[ssb31093]

Why did the Confederate states of America attack America and start the civil war:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

[J_9]

What do you think? Let us know and we can help you, but we can't, in good faith, do your homework for you.

Please see this announcement.

[karent23]

If I recall right the North attacked the South first or at least a militia of people. Look up John Brown and Harpers Ferry. He was a reason things got started.

[Shine]

Wow that answer is actually quite complex and would require a very lengthy response. The civil war has a number of causes. The immediate cause is seen as the confederate attack on fort sumter, in charleston s.c. it was a federal fort. Another short time cause is the election of lincoln in 1860, many southern states saw it as the last straw in a series of northern attacks on their lively hood. Slavery is also a cause, the free soil movement, the culture differences that had been in existence since the founding of the colonies. The north was predominatly manufacturing based and the south was agriculturally based. This a very short simple answer to a very complex issue.

[Fr_Chuck]

Taxes, the taxation of the south, and not spending much of the tax money back in the south, but using a lot either in the North, or in the expansion West.

With almost any problem, always follow the money.

[Matt3046]

Yes, you could write a book on this (a large book.) The textbook answer is that the State Government of South Carolina, (acting on its own) was so outraged at the Election of Lincoln that it chose to act. But it is also known that everyone in the country knew that there was going to be war. Wait I am going to stop there. Check these

Main Page - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Google Book Search
Fort Sumter National Monument - Fort Sumter National Monument (U.S. National Park Service)
The History Place - U.S. Civil War 1861-1865

[Fr_Chuck]

Yes and of course a persons view points still today on the war is many times based on where they are at, for many in the south they still see or say they see the effects, The stronger and much larger Federal Government, the loss of state rights, The expansion of the federal rule over the states.

Also I often challenge the slavery issue, since had it been a main issue, why did Lincoln wait towards the end of the war to free the slaves and did not do it at the start of the war. ( not all northern states were against slavery)

Having lived in GA and TN the major part of my adult life and raised in the confederate parts of Missouri as a child I myself often look at life from a more southern view point. Reminding people that history is written by the wnners of the war and one needs sometimes to review historical information to see other views.

[EyesofNight]

Obviously interpretation has much to do with WHY S.C. fired on Sumter. But as much as some may believe that taxes, which is erronoeus to the any excuse for Southern seccession or the actions at Fort Sumter, states rights, or John Brown had anything to do with Confederate troops firing at Fort Sumter is plain inconsistent with contemporary scholarly thought.

The Confederates fired on Ft. Sumter for several reasons. One, in December of 1860, they voted for secession from the Union. They made this dramatic move as a direct result of a chain of events: The election of Republican Abraham Lincoln, the republican party was 4 years old at this time, and went on a platform that strongly supported abolition. Growing sentiment of sectionalism between north and south which was well documented from the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the Monroe Doctrine, and the Dred Scott decision. All of these instances had the underlying difference of SLAVERY as the cause for disagreement. South Carolina had a long history of threatening secession if their 'state's rights' were endangered. However any scholar would agree that if the South wished to keep slavery... all they had to do was stay in the Union. Their decision to seceed and then fire on Fort Sumter were actions taken in respone to their disagreement with the common Southern perception of the Republican Party. Which the prodominate factor revolving around all this was the continuance of slaved labor! The entire country was feeling the tension between the Mason-Dixon line, however South Carolina forced the South's hand in the matter based on what they perceived as a violation of their new soveirgnty.

In any case South Carolina perceived themselves as an independent country, and thus the occupation of Federal troops in South Carolina was in itself an act of war. Furthermore, the troops at Ft. Sumter had just arrived there from a nearby fort, Ft. Moultrie. They had moved to the Ft at midnight in December of 1860, an action decided by the Fort's commander. Major Robert Anderson believed that Ft. Moultrie was undefendable, and the new Fort Sumter would be a better station should they be attacked by South Carolinian milita.

When Lincoln came into office that March, he ordered a resupply of the Fort, because the Confederates had cut off all lines of supply to the fort, and controlled the communication lines. As a response to the fleet that was en route, they issued an ultimatum to Anderson, which he hesitantly refused, and thus the Confederates fired on the fort for 34 hours, upon which Anderson surrendered when the Officer Quarters caught fire. The result of the surrender of Sumter was Lincoln's famous call for 75,000 volunteers, which in turn resulted in the sequence of events that became the Civil War.

The interesting thing, after reading some of the responses to this question is how social memory of the causes of the Civil War are still so prevalent in today's society. To diffuse the causes with responses that do not relate to the issue of slavery, is a very common sentiment to neo-confederate 'Lost Cause' mentality. Other sectional issues led to problems between North and South, such as import tariff exceptions, however most other underlying issues that take claim for secession and the Civil War are directly related to the issue of slavery. Many evoke 'State's Rights' as the cause of secession. Anyone who cannot relate 'state's right's' in this context to the 'right to protect slavery' needs to read up on the issue. William C. Davis writes a somewhat biased but factual issue on these things in The Cause Lost however there are several other contemporary publications that decipher many of these inconsistent conceptions on the causes for the Civil War. However if you ever visit Fort Sumter National Monument, you can visit their exhibit which was renovated in 2002, about this very issue of the underlying cause for the Civil War. The National Park Service who put the exhibit together puts sectionalism and the issue of slavery as a major theme for the causes leading up to Sumter. Check it out.

[JimGunther]

I'm afraid Karen 23 has the facts very confused when she says, "If I recall right the North attacked the South first or at least a militia of people. Look up John Brown and Harpers Ferry. He was a reason things got started."

First of all John Brown was a private citizen, not an agent of "the North." His attach at Harper's Ferry was against an arsenal owned by the U.S. government, not 'the South." And his attack occurred in 1859, the attack on Fort Sumter didn't occur until 1861.

Before Lincoln came to office, Confederate forces began seizing federal installations in their boundaries, apparently without firing a shot. President Buchanan did nothing about this, but he did send a supply ship to Fort Sumter. The first shots of the Civil War were actually fired at this ship, the Star of the West, because the South did not want the fort resupplied. The ship turned around.

Sorry Eyesofnight, Lincoln did not send the ship, Buchanan did.

Lincoln came into office 1 month later. The South sent a delegation to see him with an offer to buy the forts they had seized and possibly avoid a war, but he wouldn't see them because he did not recognize the Confederacy as a legitimate government.

The new Confederate government felt that all federal property within their boundaries no longer belonged to the U.S. government. They felt they had every right to seize any federal fort, the only question was whether the state or the central government should do it. In March 1861, the same month Lincoln took office, Confederate President Davis appointed General P.G.T. Beauregard as commander of the Confederate forces in Charleston with specific orders to seize the fort. And so he did.

[karent23]

Well notice that's why I said he was "a" reason... not the reason. I also said look it up for more info. There were many things that got the civil war started. Can you single out just one reason? No. I also said he was a militia of people... that doesn't mean he was sent by the North. Means he went down there with a group of people for a reason. He led his first massacre in 1856 and then the Harpers Ferry in 1859. If you read the book by David Potter, The Impending Crisis, he says "Historians agree John Brown played a major role in starting the Civil War". Didn't say he started it, but he influenced it.

[JimGunther]

Yes, I understand what you are saying, but when you say "The North attacked the South first" and then follow it by "Look up John Brown and Harpers Ferry"' the implication is obvious. You're implying that John Brown attacked the South at Harper's Ferry. That's not what happened, Harpers Ferry was a U.S. installation at the time.

Not everyone believes that "John Brown played a major role in starting the Civil War" as a lot of things happened after his Harper's Ferry raid that could have prevented the war had they turned out differently. It is obvious, however, that John Brown's beliefs played a major role in the Civil War.

[stephen2276]

If you want the sanatized, text book answer, that would be slavery. But if you want the real life, ugly truth its basically money. Think about this. Prior to secession, the two wealthiest cities in the United States were New Orleans and Charleston. The South as a whole accounted for 80% of the national revenue due to the fact of their agrarian-based economy. They had to impore whatever manufactured goods they needed as there was virtually no industry in the South. Varoius tarriffs passed before the war did more to exacerbate the situation than any other issue. And if you want furture proof of the inaccuracy of the 'slavery' issue, then I direct you to the Confederate States Constitution, Article I, Section 9 which reads, "The importation of negors of the African race, from any foreign country, other than the slaveholding States of Territories of the United States of America, is herby forbidden, and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same."
If you need further proof, consider that by April, 1865 slavery was effectively abolished in Virginia, due in no small part by pressure in the form of petition from CONFEDERATE soldiers to free and enlist black slaves. Many so-called scholars have remarked this was irrelevant as the war eneded not long after, but you have to be aware that at that time, nobody knew the war was about to end. Indeed, Lee's surrender didn't even end the war, as most people mistakenly assume.
I also refer you to Lincoln's own Emancipation Proclamation in which he frees slaves ONLY in areas where the Union has no power, i.e. the Confederate South. He does not fee slaves in border states, states loyal to the Union, or in Union occupied areas of the South. Curious.
And lastly, be aware that when the secession of the south began, there were only SEVEN states in the Confederacy. After Lincoln skillfully maneuvered the South into having no choice but to fire on Ft. Sumter (Lincoln was a great politician, and no, that is not a good thing), he then called for 75,000 'volunteers' to invade his own country. This action swelled the number of seceded states from seven to 11, as states like Virginia and North Carolina would not be party invading their neighbors.