most wanted an end to it. No practical plan for ending slavery was being proposed by anybody, perhaps because there was none.
“Cool heads” might have worked out a plan for some kind of gradual emancipation, which could have been preparation for the impact of farm machinery later on; but there could be few cool heads in the climate created by radical, fanatical abolition. The South should have been able to succeed if they wanted to. There was no where were it said once a State became part of the Union it had to stay. On the contrary, it says that if a State feels as if it needs to leave the Union, the State may do so. The North was in the wrong for forcing the South to stay. The Constitution states that all men are equal, and the abolitionists were trying to get that point across in freeing the slaves; but the South was not being treated “equal.” They were being over-taxed for manufactured goods, and under-paid for their crops the northern factories needed.
History textbooks come across as if the majority of the slaves were not fed, cared for, and were beaten regularly by their masters. Yet again, another lie. Most slaves were lucky to be bought in the United States. If they were not bought here, they were shipped off to Haiti, the Dominican Republic or Cuba. There, the majority of the slaves were beaten regularly. If a slave could be bought in the United States, it was the best place for them to be purchased.
Andrew Johnson Andrew Johnson was born on December 29, 1808, in Raleigh, North Carolina, the youngest of two sons. His father, Jacob Johnson, was a porter who died in 1811 after saving a man from drowning. His mother, Mary McDonough Johnson supported the family by spinning and weaving cloth in their Raleigh cottage. At the age of 14, Johnson was apprenticed to a tailor. In 1843 Johnson was elected ...
Some would work harder than others, but almost all were treated as family. The Southerners were mainly Christians, and would start their day off by praying and reading the Bible to their slaves and families. Very few slaves were beaten. There were however, the exceptional few plantations that would whip and treat the slaves like animals instead of real human beings.
However, there were consequences if caught in such a horrendous act. The white person would be sent to jail for a period of time, and occasionally, have their plantation taken away from them. As Northerners starting putting more pressure on the South, they were more cautious about the flogging of slaves. Before we go on, let me go into some history of slavery in the United States. Lifetime slavery was not used here until around 1653.
There were Indentured servants, who would serve a master for seven years, and then they were given their own piece of land they could care for themselves. Then those free indentured servants would have other indentured servants come out to the U. S. and the same would happen with them. At first, only whites were used as Indentured servants. Then slave dealers started to come to the ports and sold blacks as indentured servants.
They were treated just as the white indentured servants were treated. They would serve a master for seven years, and then they were set free. However, in 1653, a Negro named John Casor complained that his master, Anthony Johnson, had kept him in servitude some years longer than he should have, which was a serious defense. Johnson, frightened, released Casor from all claims against him, but then found that Casor had bound himself to one Parker who had aided him in obtaining freedom. Johnson sued Parker, claiming that he, Johnson, was entitled to the lifetime service of Casor, and won his case. This entitles Anthony Johnson to be called, “The Father of Negro Slavery in Virginia”, and changes somewhat the complexion of “that peculiar institution” because Johnson himself was a Negro.
Have Historians Overemphasized Slavery The Civil War took more American lives than any other war in history. It was a war of division. It was brother against brother; north against south; and person against person fighting that left a heritage of grief and bitterness that in part still remains to this day. It was a great turning point in American history. It abolished slavery completely in the ...
That story is not found in our history books today. We are made to think the white man had the blacks being slaves right from the beginning they first started touching land in the United States. All of these issues were leading towards one thing: War. All the essentials were there: “1) An established agricultural class furnishing most of the military and political leadership, rich but at the peak of its power; 2) A new industrial class gaining wealth and political influence, ambitious for more of both, allied with political groups out of office for a long time and willing to do anything to regain power; 3) A violently emotional issue promoted by fanatical crusaders, to stir the people; 4) A president (Lincoln) who surpassed all previous presidents in lust for power, who had devoted all his adult years to his ambition.” (Springer).
The Civil War was a bloody war between the same nation, two sides. We lost many men, woman and children due to the selfishness of one side. Hearing parts of the other, the parts left out of the textbooks makes one think a little deeper about the emotional reason versus real reason for the war. There are still questions that have not been answered, and ones that will never be answered. Such as, what would have happened if the South hadn’t tried to succeed in the first place? Or what if the South had won the Civil War? How different would our country be if it had? These are only a few questions we will never have answered.
Bibliography War For What? By Francis W. Springer Copyright 1990, William M. Coats To Be A Slave By Julius Lester Copyright 1968, Scholastic Inc.