Compare and Contrast Volume One: American Civil War and American Revolution

[Archer 007]

I hope to make a series of these

What do you see as the big similaraties and their faults in logic bewteen the US Civil War and the American Revlolution.

 

[Kafka2]

I think it's safe to assume a certain level of violent conduct being a big similarity.

 

[Vrylakas]

There is a school of historical thought that sees the Civil War as a final chapter of the American Revolution. The Revolution itself of 1775-1783 settled the issue of independence but not of the practical international implications of independence - i.e., borders, trade and commercial (i.e., fishing, navigation) issues, etc. Nor did the first Revolution settle internal issues of sovereignty, though both the Declaration of Independence and the later Constitution (1787) implied much. The 2nd phase of the Revolution (in this theory) came with the War of 1812, which was a very messy war for all three participants but ultimately forced all three sides to settle the matters between them. With this the Revolution was finally a recognized reality internationally, but still hadn't resolved many internal issues of sovereignty - national, state, regional, or even personal sovereignty. This is where the Civil War came in, resolving - rather violently - these issues. Of course, the way American (English Common) law is set no issues are ever really fully resolved, but the Civil War set the legal and demonstrative precedents for both the government and American society.

I used to ignore this theory as too dogmatic but recent readings in early American, British and Canadian history have turned me back towards it. Still not fully endorsing it, but interested now.

 

[onejayhawk]

I have heard that theory as well. It comes from the basic fact that everything connects. In the Revolutionary War, the squabbles between the free and slave states were clearly evident and just as clearly shelved for another time. Jefferson intended the line "all men are created equal" to include blacks. South Carolina flatly refused to have anything to do with the declaration until all hints had been removed.

As a war, they could almost not be more different. In the 18th century, before Napoleon, armies were rather blocky and immoble. Artillery was crude, cumbersome, and far outreached the muskets. Significant numbers of mercenary troops were used. Battles were fairly small and isolated, leaving the countryside largely untouched.

In the civil war the invention of the minee bullet made rifled guns practical for the first time. Rifle outranged the artillery with massive tactical consiquences. In spite of the much larger size of the forces, combat was more fluid and maneuver more important. River and river fort battles dominated the whole western theater. Battles were MUCH larger, and they devestated the countryside for miles.

J

 

[Crbarber22695]

You guys seem to think that the Civil War was fought over slavery but that isnt it at all.
The Civil War began when Lincoln became president giving the Republican party dominance. South Carolina thought because the Republic party was anti-slavery that because they were a slave state would have no "say" in government, thus, they left the Union. After their attack on Fort Sumter, Lincoln declared war on the South Caroline, and all the states that were to leave the Union as well. Now, because the Confederate States were actually beating the Union, Lincoln wrote the Emmancipation Proclomation, that did NOT free the slaves, only freed the slaves in the Confederate States, not the Union, this was only to stifle the Confederate economy so they wouldnt have money to fund the war, and it was this that caused the Union to win the war. But it was only until after the Civil War that ALL the slaves in the U.S. were free.

 

[Warman17]

You guys seem to think that the Civil War was fought over slavery but that isnt it at all.
The Civil War began when Lincoln became president giving the Republican party dominance. South Carolina thought because the Republic party was anti-slavery that because they were a slave state would have no "say" in government, thus, they left the Union. After their attack on Fort Sumter, Lincoln declared war on the South Caroline, and all the states that were to leave the Union as well. Now, because the Confederate States were actually beating the Union, Lincoln wrote the Emmancipation Proclomation, that did NOT free the slaves, only freed the slaves in the Confederate States, not the Union, this was only to stifle the Confederate economy so they wouldnt have money to fund the war, and it was this that caused the Union to win the war. But it was only until after the Civil War that ALL the slaves in the U.S. were free.

Ok first and foremost you disproved your first statement with the next two. Secondly the Emancipation Proclamation wasn't made until after the Battle of Antietam in 1863, a Union Victory. It was a ploy to 1) ensure the continued support of the border states and 2) ensure the British stay out of the war by making it a slavery/moral issue which they could not support. And thirdly the 13th Amendment (which outlawed slavery), while not adopted until December of 1865, began the ratification process back in January while the war was still being waged.

 

[Arwon]

None of that actually means slavery wasn't the actual issue. Neoconfederate revionism from the plantation class and their descendants aside, it was slavery at the centre of everything. You can't talk about states rights or economic systems without it all coming back to slavery and the preservation of white supremacy by the wealthy planter class who used slaves to maintain an edge over smaller labouring farmers.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Well of course slavery was an issue, but the Civil War was not fought to end slavery, as many seem to believe.

 

[Volum]

Nice to see that since 2004 we are pretty much still discussing the same issues

 

[Arwon]

Ooooh didn't see that.

Bump by a neoconfederate trawling the archives for places to post. Nice.

Well of course slavery was an issue, but the Civil War was not fought to end slavery, as many seem to believe.

Perhaps not, but every issue that was fought for had its roots in slavery, and people in the South were certainly aware of what they were defending. World War 1 wasn't fought over imperialism or colonialism but it was a root issue nonetheless.

The contemporary understanding is simplified by Northern mythmaking, but it's still essentially accurate, certainly moreso than the "Slavery had nothing to do with it" apologism of modern neoconfederates who use the "not directly over slavery" argument to whitewash the history of the South more generally.

So I think it's important not to get carried away with the states rights and economic systems arguments without remembering what the root of it all was.

 

[Red Door]

Well of course slavery was an issue, but the Civil War was not fought to end slavery, as many seem to believe.

Not until 1863, at least. With the Emancipation Proclamation, it seems that the Union has a set goal with the war.

 

[Cutlass]

Well of course slavery was an issue, but the Civil War was not fought to end slavery, as many seem to believe.

But it also would not have been fought if it were not for slavery. Short version, no slavery = no Civil War. It was the only reason for the war.

 

[Bugfatty300]

But it also would not have been fought if it were not for slavery. Short version, no slavery = no Civil War. It was the only reason for the war.

Debatable. Perhaps not the civil war as we know it but federal vs state power could have broiled into something as ugly as a "civil war" eventually, slavery or no.

 

[Pannonius]

Compare the two? ACW=ARW2
The difference is that the second revolution was crushed.

 

[Cutlass]

Debatable. Perhaps not the civil war as we know it but federal vs state power could have broiled into something as ugly as a "civil war" eventually, slavery or no.

No. That's not right at all. Every other issue could, and in fact would, have been resolved without armed conflict.

The Civil War happened for one reason and one reason only, and that is because the slave states were trying to compel new states and territories to have slavery in order to increase the power so that that anti-slavery movements would not gain national political domination.

 

[Perfection]

Well of course slavery was an issue, but the Civil War was not fought to end slavery, as many seem to believe.

Nope it was faought to sustain it.

 

[onejayhawk]

Debatable. Perhaps not the civil war as we know it but federal vs state power could have broiled into something as ugly as a "civil war" eventually, slavery or no.

Its highly doubtful that anything as ugly as what occured would happen. A great many things alligned to make things extremely brutal.

J