New member- great read - what was the war actually over thread!!!

Hello all,
I am a Canadian who spends a couple months a year escaping our ugly weather in the warmer climes of South Carolina. This is created a real interest in this incredible time in American history.
In as much as the Civil War was ever discussed in my studies, I too was given the 'simplified' answer that this war was fought over slavery. Even after doing some research and reading on this topic, I can not but help to see why this answer is valid.
Even with this in mind, I can not help but wonder the same thing as the creator of this thread. I remember someone quoting a number of somewhere around 66% of the South involved in this war did not own or ever own a slave - this makes me wonder what would be the motivation for someone in this 66% to go through this? The army of the North was not without many who would not have fought only for the abolition of slavery so the cause can not be black and white for all. It can be argued that the North and South had cultural differences that were bound to come to head sometime.
Hear is my view from the cheap seats - the cause of the civil war can be traced to the founding fathers deliberate avoidance in dealing with slavery and the admission that 'all men are created equal' . The issue was allowed to fester and new factors such as the cotton boom and western expansion brought the issue to a head.

Welcome to forum from kentucky.

Welcome from West Virginia.

Welcome from Ohio.

Welcome from Louisiana

Greetings from the Comonwealth of Penna.

Welcome from LA. The War was over economics and slavery was the glue that held the South's economy together. I believe that that is the basic answer. As to this subject, it is without doubt the most discussed on Civilwartalk. A search of threads will show that.

Welcome from Mississippi...

Welcome to Cwt from Indiana Mapleleaf! I'm sure that you can get the answers here.

It's bad enough the Yankees have invaded our state now it's the Canadians. If you stay permanently, I guess you'll be a da*ned Canadian.

Welcome to my state and this forum from South Carolina.

dvrmte

Welcome from Texas!

Welcome, from another d**n Canadian!

Greetings from Maryland! Fox's Gap to be precise, scene of some the hardest fighting of the war during the Battle of South Mountain.

I'm new here too, and as you may see in other threads, my wife is from Toronto, and our kids are dual citizens (Canada/US). My wife's great-grandfather had a brother who left home in Toronto to join an artillery unit in the Union army. Check out some of the threads started here by Dawna, whose icon is a Maple Leaf--she has some good info. on Canadians in the war.

I tend to avoid discussions like "what really caused the war," because I've seen dozens of them over the years, and they're all virtually identical. It's like riding a merry go round you've been on a hundred times--lots of action, you've seen it all before, and it always winds up back in the same place.

Nevertheless, the answer to your question, "what would be the motivation for someone in this 66% to go through this?" is somewhat complicated. From what I've been able to discern, the poor whites who made up the bulk of the Confederate army were motivated by a number of things, not unlike soldiers who participate in any war.

Many of those who fought felt they were simply protecting their homes from the invading army of a foreign power. Others were in the fight to defend the honor of their native state (the states loomed much larger in people's minds in those days than they do today, as did personal honor). Many served because they were drafted, and a good number of young men probably enlisted seeking adventure and glory, or because of peer pressure from friends and kinfolk. Then there's always that invigorating rush of martial fervor that sends so many off to war, only to discover to their horror what they've really signed up for.

Also many were probably motivated by economic reasons, such as fear that a country full of free blacks would mean increased competition for the low wage, unskilled jobs that many of them had. The "66%" had seen the system work for the wealthy plantation owners and understandably wanted it to work for them. But the system had to survive for it to work, or there had be some viable alternative, and none was offered. So, if the system was destroyed, everyone was left with nothing. Not an attractive alternative, and it's one of the great mistakes of the Civil War. You can't demand that an entire society surrender its wealth and way of life with nothing to replace it. If you do, expect a fight. Slavery was the foundation of the Southern economy and it was understandable why non-slave owners there would fight to protect the system. There was no more likelihood of everyone in the South freely giving up slavery than there would be today of everyone in Silicon Valley freely giving up computer technology. It would mean economic ruin for everyone.

While most of them didn't own slaves, many of them likely aspired to--while it sounds awful today, slaves were a good investment and a means to upward mobility. A recent article on the topic pointed out that in 1860, "the South’s 4 million enslaved human beings were worth between $3 billion and $4 billion: the largest single asset in the United States, representing more than the value of all the nation’s railroads and factories combined. Slaves, even more than land, were Southern planters’ safest and most lucrative investment. Prices had been skyrocketing — doubling in the 1850s alone. Natural human reproduction ensured a further return. Slaves could easily be rented, mortgaged, or liquidated. A planter’s slaves were often, in modern terms, not just his work force, but also his stock portfolio."

Racism was also a factor--the entire county was racist by today's standards, not just the South. Georgia Supreme Court Justice Henry Benning, trying to persuade the Virginia Legislature to leave the Union, predicted a race war if slavery were not protected. “The consequence will be that our men will be all exterminated or expelled to wander as vagabonds over a hostile earth, and as for our women, their fate will be too horrible to contemplate even in fancy.” During the 1860 election, Southern Democrats used the term "Black Republicans" to describe Lincoln's party and to advance the notion that his election would incite slave rebellions in the South and result in miscegenation, or mixing of the races. One South Carolina clergyman warned that Republican rule meant that, “abolition preachers will be at hand to consummate the marriage of your daughters to black husbands.” Those eager for cannon fodder played on racist hysteria like this to motivate men to enlist. The "66%" was already at the bottom rung of the economic ladder, and except for their superiority over the slaves, they would be at the bottom rung of the social ladder. Take that away, and again, they would have nothing.

All things considered, it's not surprising that so many of the "66%" went off to war.

Once again, welcome to the forum!

Howdy and welcome from Pittsburgh!!

Hello Claude,

I like your take on, 'not unlike soldiers who participate in any war." and the defense of honor and native state. The perception of the ' fear that a country full of free blacks increased competition for the low wage....' - fuzzy for me - are they saying this group did not see that jobs would still exist or were they afraid that the former slaves would get the better of the low end jobs , leaving them to do the toiling. It appears that the elite of the CSA may have sold their less educated brothers a bit of nonsense, a theme found throughout history in terms of wars.
Really enjoyed your paragraph on racism.

Thanks for your response. Keep up the good work - I am learning slow but sure!

Welcome from Maryland.

Hello there and welcome to CWT from New Zealand!

Geeze Dawna,
Americans are a passionate lot when it comes to their history. I think I have spent too much time in the cold as I can't get my blood to run like they can. A lot to digest here - good stuff though!!