History geek pedantry warning.
for the same reasons the thirteen original colonies fought the American Revolutionary War..
Not exactly. 1) The first american revolution, in the summer of 1774, was a broad based non-violent takeover of the existing civil government institutions. It was precipitated by the crown usurping, as its sole and exclusive privilege, the powers to appoint civil magistrates (judges) and key administrative personnel - power which had traditionally and legally (according to the original charter of the colony, wherein colonials are recognized as british citizens with full rights) been shared between the crown and the colonials. I stress that this was non-violent. Moral suasion (and a certain amount of social intimidation) were the sole instruments to convince the men who had accepted the crown's commission to renounce it. (Raphael,
The First American Revolution)
2) Leading up to this was the long line of other actions in trade and taxation that systematically disadvantaged colonials vis a vis Englishmen. The colonies did not have representation in Parliament - and their requests for such were repeatedly denied.
3) "The shot heard round the world" at Lexington and Concord was the beginning of the (British) counter-revolution to try to regain control of civil government.
4) The Declaration of Independence came later - and includes the bad behavior of the British regular army (the colonial troops had considered themselves to be the British Army before Lexington and Concord... Washington aspired to be a part of THAT army..)
In contrast the Civil War was explicitly (see the primary documents @
http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html) about slavery. Specfically, it was about the unwillingness of Northern states to return escaped slaves and the growing legislative movement to weaken and ultimately abolish slavery all together.
Texas: " She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association....The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States."
Georgia, " For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic."
Mississippi, "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth."
These state had the same representation as everyone else in the House and the Senate. They had access to the judiciary just like everyone else. They do not complain of taxation without representation, of the usurpation of local governance, of excessive tariffs or trade preferences. The complaint is that when their slaves run away, the governments of the northern states refuse to make any effort to return them, and have even on occasion, hindered such efforts.
The beginning of hostilities is a matter of contention among historians - but what is NOT disagreed upon is the fact that tensions were running very high and all it took was a misunderstanding or a misinterpretation (easy enough to do when scared, as we all know all too well) to set it off. (here is an alternative to the conventional Ft. Sumpter account...
Dead Link Removed.)
Don't get me wrong, there are many good people in the South and there are rare beauties in southern cultures that the world would be a much poorer place without. But wars are fought by lots of men, virtuous and vicious alike on both sides.
If you want an awesome example of personal bravery and principle look to John Adams and Josiah Quincy's (and the jury) defense of the British soldiers in the "Boston Massacre." Here is my favorite Adams quotation, "
I will enlarge no more on the evidence, but submit it to you.-Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence:"
The Confederate States of America was formed specifically to preserve the institution of slavery. If that's not racist I don't know what is. The flag is the symbol of the confederacy. If that's not a symbol of racism, I don't know what could be. To say otherwise is to ignore the facts.
