What if Jackson didn't die?

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Well?

[Sjakihata]

What an interesting way to start a debate. What about pointing out who jackson was, what he did what you think would happen if he didnt die etc.

I assume Jackson was some civil war figure, but my knowledge about the civ war is limited, especially on commanders etc.'

Well well?

[Don Corleone]

Lieutenant Genral Thomas J. Stonewall Jackson. The South's most agressive commander, and arguably its best field commander (others would claim Longstreet), famous for the ability to march troops at hitherto unheard of rate (up to 20 miles in a day and deploy them onto a battlefield at the end of a march). He was a big champion of flanking tactics and gave the Union fits when it attempted to invade central Virginia through the Shenadoah river valley. He gave the South it's greatest victory at Chancellorsville when he and Lee agreed to an incredibly risky plan to divide their forces in front of an enemy with 5:3 numerical superiority, leaving Lee to hold their front with a 5:1.5 disadvantage. Jackson proceeded to march 15 miles though brush and swamp that was considered impassable and dealt a crushing blow on the unsuspecting Union flank where we destroyed an entire corps and crippled two others. While attempting to press on his attack and drive the Union forces from their entrenchments, he went on a late night surveying mission and was shot by his own sentries on his return. He lost his arm and 10 days later, succumbed to related pneumonia. While there's great controversy over whether the South could have held up had he survived, there's little doubt that his death was the precursor for the evenual demise of the Confederacy. The South only achieved 3 tactical victories after his death, all of which were more costly to them then the Union in relative terms, none of which could be pressed and converted into a strategic victory.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Well, that is a good question.

If North was to win, then it would have had to sustain many more casualties and/or fought for longer than it did. And time, while physically the North's ally, was politically the ally of the CSA. Jackson foiling Yank armies and prolonging the war would've got Lincoln out of office pretty quickly.

Would Gettysburg have been fought if Jackson didn't die? I doubt it, but if it did... Gettysburg could have been the highwater mark of the Army of the Potomac (not very high but anyway) instead of the highwater mark of the Confederacy.

Good, thougt-provoking question, Capo. :rtwyes:

[Don Corleone]

There's no way Gettysburg would have ever been fought if Jackson was alive. The whole reason the battle started was because Lee was trying to put himself between DC and Philadelphia. Hill, as the lead corps commander, was under strict orders to avoid all engagements and observation by the enemy. Jackson was a strict disciplinarian and if Harry Heth started into town to go get shoes (yes, that's really how the battle started) and started firing at Union cavalry pickets, Jackson would have had him strung up on the spot and slunk off into the woods.

Let's just suppose Jackson was there but his corps wasn't the lead on the march (again, never would have happened, Jackson was the best marcher), and let's just say the whole damn thing got going like it did. Well, Pickett's charge would have been out. Jackson never would have allowed Lee to do something so patently stupid, especially in the face of superior artillery. It would have been a different sort of disaster. He would have argued Longstreet's point to Lee and tried to flank the roundtops and come at the Union line from the Southeast. And he would have been massacred to a man. Without Stuart's cavalry intel (he was out on an unauthorized raid) he would have had no way of knowing he was putting himself between the 3rd corps, at the top of the round tops, and Sedgwick's 6th Army Corps, on its way into town from the Southeast. But again, there's no way the battle would have started in the first place, Jackson was too strict a disciplinarian.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Was Jackson the General who was shot by his own men?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

What Jackson the General who was shot by his own men?

Yes, him. Though it was an accident (and I big one), of course.

Being from the north, I guess I could say we were pretty lucky. ~D ~;) ~:p

By the way, has anyone read The Killer Angels by Michael Shaara? It was excellent and dealt with the leaders involved at Gettysburg, as well as the battle itself. Sorry if slightly OT.

[DemonArchangel]

Well, the north would have won anyway, but with many more casualties.

Here's another question.

What if Lee decided to fight for the Union?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Well, the north would have won anyway, but with many more casualties.

I don't know if the North was locked for a win. Though we (the North; it gets tedious continuously saying "The North") had way more resources and people, Lincoln was often in jeopardy of losing his job over the war's unpopularity; there were several riots, and Lincoln had to rely on the successes of his generals to stay in office; without victories in Vicksburg, Gettysburg, and Georgia, Lincoln probably would have lost to Democrats, who would have ended the war and recognized the CSA as a legitimate nation.


What if Lee decided to fight for the Union?

And Lee, while important to the South lasting as long as it did, probably didn't do as much as is associated with him. He wasn't the best tactician or strategist; look at Gettysburg - he ignored Longstreet's advice and ordered Pickett's Charge. Lee's most important action was his surrendering; he could have made the Army of Virginia dissolve into a guerilla force and continued the war, Vietnam-style, in the hills of VA. That would have royally screwed the United States (I mean all of it, North and South) probably to an irreversable point. Lee realized this and graciously surrendered. I think Lee was more of an inspirational commander than a "details" man; kind of like Eisenhower in WW2, he kept the generals working (mostly) together and inspired the troops.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Here's my theory:
Gettysburg would not have taken place. The USA would have fallen by 1870.
Why: JACKSON WAS A MILITARY GENIUS!!!! I can't recall 1 mistake he has ever made (besides for taken part at Antietam.)
And the we would all hail Jeff Davis as a president
*goes of singing Dixie land*
-Capo

[discovery1]

Capo, not offence, but you are delusional if you think that there was even the possiblilty that the SOuth could have conquered the North. Even with superior commanders, if the south stared to make serious advances into the north, I am almost certain that all of the North would unite against them. At that point I think it likely that the North would fully mobilize the society and drive back the invaiders with overwelling numerical superiorty. And bear in that that if the South were to conquer the north, it would also have to occupy territory, and considering the very large population and large size of the north, the South simply couldn't spare the men to occuly the territory. And if they launch massive raids, or commit anything even remotly similar to atrocities to civilians the war is over, with a northern victory. Unlike the south the North would have the manpower to rally with word of attrocities. JD would NEVER have been president of the United States.

Why do I bother, you will either ignore or forget what you hear that tells you otherwise about the south.

Edit:
Hmm, guess I'd better post something on the topic.
The war would have likely gone on longer, though only if the north can hold together, which in our reality it almost did(the peace wing of the dem party jamed in an extreme anti-war plank only at the very end of their convention). However, with Jackson alive, I suspect Union causualties would be higher, thus the odds of a Union united are lower. Although, I wonder how much it could really matter, I mean he can't be everywhere at once, and the North was starting to gain the upper hand in the west already. Although with more Confed vics in the east, I imagine western blues wouldn't be as numerous. The best that could be hoped for would be complete S independence, although I think that a less than harsh reunification is more likely, maybe.

[Duke of Gloucester]

Very interesting question!

My view - North still wins - but it would certainly have been harder. I think it is unfair to say Robert E Lee was a not a master tactician - he was. His strategy was flawed, by concentrating too much on the Eastern campaign. His real strength was exploiting knowledge of the psychology of his opponents to tremendous advantage. Once confronted with a comander he couldn't out psych (Grant) the superior numbers of the North began to tell. Even if the Confederates had won at Gettysburg, I am not sure how they could have pressed home their advantage. Stronger attacking on the Union right flank on Day 1 (IRC), which did involve Jackson's old Corps may have given the Confederates victory, but Lee's objective of destruction of the Army of the Potomac was unrealistic. Victory at Gettysburg would have been followed by stagnation and defeat further North. The only chance for the South would be the political effects of the defeat, bus since my argument is that the Confederates were not in a position to follow up their success strategically, I would say that the negative effects of defeat would be short lived.

There is also a danger of over emphasing Jackson's ability. He had some tremendous successes, at Bull Run 1, in the Shenedoah (excuse spelling) valley and in the Battle of the Wilderness, but his perfomance in the Seven Day's battle was poor, so the man was not perfect. In fact you could argue that the South had a better chance of destroyong the Army of the Potomac here, rather than at Gettysburg and that Jackson let Lee down. Here is an example of him making several mistakes, Capo.

Maybe this whole thread is suffering from Lee's real blunder - concentrating on the East. Don't forget, on the Day after the end of the battle, Grant captured Vicksburg. After this, I can't see what Jackson could have done to prevent the Union following up succes in the West, cutting the Confederacy in two and eventually "Marching through Georgia". I think the fall of Vicksburg was a more important defeat than Gettysburg.

[Don Corleone]

Being in North Carolina (though I'm originally a Yankee from Connecticut, I got naturalized by marrying a local) what I'm about to say is anathema.

Jackson was a superb field commander, but he was by no means the messianic figure he is made out in modern southern history.

-At the Seven Days Battles he was often hesitant and there is some quesiton as to whether or not he ignored a direct order as to where to deploy at White Pines. (I would say no, it's a misunderstanding. The man was obsessive compulsive about chains of command).

-At Fredericksburg he opened a gap in his line that almost allowed Burnside to flank Longstreets guns up on the hill (that were doing the real work).

- At Sharpsburg, he refused to draw his lines (the West flank) back in the face of Hooker and Sedgewicks combined corps and was almost completely surrounded. John Bell Hood had to take some serious casualties at the Dunker Church to bust through Sedgewick and free Jackson up.

The trend my three examples show: Jackson was aggresive.... to a fault. Yes, he used his tactical genius and optimism to great advantage, such as the Shennadoah Valley campaign, Chancellorsville et. al. But it also got him into trouble. No field commander had greater relative losses per engagement than him. People tend to forget that flanking movements, while glorious and brilliant when they work, are suicide missions when they don't.

All that being said, Jackson staying alive, and possibly giving the south another 'big-name' victory after Chancellorsville most likely would have encouraged France, Spain and UK to recognize the CSA. Once that happened, any hope of reuniting the two halves would have evaporated. As far as Jackson leading a campaign to conquer the North, it NEVER would have happened. He wouldn't allow it. When the Western Maryland invasion began in fall of 1862, Jefferson Davis wanted Lee to drive North all the way to Buffalo and establish some outposts on the great lakes. It was Jackson who argued most convincingly against that. Not because he didn't want to hurt the North, he certainly did, but he, the great marcher lightning quick guy he was understood he could never be more than 2 days march from his own supply lines. The only way the CSA could have conqured the Union would have been a long drawn out war that drove the battle lines continually northward, and the South wasn't looking for that kind of fight. I don't think the Southern people would have supported that kind of action. When you read some of the journals of Southern politicians and generals at the time, they make it very clear that they were fighting what they viewed as a defensive campaign against an invading foe. Many of Lee's commanders argued bitterly against the Western Maryland invasion in 1862, and definitely against the march on Baltimore (what became Gettysburg). In their minds, they believed support back home would wither up and their own troops would desert if they became no better than the Yankees and started invading the Union. I can't see that mentality allowing for a progressive war northwards ending at the Canadian border.

[Spino]

Jackson was to Lee what Davout or Lannes were to Napoleon; outstanding field commanders in almost every way and invaluable assets to their respective commanders.

But even if the South successfully held off every single Union army in the east the campaigns in the west were equally important and the Southern armies there faired quite poorly in contrast to their eastern counterparts.

There were no commanders like Lee, Jackson and Longstreet to take charge of the western theater and the South paid dearly for it.

[Don Corleone]

I disagree with that characterization. Sure, Bragg may be somewhat questionable, but Hardee was a great tactician. To understand why the CSA ignored the Western Theater, you have to look at what their grand strategy and objectives were. The recognized immediately that in a mano-a-mano slugfest with the Union, it would always be the same outcome, it would just be a matter of time. There was no way in which the CSA could compete with the Union over time, with one exception, the justice of their cause. They believed that if they could prove to the European powers that 1) they weren't pro-slavery, they were pro-indepdendence; 2) the Union was fighting a war of attrition to beat them into submission and 3) they could viably defend themselves with a little outside help; the European powers would intervene and recognize them as a sovereign state and prevent the Union from overrunning them. Every aspect of the way they fought the war is derived from this one basic concept. The reason they focused on the East is because that's where all the attention was. Sure, they had to slow the Union down in the West so they didn't get overrun through their back door too quickly, but they understood they couldn't fight and win a 2 front war. It almost worked too, the UK was pretty close to recognizing the CSA until Gettysburg. After that, most European powers saw the CSA as in an untenable position and didn't want to anger the almost certain victor by interfering at that point.

[Nelson]

Jackson was indeed imperfect. Witness the Peninsula campaign.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/peninsul.htm

I have extracted this from the above link. The bold emphasis is my own doing but every word is the author's:

The Confederates, after some minor fighting on June 25, moved north out of Richmond on June 26. Mechanicsville was taken easily, but an attempt to move east across Beaver Dam Creek was stopped by Federal forces in strong defensive positions. Jackson was supposed to have arrived and turned the flank of the position, but he did not show up that day.

The morning of June 27, the Beaver Dam Creek position was carried but only because the Federals had fallen back to another prepared position on Turkey Hill behind the Boatswain's Swamp Creek. Fitz-John Porter's command of 35,000 Federal troops was protected by a triple line of entrenchments with artillery support and marshy ground to their front. When Jackson's troops finally arrived that evening, the position was carried but with heavy Confederate casualties.

On Saturday, June 28, Lee spent much of the day trying to ascertain exactly where McClellan was retreating to. When Lee realized that McClellan was obviously falling back on the James River, he had to revise his earlier plans and decided to try and catch the Federals on either side of White Oak Swamp. The following day, Magruder was ordered to link up with Jackson and attack the retreating Federals. The Confederates were badly handled in a clash at Savage Station, primarily because Jackson again failed to show up on time. However, McClellan was forced to abandon much of his supplies, and an ammunition train sent forward to the Chickahominy railway bridge exploded with impressive results.

Monday, the sixth of the Seven Days, saw a remarkable lack of cooperation among the elements of the Confederate pursuit. Huger decided to cut an alternate road through the thick forest when he found his designated road blocked by felled trees. Holmes command ran into a naval bombardment. Jackson, who had difficulty in crossing the White Oak Swamp Creek, decided to lie down and take a nap at about 3:00 p.m.! As a result, only Longstreet's and A.P. Hill's troops were really involved in any fighting that resulted in another loss of some 3,300 Confederates at Glendale.

On July 1, the last of the Seven Days, Lee discovered that McClellan was protecting the last leg of his retreat by taking position on Malvern Hill. This defensive position was held by Porter and Keyes with two divisions each, more than one hundred artillery pieces, and a further four divisions in reserve. It looked formidable and it was. Lee first attempted to bring his artillery to bear on the position, but it soon became apparent that he was out-gunned. Lee looked for, and failed to find, a satisfactory alternative approach, but confusion in orders resulted in Huger, Magruder, and Hill launching a series of uncoordinated Confederate assaults. These resulted in nothing but another 5,500 Southern casualties. Jackson again failed to arrive in time to assist in the battle.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Well, the South could never have conquered the North. Period. The numbers and resources needed for that were not availiable to the South. And if the South seriously tried to invade the North (I mean seriously and it began successfully) it probably would have revitalized the war effort in the North, and then the CSA would succumb to lack of resources over time.

If Jackson did not die and was a great commander like he was for the majority of the time, the Confederates may have won enough victories or won an important enough victory (of Gettysburg magnitude) to make the North give up.

North and South probably would have reunited later on; they would have had to give up slavery if the South ever wanted to be competitive in the world, and then reunification would have been easier.

[Don Corleone]

I have to take issue with you on that one Alexander. Northerners (myself included) always take 'states-rights' to be politically correct speech for 'we wanted slaves'. But in truth, that wasn't the leading issue in the South. They knew better than anyone that the institution was reach a point where it was no longer economically viable and had begun plans to phase it out.

The biggest thing that drove the South nuts was all the protective tariffs the North slapped on manufactured goods from Europe (so the South had to buy Northern goods) but wouldn't enact on agricultural goods (so the North didn't have to buy Southern goods). Throw into that the additional causes of what the south deemed as unfair taxation, and get ready everyone for the number three issue, I'm serious about this....

The outlawing of dueling

and there you have it. The South felt that the Federal government had no respect for the southern way of life and outlawing sweet tea and fried chicken was only a pen stroke away. :) You think I'm kidding, but go read some Shelby Foote.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

The South could have won (after a very long time of fighting, they would have to take the North very slowly. Conquring DC very fast before the union has an army in it would be nice) but not, as I said before, by 1870. Now, if Jackson was alive, and Wofford, AP Hill, and Armistead were sent to help the west, and then it would be possible. Sparks Louisiana Tigers could have complimented the Western Theatre very nicely as well. Jackson may have been imperfect, but he was a great leader, the south loved him, and if he didn't die his tactics would have helped lead to victory. The South died with Jackson, IMHO. Now, even though I am a yank from Jersey, I have lived in Charolette NC for 4 years and I have a great deal of family from Virgina (for the last few generations they lived in West Virginia, but back from the time of the Civil War, alot of them were virginians. I have relatives that fought on both sides, though, i think). Now, if the south moved it's forces in the east into dc, a good army could have captured the city, and occupied it. Now, the north would attack the city alot, that's why it would need to be occupied for a while. Then, after a good period of time, the south could have moved up slowly through Maryland (which alot of the inhabitants supported the South) and into Lancaster and other parts of Southern Pennsylvania. The again would have to capture philedelphia and occupy it. By now, they would need more men, though, so that's a problem. I am trying to work out a strategy in my head here so give me a break!
-capo

[Don Corleone]

Capo,
You're forgetting one thing that every theater commander of strategic operations (Lee in the East, Bragg in the West) has to face, the will of his men to fight. The reason the CSA were willing to march 20 miles barefooted on dirt roads and then go straight into a fight was because they were defending their homes. Once their commanders came to them and said "Okay boys, now we get to be the agressors. Let's go burn some yankees out", the vast majority of the confederate army would have deserted.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I have to take issue with you on that one Alexander. Northerners (myself included) always take 'states-rights' to be politically correct speech for 'we wanted slaves'. But in truth, that wasn't the leading issue in the South. They knew better than anyone that the institution was reach a point where it was no longer economically viable and had begun plans to phase it out.

The biggest thing that drove the South nuts was all the protective tariffs the North slapped on manufactured goods from Europe (so the South had to buy Northern goods) but wouldn't enact on agricultural goods (so the North didn't have to buy Southern goods). Throw into that the additional causes of what the south deemed as unfair taxation, and get ready everyone for the number three issue, I'm serious about this....

The outlawing of dueling

and there you have it. The South felt that the Federal government had no respect for the southern way of life and outlawing sweet tea and fried chicken was only a pen stroke away. :) You think I'm kidding, but go read some Shelby Foote.

I spoke without thinking (*inserts foot in facial eating cavity*). I knew it wasn't just slavery and I didn't think it. But, with slavery gone and the North beat (but still not conquered ~:p ), reunification would have been on Southern terms (read: tariffs in South favor, Southern "way of life" more tolerated).

And Capo, the North would have bled itself dry to keep DC. That or given up. And we had better resources (including railroads) and could have fought a crap-long time longer than the South could've if we wanted to (key phrase). If the South would not except peace with the North, we would have had to, and "Germany vs. Russia Syndrome" would have set in. (Hmmm... alternate history: Chicago = Stalingrad)

[Nelson]

Capo, there is no strategy that could have worked so long as the North was willing to fight. It was the Union’s war to lose, not the South's to win.

Sam Houston was right when he said,

“I tell you that, while I believe with you in the doctrine of state rights, the North is determined to preserve this Union. They are not a fiery, impulsive people as you are, for they live in colder climates. But when they begin to move in a given direction...they move with the steady momentum and perseverance of a mighty avalanche; and what I fear is, they will overwhelm the South.”

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Sooner or later the north would have had to give up after we killed most of their troops (we did kill most of their troops anyway)
-Capo

[DemonArchangel]

Wrong, Capo, only 2% of the nation's population died in the civil war, the north could send many, many, many more into the meatgrinder of the battlefield. And of course, the war could drag out for so long that both sides would invent reliable automatic weapons.

THEN it would get messy.

[Gregoshi]

One of the South's great advantages early in the war was in cavalry - the Union cavalry was terribly mis-used. :charge: However, by the time of Gettysburg, Union cavalry was almost the equal of the Confederate's. In fact, when Stuart finally did show up at Gettysburg, the Union cavalry pretty much neutralized him. After Gettysburg, the Union cavalry got better and more numerous while the Confederate cavalry was being bled to death. The intelligence that Stuart provided to Lee was one of the great advantages he had over the Union early in the war and which allow Lee and Jackson to pull off some of their great feats in battle. With Stuart neutralized, it seems much less likely that Jackson would be able to continue doing the flanking maneuvers that made him famous. In fact, couple his inconsistent performance with better Union intelligence and Jackson may have still ended up dead or at least captured after his corps got caught by a Union army prepared to met his aggressive flanking attacks.

I'm not sure how Jackson's presence at Gettysburg would have turned it into a Confederate victory. He may have done so, but he could very well have turned in one of his unspectacular performances as well. I'd have to think that scenario out a little more though.

Oh, and had Jackson gone west, he would have faced a general (Grant) who had more of a stomach for battle than most of the Union generals in the east. He may have helped out in the west, but his presence there wouldn't have made it a slam-dunk victory for the South.

[Duke of Gloucester]

Do most Americans really think that the civil war wasn't primarily about slavery? To an outsider this seems am odd interpretation of events. Naturally it would be an oversimplification to believe that is was only about slavery and that historical, social and ecconomic differences did not play a part in intensifying ill feeling. Yes the South did feel that the North had little respect for the "Southern Way of Life", but the main reason for this was Northern hostility to slavery. When Lincoln was elected, basically by Northern votes on a clear anti-slavery platform (I mean he was opposed to slavery, not the he advocated abolition at this stage) the South felt that the Federal government would undermine their way of life because of the slavery issue. Secession started before Lincoln had a chance to act one way or another.

Very few southerners were ready to phase out slavery. Most saw the institution as a strength and essential to their way of life. My knowledge of tarrifs at the time is zero, but I don't find the argument that differential protection caused more resentment than threats to the abolition of slavery convincing at all. My impression is that the States as a whole imported very little agricultural produce and that a lot of the South's production, especially King Cotton was destined for export. Also, if the South was able to bring about the introduction of the Fugitive Slave Law against enormoust Northern opposition, they could have persuaded the Federal Government to introduce some tarrifs if that was more important.

So, if you had to give a short answer to what the war was about, the answer would be slavery? Yes?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

So, if you had to give a short answer to what the war was about, the answer would be slavery? Yes?

I would argue, I guess, that the simplest educated answer would be states' rights. The war itself was over whether the South could secede (sp?) from the Union - the South thought, "yeah" and Lincoln though different.

Interestingly enough, if the South won and later reunified, states' rights would probably have been much more strong - and the federal government might be smaller... a conservative dream...

However, you could argue that the South seceded because of slavery. However, that is not the only reason, and it probably wasn't the primary reason, either.

[nightcrawlerblue]

This guy isn't with current events. Michael Jackson is still alive. Miserable and is likely to soon be in jail, but still alive.

~:joker:

[Duke of Gloucester]

Thanks for the answer, Alex. I would argue that the main reason the South seceded was slavery, and that the war was fought over "States rights to secede" and not States versus Federal Government rights. A genuine belief in States Rights would mean opposition to the Fugitive Slave Act. However I am not American, so it isn't my history and I am interested in what people from the States views are.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

I don't see why when the south seceeded that the Union kept DC as the capital, being that it was on the boarder of Virginia. Besides that, it had, imho, little strategic importance and it was surrounded by a hostile Maryland (alot of Marylanders supported the south) and Virginians.

[lonewolf371]

Would England select a different capital if all of Wessex suddenly decided to secede? D.C. has always been located in a non-strategic position, it's not in the country's heartland (anymore), located close to the sea (able to be attacked by British ships and Soviet missile subs), and as a result was threatened and one time even captured and burned in the War of 1812. However, if any threat to the capital did come about due to the nearby presence of the sea or possibly by land route the government could have been evacuated to another location, also like in 1812.

Most US historians try to be very objective when studying the cause of wars during the nation's early phase, largely because all of the conflicts were won we say that they were won out of a fight for "freedom" but they were more often than not a combination of events as complicated and absolute as those causing WWI. That's why generally American opinion on Civil War was that it came about from a large amount of events over which struggles had been happening for some time.

1) Slavery
Obviously this is the most commonly-said cause for the (American) Civil War, and indeed it was a large factor. Conflicts over whether slavery should be allowed had been erupting since before the nation was even recognized by Britain in 1783. And during most of this time the North had had the upper hand, due in a large part to a larger population base. They had outlawed the import of more slaves and had attempted to carry such restrictions further.

2) State's Rights
This is also a struggle that had been erupting since the nation's birth, the concept of state's rights was a strong one. They were essentially in the American mind the exact opposite of the "tyranny" they had suffered under Britain and provided a counter-measure against it. At first US tried to embrace this concept in the hopelessly-flawed attempt to create the Articles of Confederation, which proved a strong central government was essential but the push for state's rights was still largely present. The south was weaker in terms of population, which meant that their representation in a large central government would be weak compared to the north, with whom they often regarded as their enemy.

Obviously there are many more reasons, but these are often regarded as the two main ones. The rivalry between north and south had been evolving slowly over the past 70 years and the war, when it finally came, seemed almost as natural as France and Britain going to war against each other 50 years earlier.