The Civil War: Ideological Battle or Brotherly Quarrel?
In the weeks leading up to the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860, the southern slaveholding states felt threatened by the impending doom of abolition that they believed undoubtedly came with his inauguration. In December of 1860, South Carolina was the first state to secede from the federal Union, claiming it was within the state’s rights to reject the Constitution and declare itself a separate sovereign entity. Weeks later, seven more states had removed themselves from the Union to join forces with South Carolina. These southern states first established themselves as a temporary Confederate Congress, which included drafting a provisional constitution, and electing a President (Jefferson Davis). President-elect Abraham Lincoln was powerless to retaliate until his inauguration on March 4, 1861. In his inaugural address, Lincoln claimed that he did not wish to abolish slavery in those states in which it already existed, but he stated plainly that succession would not be tolerated. “The central idea of succession is the very essence of anarchy,” he stated bluntly in his speech. Just over one month later, the attack on Fort Sumter would begin the bloodiest war on American soil, both sides fighting passionately and stubbornly.
James M. McPherson, author of What They Fought For, disputes the claim that Civil War soldiers didn’t know what they were fighting for by analyzing the letters and diaries of soldiers, citing common ideological and patriotic themes. These sources can be valuable when uncovering the true meaning behind why these men fought, because they reflect the attitudes and beliefs of the soldiers as they were experiencing them, regardless of what they or others say about it later. A potential pitfall of drawing conclusions from these writings can be in the disproportionate representation of the sample. McPherson points out that his sample overrepresents officers and therefore the wealthy and...