Full Version: Cause of the Civil war?,
QUOTE(Jimbo @ Oct 23 2003, 06:00 PM)
slavery was just one of many reasons,
You are going to have to be more constructive than that. Don't waste our time with such one-liners, please. 
Its obvious that slavery was the main reason for the war, but was it good enough reason for it. Thats a little harder to qualify.
QUOTE(phaedrus @ Oct 24 2003, 01:09 AM)
Its obvious that slavery was the main reason for the war, but was it good enough reason for it. Thats a little harder to qualify.
I tend to disagree with that statement. Slavery was a minor reason for the Civil War but not a Major reason.
President Lincoln never was for forcing the south to give up the slaves. The following is a excerpt for his first inaugural address in April of 1861.
QUOTE
Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States, that by the accession of a Republican Administration, their property, and their peace, and personal security, are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed, and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this, and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them. And more than this, they placed in the platform, for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves, and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:
Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes."
The writings of people before, during and after the war are consistent. The words of the soldiers during the war are consistent. The voice of the Confederate government is consistent. ALL of them make the point for States Rights from the beginning until well past the end. Do you really believe that hundreds of thousands of dirt farmers would give up their lives so that rich people could own slaves? The only way this was "propaganda" was if this was an entire nation and generation of self deluded fools. Note: I am not saying you could not make that case :-) - I am only saying you would HAVE to make that case, and I don't think you can. These people knew what they were fighting for from Jefferson Davis down to Private Johnny Reb and they all said so many times over
Slavery was an essential catalyst, but only as an economic issue. Economics ALWAYS drive warfare, but the South was no more fighting for slavery than the colonists of 1776 were fighting for cheaper tea.
Do people really go to war over abstract causes?
What states right drove the states to secede from the Union? Go to their declarations of secession and all of the states highlight the institution of slavery as the reason for secession.
Lincoln did not want to abolish slavery but the slave states could not tolerate having the anti-slavery party made up entirely of non-slave states representatives threatening them with the possibility of removing slavery.
When the war was declared all of those dirt farmers went to fight to protect their homes. Why they fought is not the same question as what was the cause of the Civil War. I have been facing this argument of states rights for two decades now and I have yet to see a convincing case that the states rights at issue were not the states rights to protect the institution of slavery.
This would be like saying the American Revolution was fought about the issue of no taxation without representation but no parliamentary taxes triggered this sentiment.
A previous post of mine on this matter.
What states right drove the states to secede from the Union? Go to their declarations of secession and all of the states highlight the institution of slavery as the reason for secession.
Lincoln did not want to abolish slavery but the slave states could not tolerate having the anti-slavery party made up entirely of non-slave states representatives threatening them with the possibility of removing slavery.
When the war was declared all of those dirt farmers went to fight to protect their homes. Why they fought is not the same question as what was the cause of the Civil War. I have been facing this argument of states rights for two decades now and I have yet to see a convincing case that the states rights at issue were not the states rights to protect the institution of slavery.
This would be like saying the American Revolution was fought about the issue of no taxation without representation but no parliamentary taxes triggered this sentiment.
A previous post of mine on this matter.
QUOTE
The war was about slavery. Plain and simple. States Rights? The states rights to do what. Go to the source. Go to the secession of the individual states. Slavery is mentioned in all of these states where people to this day try to claim that the cause of the Civil War was not slavery.
Why could the South and specifically South Carolina not stand the idea of the Republican party. Sure it was a regional party which is always dangerous in our democracy. But it had anti-slavery planks in its platform. Were those planks the abolition of slavery? No. It was a call for stopping the spread of slavery.
This should not be confused with the question of why did soldiers go fight in the war. Hundreds of thousands of small farmers went to go fight in the war for the confederacy who were not slave owners and were actually hurt by the practice of slavery as they had to work on more marginal land and work within a system that was politically and economically dominated by slave-owning planters.
These people went to go fight to protect their home. They were at war and they were going to do their honorable duty to protect against an army that would bring harm to their home and lifestyle.
South Carolina Declaration of Secession
note in the constitutional claims how slavery and the return of fugitive slaves dominates the argument
From the beginning of the Georgia Declaration of Secession
QUOTE
The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slaveholding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.
From the opening argument of the Mississippi Declaration of Secession
QUOTE
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 products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
From the Texas Declaration of Secession
QUOTE
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.
So it with me people. The Civil War was about slavery. Slavery and issues surrounding its spread, protection, or maintenance was the cause of the war.
Why could the South and specifically South Carolina not stand the idea of the Republican party. Sure it was a regional party which is always dangerous in our democracy. But it had anti-slavery planks in its platform. Were those planks the abolition of slavery? No. It was a call for stopping the spread of slavery.
This should not be confused with the question of why did soldiers go fight in the war. Hundreds of thousands of small farmers went to go fight in the war for the confederacy who were not slave owners and were actually hurt by the practice of slavery as they had to work on more marginal land and work within a system that was politically and economically dominated by slave-owning planters.
These people went to go fight to protect their home. They were at war and they were going to do their honorable duty to protect against an army that would bring harm to their home and lifestyle.
South Carolina Declaration of Secession
note in the constitutional claims how slavery and the return of fugitive slaves dominates the argument
From the beginning of the Georgia Declaration of Secession
QUOTE
The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slaveholding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.
From the opening argument of the Mississippi Declaration of Secession
QUOTE
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 products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
From the Texas Declaration of Secession
QUOTE
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.
So it with me people. The Civil War was about slavery. Slavery and issues surrounding its spread, protection, or maintenance was the cause of the war.
QUOTE
I tend to disagree with that statement. Slavery was a minor reason for the Civil War but not a Major reason.
Slavery was anything but minor, all the states that succeded stated one of the primary reasons was slavery. States rights included the idea that states could ignore Federal law they disagreed with, this is unconstitutional, illegal and immoral. I think the tariffs deserve more attention and had more weight but slavery being a minor cause of the Civil War is impossible to qualify historically. Unless of course you want to disregard the legal documents produced by the South stateing their reasons.
I've just run across some really interesting quotes about the Civil War. In light of these, it seems that the Civil War was really a trade war, with the south mad because there were, on average, 47% tariffs (the highest in our nation's history) on them, and most of those revenues were used to prop up the mercantilist "American System," as it was called, in the North. In 1840, the South paid 84% of the tariffs, rising to 87% in 1860. I think these slices of history give a unique perspective on this war, and they lead me to believe that the main cause the South was fighting for was self-determination and economic independence, much in the same way as the founders. What do you think?
"The effect of a provision to pass commercial laws by a simple majority would be to deliver the south bound hand and foot to the eastern states."
- George Mason
"Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils....The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel."
- Charles Dickens, December 1861
"You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue law, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, your canals. You are not satisfied with the millions of tribute we have been paying you on account of the balance of exchange which you hold against us. You are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the condition of overseers of northern capitalists. You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights and institutions."
- Texas Congressman Reagan, January 1861
"The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South...."
- London Times, November 1861
"The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of the taxes by the Government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government from a confederated republic, to a national sectional despotism."
- Charleston Mercury (newspaper), November 1860
"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests....These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union."
- New Orleans Daily Crescent, January 1861
"The mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports....by a revenue system verging on free trade...."
- the Boston Transcript, March 1861
"The war between the North and the South is a tariff war. The war is, further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for sovereignty."
- Karl Marx, 1861
So, what do you think?
- Rick
"The effect of a provision to pass commercial laws by a simple majority would be to deliver the south bound hand and foot to the eastern states."
- George Mason
"Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils....The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel."
- Charles Dickens, December 1861
"You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue law, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, your canals. You are not satisfied with the millions of tribute we have been paying you on account of the balance of exchange which you hold against us. You are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the condition of overseers of northern capitalists. You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights and institutions."
- Texas Congressman Reagan, January 1861
"The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South...."
- London Times, November 1861
"The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of the taxes by the Government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government from a confederated republic, to a national sectional despotism."
- Charleston Mercury (newspaper), November 1860
"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests....These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union."
- New Orleans Daily Crescent, January 1861
"The mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports....by a revenue system verging on free trade...."
- the Boston Transcript, March 1861
"The war between the North and the South is a tariff war. The war is, further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for sovereignty."
- Karl Marx, 1861
So, what do you think?
- Rick
What I especially don't understand is why they would secede after Lincoln was elected when he said he had no interest in abolishing slavery and fully intended to enforce the fugitive slave laws. Granted, many Northern juries rightly nullified those laws, but not enough that the underground railroad ended in the North - it went all the way to Canada. Lincoln even promised to support an amendment that would forever guarantee slavery where it then existed.
What Lincoln did promise to do was collect the "duties and imposts," that the South paid (to the tune of 87% of Federal revenues). The free trade that the South advocated was likened to industrial suicide by pro-Lincoln newspapers, as the tariffs had the effect of lowering the prices the South could charge for their exports and raised the price they had to pay for their imports, and also raided and destroyed their wealth. Ironically, many Southerners rightly considered themselves slaves to Northern interests.
I don't think it was any coincidence that the first shots fired in the Civil War were at Fort Sumter, which was a customs house. The South knew very well that the strengthening of that position was an attempt to enforce the confiscatory taxes.
There are many historians who believe the cause of slavery was propoganda used by both the North and the South to bolster their positions in favor of, in the North's case, and aggressive invasion, and in the South's case, seccession.
But looking at the popular press at the time can maybe give us a more accurate representation of the sentiments at the time. From the March 2, 1861 edition of The New York Evening Post:
"That either the revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the port must be closed to importations from abroad, is generally admitted. If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe. There will be nothing to furnish means of subsistence to the army; nothing to keep our navy afloat; nothing to pay the salaries of public officers; the present order of things must come to a dead stop.
"What, then, is left for our government? Shall we let the seceding states repeal the revenue laws for the whole Union in this manner? Or will the government choose to consider all foreign commerce destined for those ports where we have no custom-houses and no collectors as contraband, and stop it, when offering to enter the collection districts from which our authorities have been expelled?"
In October 1862, Boston's North American Review wrote:
"Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion ....Slavery is the pretext on which the leaders of the rebellion rely, 'to fire the Southern Heart' and through which the greatest degree of unanimity can be produced....Mr. Calhoun, after finding that the South could not be brought into sufficient unanimity by a clamor about the tariff, selected slavery as the better subject for agitation."
Further, two days before the November 1860 election, the Charleston Mercury wrote:
"The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of the taxes by the Government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government from a confederated republic, to a national sectional despotism."
- Rick
What Lincoln did promise to do was collect the "duties and imposts," that the South paid (to the tune of 87% of Federal revenues). The free trade that the South advocated was likened to industrial suicide by pro-Lincoln newspapers, as the tariffs had the effect of lowering the prices the South could charge for their exports and raised the price they had to pay for their imports, and also raided and destroyed their wealth. Ironically, many Southerners rightly considered themselves slaves to Northern interests.
I don't think it was any coincidence that the first shots fired in the Civil War were at Fort Sumter, which was a customs house. The South knew very well that the strengthening of that position was an attempt to enforce the confiscatory taxes.
There are many historians who believe the cause of slavery was propoganda used by both the North and the South to bolster their positions in favor of, in the North's case, and aggressive invasion, and in the South's case, seccession.
But looking at the popular press at the time can maybe give us a more accurate representation of the sentiments at the time. From the March 2, 1861 edition of The New York Evening Post:
"That either the revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the port must be closed to importations from abroad, is generally admitted. If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe. There will be nothing to furnish means of subsistence to the army; nothing to keep our navy afloat; nothing to pay the salaries of public officers; the present order of things must come to a dead stop.
"What, then, is left for our government? Shall we let the seceding states repeal the revenue laws for the whole Union in this manner? Or will the government choose to consider all foreign commerce destined for those ports where we have no custom-houses and no collectors as contraband, and stop it, when offering to enter the collection districts from which our authorities have been expelled?"
In October 1862, Boston's North American Review wrote:
"Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion ....Slavery is the pretext on which the leaders of the rebellion rely, 'to fire the Southern Heart' and through which the greatest degree of unanimity can be produced....Mr. Calhoun, after finding that the South could not be brought into sufficient unanimity by a clamor about the tariff, selected slavery as the better subject for agitation."
Further, two days before the November 1860 election, the Charleston Mercury wrote:
"The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of the taxes by the Government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government from a confederated republic, to a national sectional despotism."
- Rick
The issue of Slavery was not the reason for the war, it was Expansion of Slavery into the new Territories or States, Kansas and Nebraska. The southeners had plans of expansion into all of the southwest with slave labor. Kansas regected slavery while Nebraska agreed to it. The States rights issue was born of this disagreement, and the attempts to withdraw from the Union, and the attack at Ft Sumter kicked it off. The south fired the first shot.
Interesting question: Is there a method of withdrawing from the Union, that is legal.
Interesting question: Is there a method of withdrawing from the Union, that is legal.
QUOTE(PiedPiper @ Jan 17 2004, 11:43 AM)
QUOTE
The issue of Slavery was not the reason for the war, it was Expansion of Slavery into the new Territories or States, Kansas and Nebraska. The southeners had plans of expansion into all of the southwest with slave labor. Kansas regected slavery while Nebraska agreed to it. The States rights issue was born of this disagreement, and the attempts to withdraw from the Union, and the attack at Ft Sumter kicked it off. The south fired the first shot.
Answer this question for me. How does withdrawing from the Union solve this problem? While before seccession, there was a debate going on over it, after, there is no chance at all because it's now a completely different country.
QUOTE
Interesting question: Is there a method of withdrawing from the Union, that is legal.
There was before Lincoln.
- Rick
Perhaps everyone needs to read the Confederate Constitution and plans for the new country, which included enslaving Mexico and much of Latin America, they had Empire on their mind, so all of this goes much deeper than Lincoln , Tariffs, and Slavery.
QUOTE(wareagle60 @ Mar 6 2004, 06:13 PM)
THE QUESTION AS TO WHY SOME 620,000 AMERICANS HAD TO DIE IN THE CIVIL WAR IS TROUBLING TO ME. AFTER SOME STUDY, IT APPEARS TO ME THAT PRIOR TO 1861, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WAS FINANCED PRIMARILY BY TARIFFS RECEIVED FROM SOUTHERN PORTS. WHEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT LOST CONTROL OF THESE PORTS, IT WAS FORCED INTO WAR. PARTICULARLY DAMAGING TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WAS THE EFFECT FREE TRADE (NO TARIFF) IN THE SOUTH WOULD HAVE HAD ON THE NORTH. IT WAS BECAUSE OF THIS THAT NEW YORK WANTED TO BECOME INDEPENDENT. AS A RESULT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BLOCKADED SOUTHERN PORTS AND INVADED VIRGINIA.
Agreed.
- Rick
On the Civil war.
The real issue was states rights. The poster child issue was Slavery.
Now I personally feel slavery was not a states rights issue, but rather a civil rights issue which to me needs to be addressed on the national level. But there various other issues like Tariffs and the like were states rights issues.
IMHO if the south had caved on Slavery (the cost being higher then share croppers anyway so it was likely only a matter of time before Slavery died out on its own) the war would not have happened and the fight over the actual states rights issues might have been fought and even won in congress.
The problem was, the south was demonized by the Slavery issue and even if someone agreed with the various states rights issues they were afraid to voice that for fear of being seen / labeled as pro-Slavery.
It is a tactic we use in ernest today.
The real issue was states rights. The poster child issue was Slavery.
Now I personally feel slavery was not a states rights issue, but rather a civil rights issue which to me needs to be addressed on the national level. But there various other issues like Tariffs and the like were states rights issues.
IMHO if the south had caved on Slavery (the cost being higher then share croppers anyway so it was likely only a matter of time before Slavery died out on its own) the war would not have happened and the fight over the actual states rights issues might have been fought and even won in congress.
The problem was, the south was demonized by the Slavery issue and even if someone agreed with the various states rights issues they were afraid to voice that for fear of being seen / labeled as pro-Slavery.
It is a tactic we use in ernest today.
Everyone who has been a member of AD for more than a day knows that one liners, or one worders in this case, are not constructive and add absolutely nothing to the debate. Please avoid them in the future.
The question as to why some 620,000 Americans had to die in the Civil War is troubling to me. After some study, it appears to me that prior to 1861 the Federal Government was financed primarily by tariffs received from Southern ports. When the Federal Government lost control of these ports, it was forced into war. Particularly damaging to the Federal Government was the effect of free trade (no tariff) in the South would have on the North. It was because of this that New York wanted to become independent. As a result the Federal Government blockaded Southern ports and invaded Virginia.[SIZE=7]
QUOTE(wareagle60 @ Mar 6 2004, 09:45 PM)
The question as to why some 620,000 Americans had to die in the Civil War is troubling to me. After some study, it appears to me that prior to 1861 the Federal Government was financed primarily by tariffs received from Southern ports. When the Federal Government lost control of these ports, it was forced into war. Particularly damaging to the Federal Government was the effect of free trade (no tariff) in the South would have on the North. It was because of this that New York wanted to become independent. As a result the Federal Government blockaded Southern ports and invaded Virginia.[SIZE=7]
What came first, the chicken or the egg?
The North wouldn't have "invaded" the South had they not seceded, so IMO whether or not the North went to war over tariffs is a moot point. Without secession there is no war. So then it must be asked why did the South secede? Slavery, plain and simple. Some may argue it was about states rights vs. the rights of the federal gov't, and to some extent they'd be right. But the Confederacy was fighting for a state's right to determine whether its citizens could own slaves! That much is made clear in the secession declarations of several of the Confederate States. You can't divorce the Civil War from the slavery issue. The Confederacy seceded to in an attempt to preserve its peculiar institution.
In it's simplest form, I have to agree that it was about slavery. Slavery was at the heart of all the problems, the main one during that time period being popular sovereignty.
QUOTE(PiedPiper @ Jan 17 2004, 05:12 PM)
Perhaps everyone needs to read the Confederate Constitution and plans for the new country, which included enslaving Mexico and much of Latin America, they had Empire on their mind, so all of this goes much deeper than Lincoln , Tariffs, and Slavery.
Your post implies some fairly biggoted ideas about Southerners.
Only half of all white southerners owned slaves and the average slave owner only owned one or two. The average height of black slaves (an indication of the nutrition children receive) was inches greater than that of white southerners.
The reason I post this is to combat the idea that Southerners were all about slavery. The fact of the matter is that most of the slaves were owned by very few southerners. Slavery was not the only reason for succession.
Clearly you cannot put a price on freedom, but don’t believe the revisionist history that tells us that slaves weren’t fed and beaten every day.
Clearly “enslaving Mexico” was not the reason for succession.
QUOTE
Clearly you cannot put a price on freedom, but don’t believe the revisionist history that tells us that slaves weren’t fed and beaten every day.
In the end does it really matter whether the slaves were treated well or not? Owning other humans as one would own a dog or a horse is an atrocity by itself.
You say that only about half of all white southerners owned slaves. That's just finae and all, but the fact remains that the South was an agrarian society. And as much as it's a tarnished spot on their record, almost all the people toiling in the fields were the slaves. So when you get into it, that's why slavery is at the root of the problem. Tons of the key issues that led to the dissolving of the Union were based on economic issues. The northerners, living in an industrialized society, didn't have to rely on agricultural business. The southerners did, and slaves were the easiest way to get the farming done.
So when the Northern politicians all decide that it's time to get rid of slavery and put high tariffs on imports and exports, that means it's time for the Southern politicians to get their people the heck outta the U.S.
So when the Northern politicians all decide that it's time to get rid of slavery and put high tariffs on imports and exports, that means it's time for the Southern politicians to get their people the heck outta the U.S.
I have to get in on this one. Great Topic.
I think the Civil War is fundamentally a problem of the divergence of human discourse and the language of human ideology.
Yes slavery was the cause but only from the point of view of the South! What they saw in the North was a certain 'anarchy' with respect to Negro Freemen. Why were they entitled to a higher state of 'lassiez faire' (the economic emodiment of this anarchy) whilst they were stuck paying for tariffs of their own making? (i.e. why couldn't they get most of their goods from the north? - the Negro Freemen may have made them - this represents a certain kind of severe built-in racism). They then thought they could accomplish a peaceful secession.
From the point of view of the North racism was there too, but secondary. The primary goal of the north was to 'keep the Union together' (i.e. to fulfill the language of the Constitution). Racism and economics came into it from this side too. Why does the South get to have workers that work for free (slaves) but we have to pay them?
The theme here is the divergence from the language and ideology of the Constitution and The Declaration of Independence. What is the status of a black man? 3/5? or are all men created equal? And why such a contrived differing in economic systems in what should be an integral Union?
In any other society of that time, the law is what this monarch says or that Religious Leader says or what this or that dictator says. In a Constitutional Republic, the Document IS THE LAW. To deviate from it, except by its specified means (this gives it a trajectory) is to reject it as sovereign. Both sides inadvertently rejected this language (with the business of slave states and free states) and it wasn't caught in time.
What is the lesson? Move away from the language and ideology of the Constitution and pay the consequences. Could we be doing that now? There is a good possibility of this. The U.S. code consists of thousands and thousands of statutes. This gives too much power to the president and leaves the Congress wanting (the president chooses which laws to enforce). The states then follow suit. If we amend the constitution, why do it for something as silly as 'Marriage'. Why not make an amendment to put a cap on excessive lawmaking? Or Limiting behavior modification through the tax code? There also needs to be a clearer definition between States Rights and Federal Rights and a limitation thereof. As it is they just compete with each other, making more and more laws. Here is the States rights argument to the Civil War. I would argue this was not rectified by the Civil War, it was just deterred. All it would take would be several states who differed with the government on a specific issue, they get together, secede and it is Gettysburg all over again. But this will never happen. Why? The real loser is the American people, giving up their freedoms in the name of freedom every chance they get, thereby appeasing those who can't get enough power. At what point does it reach the threshold of "I have to kill to feed my family or myself?". It is like this in many constitutional societies in the world already. Everybody says God bless America, I call it luck. When does that luck run out? When you cease to plan ahead and bank on luck, from whence does one's inspiration come from?
A final thought. Are we planting the seeds of civil war within Iraq by admitting a constitution which allows for freedom of religion whilst it declares at the same time an 'official national religion: Islam'? Does this reflect our current administration's desire to go back in time and rewrite our own Constitution in the pious language of born-again Christianity?
I think the Civil War is fundamentally a problem of the divergence of human discourse and the language of human ideology.
Yes slavery was the cause but only from the point of view of the South! What they saw in the North was a certain 'anarchy' with respect to Negro Freemen. Why were they entitled to a higher state of 'lassiez faire' (the economic emodiment of this anarchy) whilst they were stuck paying for tariffs of their own making? (i.e. why couldn't they get most of their goods from the north? - the Negro Freemen may have made them - this represents a certain kind of severe built-in racism). They then thought they could accomplish a peaceful secession.
From the point of view of the North racism was there too, but secondary. The primary goal of the north was to 'keep the Union together' (i.e. to fulfill the language of the Constitution). Racism and economics came into it from this side too. Why does the South get to have workers that work for free (slaves) but we have to pay them?
The theme here is the divergence from the language and ideology of the Constitution and The Declaration of Independence. What is the status of a black man? 3/5? or are all men created equal? And why such a contrived differing in economic systems in what should be an integral Union?
In any other society of that time, the law is what this monarch says or that Religious Leader says or what this or that dictator says. In a Constitutional Republic, the Document IS THE LAW. To deviate from it, except by its specified means (this gives it a trajectory) is to reject it as sovereign. Both sides inadvertently rejected this language (with the business of slave states and free states) and it wasn't caught in time.
What is the lesson? Move away from the language and ideology of the Constitution and pay the consequences. Could we be doing that now? There is a good possibility of this. The U.S. code consists of thousands and thousands of statutes. This gives too much power to the president and leaves the Congress wanting (the president chooses which laws to enforce). The states then follow suit. If we amend the constitution, why do it for something as silly as 'Marriage'. Why not make an amendment to put a cap on excessive lawmaking? Or Limiting behavior modification through the tax code? There also needs to be a clearer definition between States Rights and Federal Rights and a limitation thereof. As it is they just compete with each other, making more and more laws. Here is the States rights argument to the Civil War. I would argue this was not rectified by the Civil War, it was just deterred. All it would take would be several states who differed with the government on a specific issue, they get together, secede and it is Gettysburg all over again. But this will never happen. Why? The real loser is the American people, giving up their freedoms in the name of freedom every chance they get, thereby appeasing those who can't get enough power. At what point does it reach the threshold of "I have to kill to feed my family or myself?". It is like this in many constitutional societies in the world already. Everybody says God bless America, I call it luck. When does that luck run out? When you cease to plan ahead and bank on luck, from whence does one's inspiration come from?
A final thought. Are we planting the seeds of civil war within Iraq by admitting a constitution which allows for freedom of religion whilst it declares at the same time an 'official national religion: Islam'? Does this reflect our current administration's desire to go back in time and rewrite our own Constitution in the pious language of born-again Christianity?
For one the the total fatalities both combat and non-combat is estimated to be more like 373,458 </a><a href='http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/cwc/other/stats/warcost.htm' target='_blank'>USCWC, I don't know how important that stat is but it underscores the intesity and determination on both sides. Secondly, support for succession in southern states was supprisingly weak in states like Mississippi and Virginia. The primary reason the North was so determined was not, at least initially, slavery but preserving the Union. Thus the name 'Union Army'.
I am not sure I'm following you here but what you said made me think of Oliver Wendol Holme's letter to Norton comparing the Civil War to the Crusades:
"...now when we need all the examples of chivalry to help us bind our rebellious desires to steadfastness in the Christian Crudade of the 19th Century. I for one did'nt believe that this war was such a crusade, in the cause of the future of the whole civilized world...I am thankful to have read who have 'stood in the evil day'. No-it will not do to leave Palestine yet" (The Metaphysical Club, Menand)
The Civil War was a struggle for control of our national destiny. Those who wanted to abolish slavery and supported sucession represented two conflicting minority views. Two divisive political 'Crusades' that should never have been allowed to lead us into that orgy of violence and political atrition. My point is simply this, the main cause was the corruption of moral consensus due to pragmatic political ambition. We should never let this kind of political sentiment errode our moral consensus, the consequences are too devastating.
QUOTE
A final thought. Are we planting the seeds of civil war within Iraq by admitting a constitution which allows for freedom of religion whilst it declares at the same time an 'official national religion: Islam'? Does this reflect our current administration's desire to go back in time and rewrite our own Constitution in the pious language of born-again Christianity?
I am not sure I'm following you here but what you said made me think of Oliver Wendol Holme's letter to Norton comparing the Civil War to the Crusades:
"...now when we need all the examples of chivalry to help us bind our rebellious desires to steadfastness in the Christian Crudade of the 19th Century. I for one did'nt believe that this war was such a crusade, in the cause of the future of the whole civilized world...I am thankful to have read who have 'stood in the evil day'. No-it will not do to leave Palestine yet" (The Metaphysical Club, Menand)
The Civil War was a struggle for control of our national destiny. Those who wanted to abolish slavery and supported sucession represented two conflicting minority views. Two divisive political 'Crusades' that should never have been allowed to lead us into that orgy of violence and political atrition. My point is simply this, the main cause was the corruption of moral consensus due to pragmatic political ambition. We should never let this kind of political sentiment errode our moral consensus, the consequences are too devastating.
phaedrus,
I hadn't thought of it that way but in a way yes I am making that comparison. Not in that way, though. We are trying to nation build in the Middle East without a clear understanding of what we are doing. This is dangerous especially considering that many Middle Eastern citizens have a better understanding of our own history than we do. However they filter it, they do have a more unique perspective than we who are immersed in it, do.
I agree, but as Paul Harvey says "and now, the rest of the story": Was it a "Crusade" to keep the Union together? Albeit a noble one by modern standards? In a way, it was. There was not and still isn't anything preventing secession in the Constitution. Both sides acted outside of the Constitution in the name of a "Crusade", because there was nothing in the Constitution addressing this.
As to your final sentiment, I agree. But this needs to be handled in a Constitutional way in keeping with the founding of this country. I believe there is a subconscious reason why we have "Amendment fever": The fact remains, States rights vs. Federal rights has still not been adequately addressed. Currently this "Amendment fever" is misdirected in my opinion. I hope it can be dealt with peacefully.
QUOTE
I am not sure I'm following you here but what you said made me think of Oliver Wendol Holme's letter to Norton comparing the Civil War to the Crusades:
"...now when we need all the examples of chivalry to help us bind our rebellious desires to steadfastness in the Christian Crudade of the 19th Century. I for one did'nt believe that this war was such a crusade, in the cause of the future of the whole civilized world...I am thankful to have read who have 'stood in the evil day'. No-it will not do to leave Palestine yet" (The Metaphysical Club, Menand)
"...now when we need all the examples of chivalry to help us bind our rebellious desires to steadfastness in the Christian Crudade of the 19th Century. I for one did'nt believe that this war was such a crusade, in the cause of the future of the whole civilized world...I am thankful to have read who have 'stood in the evil day'. No-it will not do to leave Palestine yet" (The Metaphysical Club, Menand)
I hadn't thought of it that way but in a way yes I am making that comparison. Not in that way, though. We are trying to nation build in the Middle East without a clear understanding of what we are doing. This is dangerous especially considering that many Middle Eastern citizens have a better understanding of our own history than we do. However they filter it, they do have a more unique perspective than we who are immersed in it, do.
QUOTE
The Civil War was a struggle for control of our national destiny. Those who wanted to abolish slavery and supported sucession represented two conflicting minority views. Two divisive political 'Crusades' that should never have been allowed to lead us into that orgy of violence and political atrition. My point is simply this, the main cause was the corruption of moral consensus due to pragmatic political ambition. We should never let this kind of political sentiment errode our moral consensus, the consequences are too devastating
I agree, but as Paul Harvey says "and now, the rest of the story": Was it a "Crusade" to keep the Union together? Albeit a noble one by modern standards? In a way, it was. There was not and still isn't anything preventing secession in the Constitution. Both sides acted outside of the Constitution in the name of a "Crusade", because there was nothing in the Constitution addressing this.
As to your final sentiment, I agree. But this needs to be handled in a Constitutional way in keeping with the founding of this country. I believe there is a subconscious reason why we have "Amendment fever": The fact remains, States rights vs. Federal rights has still not been adequately addressed. Currently this "Amendment fever" is misdirected in my opinion. I hope it can be dealt with peacefully.
QUOTE
The Civil War was a struggle for control of our national destiny. Those who wanted to abolish slavery and supported sucession represented two conflicting minority views. Two divisive political 'Crusades' that should never have been allowed to lead us into that orgy of violence and political atrition. My point is simply this, the main cause was the corruption of moral consensus due to pragmatic political ambition. We should never let this kind of political sentiment errode our moral consensus, the consequences are too devastating.
Your saying abolitionists were wong? Your nuts. Poeple today just can't admit people in days of old were good sometimes. They sit in front on the TV eating Chicken Chow Mein, and thinking they are so moral because we live in a more free and equal society paid for by the blood of their forebearers, whom they seem to have contempt for - for shame.
Also, the abolitionists were many - not few, and there's no way for you to prove they were a minority in the North. Keep it simple. Some people want to prove they are more intellectual by making a simple issue overly complicated. It was about slavery.
QUOTE(AjaxMinoan @ Apr 18 2004, 09:22 AM)
QUOTE
The Civil War was a struggle for control of our national destiny. Those who wanted to abolish slavery and supported sucession represented two conflicting minority views. Two divisive political 'Crusades' that should never have been allowed to lead us into that orgy of violence and political atrition. My point is simply this, the main cause was the corruption of moral consensus due to pragmatic political ambition. We should never let this kind of political sentiment errode our moral consensus, the consequences are too devastating.
Your saying abolitionists were wong? Your nuts. Poeple today just can't admit people in days of old were good sometimes. They sit in front on the TV eating Chicken Chow Mein, and thinking they are so moral because we live in a more free and equal society paid for by the blood of their forebearers, whom they seem to have contempt for - for shame.
Also, the abolitionists were many - not few, and there's no way for you to prove they were a minority in the North. Keep it simple. Some people want to prove they are more intellectual by making a simple issue overly complicated. It was about slavery.
I beg to differ with you on the percentage of abolitionists in the North. I have no way of proving they were in the minority but I believe you would equally have a difficult time proving they were in the majority.
Even President Lincoln was not a abolitionist.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo12.html
QUOTE
More than 130 years of government propaganda has hidden this fact from the American people by creating a Mythical Lincoln that never existed. Take, for instance, the fact that everyone supposedly knows – that Lincoln was an abolitionist. This would be a surprise to the preeminent Lincoln scholar, Pulitzer prize-winning Lincoln biographer David Donald, who in his 1961 book, Lincoln Reconsidered, wrote that "Lincoln was not an abolitionist." And he wasn’t. He was glad to accept on behalf of the Republican Party any votes from abolitionists, but real abolitionists despised him. William Lloyd Garrison, the most prominent of all abolitionists, concluded that Lincoln "had not a drop of anti-slavery blood in his veins."
Garrison knew Lincoln well. He knew that Lincoln stated over and over again for his entire adult life that he did not believe in social or political equality of the races, he opposed inter-racial marriage, supported the Illinois constitution’s prohibition of immigration of blacks into the state, once defended in court a slaveowner seeking to retrieve his runaway slaves but never defended a runaway, and that he was a lifelong advocate of colonization – of sending every last black person in the U.S. to Africa, Haiti, or central America – anywhere but in the U.S
There were various sections of the North that were anti-abolitionists and even areas where blacks were lynched.
QUOTE(AjaxMinoan @ Apr 18 2004, 05:22 AM)
Your saying abolitionists were wong? Your nuts.
Do not personally attack anyone for their opinion. It is against the Rules and it diminishes your credibility. Debate the issues without making it personal.
DEBATE TOPIC:
Do you think that the civil war was caused by slavery or state rights and other things?
DEBATE TOPIC:
Do you think that the civil war was caused by slavery or state rights and other things?
I have a personal interest in this question. I have been a Civil War re-enactor for the past 8 years, and this question is one of the most frequent ones asked at events. No I am not a Confederate, I am a member of the 3rd United States Artillery, Battery L & M Consolidated.
I feel that the main cause (there were several) was that most of the people living in America at the time felt that their states were more important than the United States. They were Virginians and Hoosiers, etc before being Americans.
The Civil War would never have occurred if they felt being Americans first and then their statehood instead of the other way around was the most important identity issue.
There were many other reasons for the war and slavery was an important issue. Most Northern's that kept journals expressed little interest in the slavery issue. Most were fighting to preserve the US. Most Southerns were fighting for states rights, since few owned slaves.
I see that we have a problem today when African-American or Irish-American is more important than plain American. Especially when dealing with people who have never been to either place. This emphasis on the importance of the subgroup over the nation hurts all Americans. I say that we should be proud of our cultural, but as part of the nation as a whole.
Now I will get off my soapbox and let another have a turn.
I feel that the main cause (there were several) was that most of the people living in America at the time felt that their states were more important than the United States. They were Virginians and Hoosiers, etc before being Americans.
The Civil War would never have occurred if they felt being Americans first and then their statehood instead of the other way around was the most important identity issue.
There were many other reasons for the war and slavery was an important issue. Most Northern's that kept journals expressed little interest in the slavery issue. Most were fighting to preserve the US. Most Southerns were fighting for states rights, since few owned slaves.
I see that we have a problem today when African-American or Irish-American is more important than plain American. Especially when dealing with people who have never been to either place. This emphasis on the importance of the subgroup over the nation hurts all Americans. I say that we should be proud of our cultural, but as part of the nation as a whole.
Now I will get off my soapbox and let another have a turn.
slavery was not a direct cause...but a major player in most of the causes:
**Sectionalism...pure and simple...and slavery played a huge role in dividing the sections of this country.
Northern industrial North...(where many argued "legal" slavery...i.e Lowell Mass factories)
West (well whats now the midwest)...needed money for internal improvements...roads, canals, RR, etc
Agrarian Antibellum South...dependant on slave labor - to compete with the Bristish colonies...where the British could get cotton cheaper from Egypt and India...especially if the North put a tariff on manufactured goods...why wouldn't the UK retaliate on US cotton?
**the Compromises...1820 and 1850 - just added building of tension
**The Fugitive Slave Act 1850
**Bloody Kansas...obviously popular sovereignty regarding slavery had its problems...
**Dred Scott...1856...a pro-slavery Supreme Court announced that prohibiting slavery in the territories was unconstitutional
**Ostend Manifesto 1857 - attempt to acquire Cuba (read: the addition of another slave state would throw off the balance in the US)
**Panic of 1857 - left Northerners a bit finanical troubled and desiring a leader who could help (and of course tariffs to help them compete with cheaper British goods)
**John Brown's (a outspoken abolitionist) raid on Harpers Ferry to seize the federal armory and arsernal. 1859
**Election of 1860...final straw...the election of a northerner who had spoken out against slavery...
**Sectionalism...pure and simple...and slavery played a huge role in dividing the sections of this country.
Northern industrial North...(where many argued "legal" slavery...i.e Lowell Mass factories)
West (well whats now the midwest)...needed money for internal improvements...roads, canals, RR, etc
Agrarian Antibellum South...dependant on slave labor - to compete with the Bristish colonies...where the British could get cotton cheaper from Egypt and India...especially if the North put a tariff on manufactured goods...why wouldn't the UK retaliate on US cotton?
**the Compromises...1820 and 1850 - just added building of tension
**The Fugitive Slave Act 1850
**Bloody Kansas...obviously popular sovereignty regarding slavery had its problems...
**Dred Scott...1856...a pro-slavery Supreme Court announced that prohibiting slavery in the territories was unconstitutional
**Ostend Manifesto 1857 - attempt to acquire Cuba (read: the addition of another slave state would throw off the balance in the US)
**Panic of 1857 - left Northerners a bit finanical troubled and desiring a leader who could help (and of course tariffs to help them compete with cheaper British goods)
**John Brown's (a outspoken abolitionist) raid on Harpers Ferry to seize the federal armory and arsernal. 1859
**Election of 1860...final straw...the election of a northerner who had spoken out against slavery...
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.