Before the first shot in a war there is mostly a political prologue to it

Oberon · 01-08-16, 07:07 PM

4th July 1776 I'd wager.

EDIT: In all seriousness, I'd say that the issue flared up during the westward expansion, west of the Mississippi to be precise, and the arguements over whether these new states would be 'free states' or 'slave states', the arguement over who got what and then who decided who got what, which then merged into the ethicality of slavery when Lincoln was elected in 1860 and became a war about who decided what states could and couldn't do.

That's a pretty basic run down of it.

Sailor Steve · 01-08-16, 07:20 PM

"Any man who takes it upon himself to explain the causes of the Civil War deserves whatever grief comes his way, regardless of his good intentions."
-From the article cited in the following link. I could not find where the name of the author is mentioned.

Oberon, that's not a bad summation. For the full story the best place to start is here.

mapuc · 01-08-16, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

"Any man who takes it upon himself to explain the causes of the Civil War deserves whatever grief comes his way, regardless of his good intentions."
-From the article cited in the following link. I could not find where the name of the author is mentioned.

Oberon, that's not a bad summation. For the full story the best place to start is here.

First of all thank you for presenting me this great link

In my school days I was told the reason for the war was the election of Abraham Lincoln- when thinking this can't be the only reason

Watching the first page on the page you gave me, I can see the Election of Abraham Lincoln is last in event "Causes Of The Civil War Summary"

Got some reading to do.

Have after I saw this movie tried to find some Danish and/or Swedish book about this, with no success everyone was about the war itself.

Markus

Sailor Steve · 01-08-16, 10:38 PM

You say you like Gods & Generals. Have you seen Gettysburg? It takes place after, but was filmed years earlier, and is the better movie.

The writing of the US Constitution was not a cause of the American Civil War, but has ties to it. The biggest argument of the Constitutional Debates (May-September 1787) was the question of representation. The original Virginia Plan, written by James Madison and presented by the Virginia delegation to the Convention, proposed that one representative be elected to represent a certain amount of people. Other delegates objected. The States at that time considered themselves individual countries, only willing to submit themselves to a greater government where it was absolutely necessary, and felt that, like the Continental Congress created during the Revolution, each state should have one representative.

Madison argued that under the Virginia plan the people would be represented, and the government was to be for the people, not the States. The others argued that the bigger states, like Virginia and Pennsylvania, would rule everything and the smaller states, having fewer representatives, would get, as we say, "the short end of the stick." The Virginians argued that with the States being represented equally the people of the larger states would suffer, since a million people in a big state would have one representative, the same as fifty thousand people in a small state.

They finally settled on the system we have today - the Senate, with two members representing each State, and the House of Representatives, with one Representative for a certain number of people.

During all this the Southern States said that since they had so few people they would be cheated on any decision, and came up with the idea that the slaves should be counted as well as the free citizens of the States for the purpose of representation. The Northern States objected that this would be cheating, because the slaves themselves would not be represented, being considered only property, and because the Southern States would receive extra representation based on people who could not themselves vote.

The Southern States threatened to take no further part in the new country if their demands were not granted. The Northern delegates, believing that the country could not survive unless all thirteen States became members, gave in to the Southerners' demands. The compromise made at that time was that five slaves would be equal to three free men for the purpose of representation. This has led in recent times to Black apologists saying that the Founding Fathers only considered a black man to be worth three-fifths of a white man. This was not true, but it's easy to see why they would feel this way.

That decision did not directly affect events that followed, but it does show the basic underlying problem that beset the young United States.

clive bradbury · 01-09-16, 07:11 AM

In a wider sense, I think you can see the causes of many 19th and 20th century wars as a part of the move towards modernity.

The South might be seen as a society attempting to stem the tide of modern industrial society embodied in the North. As might be the Zulu nation, US Indians, China v Japan, etc. In each case you might interpret the conflicts as an eventually futile attempt to stop the spread of modern industrialised societies.

01-08-16, 07:07 PM	#1
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	4th July 1776 I'd wager. EDIT: In all seriousness, I'd say that the issue flared up during the westward expansion, west of the Mississippi to be precise, and the arguements over whether these new states would be 'free states' or 'slave states', the arguement over who got what and then who decided who got what, which then merged into the ethicality of slavery when Lincoln was elected in 1860 and became a war about who decided what states could and couldn't do. That's a pretty basic run down of it. Last edited by Oberon; 01-08-16 at 07:14 PM.

01-08-16, 07:20 PM	#2
Sailor Steve Eternal Patrol Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: High in the mountains of Utah Posts: 50,369 Downloads: 745 Uploads: 249	"Any man who takes it upon himself to explain the causes of the Civil War deserves whatever grief comes his way, regardless of his good intentions." -From the article cited in the following link. I could not find where the name of the author is mentioned. Oberon, that's not a bad summation. For the full story the best place to start is here. __________________ “Never do anything you can't take back.” —Rocky Russo Last edited by Sailor Steve; 01-08-16 at 07:26 PM.

01-08-16, 10:38 PM	#4
Sailor Steve Eternal Patrol Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: High in the mountains of Utah Posts: 50,369 Downloads: 745 Uploads: 249	You say you like Gods & Generals. Have you seen Gettysburg? It takes place after, but was filmed years earlier, and is the better movie. The writing of the US Constitution was not a cause of the American Civil War, but has ties to it. The biggest argument of the Constitutional Debates (May-September 1787) was the question of representation. The original Virginia Plan, written by James Madison and presented by the Virginia delegation to the Convention, proposed that one representative be elected to represent a certain amount of people. Other delegates objected. The States at that time considered themselves individual countries, only willing to submit themselves to a greater government where it was absolutely necessary, and felt that, like the Continental Congress created during the Revolution, each state should have one representative. Madison argued that under the Virginia plan the people would be represented, and the government was to be for the people, not the States. The others argued that the bigger states, like Virginia and Pennsylvania, would rule everything and the smaller states, having fewer representatives, would get, as we say, "the short end of the stick." The Virginians argued that with the States being represented equally the people of the larger states would suffer, since a million people in a big state would have one representative, the same as fifty thousand people in a small state. They finally settled on the system we have today - the Senate, with two members representing each State, and the House of Representatives, with one Representative for a certain number of people. During all this the Southern States said that since they had so few people they would be cheated on any decision, and came up with the idea that the slaves should be counted as well as the free citizens of the States for the purpose of representation. The Northern States objected that this would be cheating, because the slaves themselves would not be represented, being considered only property, and because the Southern States would receive extra representation based on people who could not themselves vote. The Southern States threatened to take no further part in the new country if their demands were not granted. The Northern delegates, believing that the country could not survive unless all thirteen States became members, gave in to the Southerners' demands. The compromise made at that time was that five slaves would be equal to three free men for the purpose of representation. This has led in recent times to Black apologists saying that the Founding Fathers only considered a black man to be worth three-fifths of a white man. This was not true, but it's easy to see why they would feel this way. That decision did not directly affect events that followed, but it does show the basic underlying problem that beset the young United States. __________________ “Never do anything you can't take back.” —Rocky Russo

01-09-16, 07:11 AM	#5
clive bradbury Captain Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: stoke-on-trent, UK Posts: 492 Downloads: 105 Uploads: 0	In a wider sense, I think you can see the causes of many 19th and 20th century wars as a part of the move towards modernity. The South might be seen as a society attempting to stem the tide of modern industrial society embodied in the North. As might be the Zulu nation, US Indians, China v Japan, etc. In each case you might interpret the conflicts as an eventually futile attempt to stop the spread of modern industrialised societies.