Ryan Hampton's paper on The War for Southern Independence

A WAR FOR PEACE OR A WAR FOR DESTRUCTION
In school, we learn about the American "Civil War," and the causes and effects behind it. But as is with so many things, history is written by the dominate people, nations, or the winners of war, and often is not written completely true. So in looking at this war, we should look at it open-mindedly, to consider the points and the drawbacks to both sides of the war.
The two sides, of course, in the war were the Northern United States of America, and the southern American states, the Confederate States of America. Most every war is a complicated issue, and does not come about all of a sudden. There are a few exceptions to this rule, but we see very little wars in the past that came up "all of the sudden" with one bad side doing something really bad, and a "good side" that corrects them. Even such horrible attacks as Pearl Harbor and the September 11th 2001 attacks were not something that came up suddenly, as neither did the American Revolution, but were a strong outpouring and showing of many years of conflict and anger amongst nations.
So in hearing that the war was so simple, we may need to take a closer look. Without ignoring pure facts, assuming that the South all of a sudden owned a whole lot of slaves, torturing them to no end, and the North on behalf of the slaves, outlawed slavery, but was left with no other choice but to have war on the evil South is a very dangerous assumption. The war may not have officially begun until 1861, but as we look at this more closely, we realize that there were many things leading up to the war before hand. Thus, we should look more closely as to what caused the war, the war itself, and the outcomes of the war.
Through the 1800’s sectionalism begin to take hold in the nation. Sectionalism is essentially the showing of pride or heritage to a particular part of a land under government, but with no government over specifically the section itself. Before secession, there was no real government governing specifically over the Southern United States. Each state had it’s government, and the United States had it’s central government. Sectionalism came about over time, not at once, by differences in tradition, culture, religion, politics, economical, geography, etc. Often times, these work in the dominoes affect.
Once one aspect of the above (or any other aspect that would lead to sectionalism), takes hold, it leads to other of the above differences. There were many geographical differences in the South as compared to that of the North. These led to many economical differences. The South was very and much more agricultural than the North was. The North was more industrial. The North, in many ways, was dominate. Many of the Founding Fathers was from the Northeast (some from the Southeast though), but none of them were from the West. The colonies were all along the East coast. This made the North against Westward Expansion. But the South often was helped by Westward Expansion, because it led more importance to the South. In fact, at one time in American’s history before the war, America’s dominate city seemed to be changing from the Northern New York City to the Southern New Orleans.
But the North did not take too well to that. The North wanted to use force to hinder or stop Westward Expansion. The North was a very, very important part to the nation themselves. Much of what made America great did come from the North, but at this time, many Northerners were not all too happy with more settling in the West, or a more important South. In many ways, it was the dangers of a Confederacy in the manner that America was founded by. Often times there is fight over power amongst sections of the nation in a Confederacy; and also, often times the bigger sections become the dominate voice in what should be an equal voice. America was beginning to see both of these affects.
The South resisted any changes the North wanted to make, often being somewhat overly sensitive in the matter. Besides the economical and geographical differences between the North and the South, there were religious differences, as shown much through the culture and tradition. The South was much more conservative and Christian than the North was. The South had also been seeing a new kind of literature and way of life, romanticism, coming about. The North was not at all like the South in this. The South put more of a romantic and emotional outlook to life than did the North. This is not to say that the South was a section founded only on emotionalism, and the North was a section founded only on intellect. The South simply placed a higher role on religion, tradition, and way of life in their lives and outlooks.
Thus, the cultures of the North and South were much different. The North did not really like the religious and conservative South. In many ways, the North felt the South made a bad name for America. The South was not at all too fond of the North’s ways either, and they had a lot of emotion in their actions.
With the South’s culture and literature, it made them often times defend even things that were wrong that they still did. A major example of this is slavery. The South had taken part in the slave trade, and often defended slavery. This is not to say that the South was the only place slavery existed, or the creator of slaver; nor is it to say that everyone in the South owned slaves. But the South did own more slaves than what was in the North, probably due to agricultural reasons.
Thus with all of this in mind, the North wanted a stronger central government to apply force to make things often the way they wanted. This is not to say that everyone in the North wanted an authoritarian central government in American wanting to control everything in the South, but the issue of state’s rights and the role of the central government began to play a role in political differences. The South, generally speaking, was for a smaller government, particularly the central government. The North looked for more government more so than the South. The South, in being conservative, did want a certain amount of what some would consider "authoritarian" laws, but the North wanted to take away Southern ideas, and probably looked to the government more so than the South. One major example of this could be seen in public education. Intellectuals, mostly from the North, looked to the government to make education laws, applying their curriculum to the classrooms. The South, often, was very cautious to a government school system, particularly done at the Federal level. All this said just shows the culture differences between the North and the South.
But a lot of times two cultures, even within a nation does not cause too much trouble or wars. But the cultures were not just a little different, but very, very different. Beyond just this, the North in being strong minded people, often what could be considered by intellectuals in the since that they put a stronger emphasis on the mind, and thought that they were right as well, would want to apply force to the South through the means of the Central Government. Often times in different cultures, both sides simply overlook the differences. Also, the South in having a higher emphasis on emotion, would have been very upset over the North, making them more likely to secede.
But not everyone in the North felt the same way. Some people wanted to just go and apply force to the South in almost every way. But not all felt that way at all. Meanwhile, the abolitionists, often in the North, were very much against slavery, wanting it stopped at all costs.
Thus, even with these somewhat different views, common ground and reason was there to apply force to the South. The South, on the other hand, being mostly conservative, resisted change, whether it be to keep the South from growing, or ending slavery. In 1861 Abraham Lincoln was elected as President of the United States of America, even without receiving a single vote in the Southeast. The South saw this as horrible, and essentially a threat to their home.
As soon as Lincoln was elected President, states began holding conventions to possibly secede. But many in the North, and even some in the South as well, felt that secession was illegal. Those in the North, even with different views, still had a certain amount of common ground in waging war on the South. Slavery was perhaps the most widely mentioned reason for waging war on the South. Rightly or wrongly, slavery was used, depending on how you view it, as the reason or the excuse for the North waging war on the South. But new President Abraham Lincoln’s main objective in the struggle between the North and the South was not to free slaves, but to save the Union. He said himself that if he "[C]ould save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do so, and if I could save the Union freeing all the slaves, I would do so, and if I could do it freeing some slaves and leaving others alone, I would also do that."
May it also be said that slavery was not the one underlying cause to the war. It was a very important issue at the time of the war, but that does not mean that it was the leading cause and factor to and in the war. It was a factor, but not the factor. State’s rights is perhaps the best way to sum up the factors leading to the war and the factors within the war. Slavery, perhaps was one aspect of state’s rights. Due to the importance slavery did have in the war, and due to what we are told by those who interpret history, it is an issue that must be talked about in much detail.
This is not to say that Lincoln did not care about slavery, but it was not his number one priority. But even with the different views in the North, there was common ground on each of the Northern views that could wage war on the South. There were different views in the South as well. Not every Southerner wanted to secede from the Union. In fact, the future Vice President of the Confederacy was very strongly against secession.
But through all of this, a total of thirteen states, all Southern seceded from the Union. The Confederacy elected Jefferson Davis as their first President. Robert E. Lee eventually took control of the Confederate forces. Lee had been offered the same position for the Union, but took the job for the Confederate army because it was his home. He would dare defend his home, the place where he was born, raised, and learned about life and God. Stonewall Jackson, who like Lee, was a devout Christian man, also became a major figure in the Confederate army. Some have said that Lee was the mastermind and planner for war, but it was Jackson who articulated Lee’s plans.
But while it seems Lincoln wanted to save the Union, and was right in doing so, the South saw this as a threat to their safety and home. The South saw themselves as having every right, legally, and to some every right morally, to secede. They saw themselves as fighting for their independence as the colonies did against Britain. From this, Lincoln was viewed largely in the South as a sort of evil emperor. But today we hear that Lincoln freed slaves and in being nice to the South, saved the Union.
Like most things, there is probably a little bit of truth in each of these views. Lincoln, compared to some Northerners, was actually somewhat kind and gracious to the South. Lincoln, however, was not quite the "Great Emancipator" we often think he was. Lincoln declared as if he had full authority the freeing of every slave in the Confederacy. He did nothing about slaves in the North. His plan though, was not to set the slaves completely free, but to send them right back to Africa where they came from. In fact, Lincoln in one of his many quotes said, "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything." Beyond that, he had little or no authority to do such a thing. He also, in being the President of a war, waged a war loosing more American lives than was lost in all of America’s other wars through World War II put together.
There were, therefore, some similarities to the Revolutionary War that the American colonies had toward Britain. But the way the colonies went about breaking off of the British crown was much more systematic, slow, and intellectually oriented. The South, rightly or wrongly, began putting more emphasis on emotion and sacred tradition than what was seen in the North or at other previous times in American history before the war. Perhaps the South should have held secession off to try to work from within, and either secede later, or never secede, but the emotions played high in many Southerners. This could be good or bad to America and the South. Many Southerners did not think as systematically as they should have, but the South did have the heart in battle to defend their land.
They had so much heart, that despite being outnumbered tremendously and having far less money, the South essentially won the first half of the war. The South had reason to fight- to protect their families, homes, lives, fortunes, and sacred honor, very much as the colonies did. But the colonies were able to receive foreign aid, whereas the South was not. Many other nations were very skeptical to having anything to do with being on the side of a nation that supports slavery. Though the Confederacy was not a nation that "recommended" slavery, or demanded slavery or even largely for slavery, slavery did exist in the South. Although many slave owners treated their slaves right, the fact of owning slaves was enough for a nation to be against the South. Beyond this, about half way into the war, the South lost Stonewall Jackson. Jackson was just one man, but to some he was the heart and soul of the Confederate army.
Thus, the depth that the North had eventually overpowered the heart of the South. It can only be wondered if the loss of Stonewall Jackson was a directly leading cause to the decline of the South.The North began to burn down houses that belonged to Southerners, many of whom fought in the war. The North began to take away the pride and joy of Southern men- their families and fortunes. That is what the Southerners fought for. The North had different causes, but had one ultimate underlying cause: to tear down the South, and rebuild to what they wanted it to be. They may have had different ideas for what they wanted it to be, but they all had some common ground, and wanted it different than how it was, and more in line with what the North wanted.
Shortly after the war, Lincoln was assassinated. Many in the South were probably not so sad because Lincoln was viewed as a tyrant. But Lincoln, as stated before, was actually more compassionate to the South than other Northerners, particularly Northern politicians were. This may have made reconstruction even worse for the South. Also, since not every Northerner wanted the same thing, there was confusion that took a while to be resolved, if it ever even has. Now, largely a result of the war, we see racial animosity, and rightly or wrongly, sectional pride.
But who is to blame? Should the North be blamed for waging war? Should the South be blamed for owning slaves, or seceding too early? Like many of things, there is a balance to these questions. Both sides do have plenty to be ashamed of, but also plenty of be proud of. What is read in history books, however, is largely biased and even untrue. It can be argued very well that the South should not have seceded; however, it is fair to say that they had every right, at least legally, to secede. If slavery was the one issue, it could have been done loosing little or no lives. Many other nations had ended slavery without even a war. The North for the abolition of slavery and many other reasons, put aggression upon the South. The South may have made it even worse by seceding, but it would have also probably been better if the North would not have waged war on the South.
But even though the South had every legal right, justified or unjustified to secede, even though the North killed many innocent Southern men, women, and children, and even though the North wanted to use the Central government to apply force to make the South the way that they wanted it, we hear otherwise. History is written by God, but often interpreted and taught by the victors. The war was not even a civil war. The war was a war fought amongst the United States of America, and the Confederate States of America. A Civil War is a war fought amongst different people within a nation trying to take over the same government. The North applied force through the United States Central Government to destroy the South. Sadly many in the South, and even in the North lost their lives, families, and fortunes- any or all of them.
But beyond all of this, pride is not found primarily in victory, but a strong fight for a good cause, which can be in both victory and defeat. The desiring to abolish slavery was a good cause; but the desiring to abolish slavery while killing thousands upon thousands of innocent people is quite another- especially when the slaves hardly wind up better off than they were. The desiring to hold on to slavery is wrong; but the desire to protect one’s heritage, even if it did have problems is a good cause. This cause was and even still is seen in the South, giving many Southerners a feeling of pride. The victors on paper can write their version of history on paper, but the victors in heart can write their version of history in their hearts.