Skip to comments.Was the Civil War Actually About Slavery?
Posted on 08/30/2012 2:40:56 PM PDT by PeaRidge
click here to read article
Most people who've bought into neo-Confederate propaganda don't even know that the Confederacy first started the war, by seizing many Federal properties, culminating at Fort Sumter in April 1861, then three weeks later formally declared war on the United States.
Before the Confederacy's declaration of war (May 6, 1861), no Union force "invaded" the Confederacy, and no Confederate soldier had been killed in battle against the United States.
In all of history, very few entities have formally declared war on the United States, but in no case has it ended well for those who did.
sigh......sarcasm is completely lost upon some of us.....
\thought you learned your lesson after Beckett08 and how you humiliated yourself by trying to deend a troll
out of curiousity.
I am going to take it that you supported America getting her independance, yes.
\Do you not support the south getting her independance and do you support fighting those who do not want to live with you?
Not to go back and forth like the usual trolls but was wondering about that.
i’ve never seen the point to fight people and force them to live with you.
Hell even if my own family or a member wants to go it alone then all means go.
Even today if the north east, or say the wst coast wants to leave then so beit, no point killing hundreds of thousands to make them live with you.
it was sarcasm I’d have thought
I’ve enjoyed participating in these WBTS discussion on FR over the years. One of the many things I’ve learned is that you can find documents and writings from the era that prove either point. For some folks, continuation of slavery was THE thing. For others, it wasn’t even a consideration. What I do know with certainty is that it defies logic and common sense to believe that the hundreds of thousands of non-slave holding southerners who fought and died did so because they wanted black people to be slaves, even though they owned none nor benefited from their enslavement.
Another thing I know with certainty is that Abe Lincoln and the north decided once and for all whether the union would be a lose knit collection of sovereign states or just a collection of federal government subunits. Abe and the yankees put the wheels in motion that have torn down state autonomy and allowed Marxist pigs like Obama to take power.
At this point it doesn’t matter why the WBTS was fought...this is the outcome.
We have no way of knowing, but given the fact that every other civilized nation in the western hemisphere abandoned slavery, there is no reason to not believe it would have been abandoned in the Confederacy as well...given enough time and pressure from the rest of the world. Had Abe simply let the South go and two separate nations emerged, I dare say the union would Marxist nirvana/hell and the Confederacy would still be living under the original concepts of the Constitution.
I suggest you find another posting name...unless you are shooting for irony.
Oh, dear me, where to begin?
If you have followed these CW threads in the past, you've already seen repeatedly most all of the arguments available on either side.
So I can't make a new argument, just restate what's been said here before...
Our Founders provided no Constitutional mechanisms for secession, but their writings -- their Original Intent -- on the subject are clear and consistent.
"Disunion", "dissolving the compact", "secession" or whatever other name was used, this was acceptable as with any other contract, by "mutual consent" or by "usurpations" or "oppressions" having that same effect -- those were James Madison's words. Others used similar formulas.
Madison said that secession "at pleasure" was not authorized by the Constitution.
In November 1860, when South Carolina first called for its Secession Convention, there was neither "mutual consent" nor "usurpations" justifying secession, and so slave-states began to secede "at pleasure".
But secession itself did not cause Civil War.
Indeed, in March 1861, in his inaugural address, President Lincoln announced there could be no war unless the seceding states started it.
And, of course, that's exactly what they did.
Beginning sometimes even before their formal declarations of secession, secessionists committed many acts of rebellion, insurrection and war against the United States, seizing dozens of major Federal properties, threatening and firing on Federal officers, and finally on April 15, 1861 attacking and seizing by force the Federal Fort Sumter.
Three weeks later (May 6, 1861) the Confederacy formally declared war on the United States -- all this at a time when no Union army had "invaded" seceding states and no Confederate soldier had been killed in battle.
So the reason for the Civil War was that the Confederacy wanted war, started war and then formally declared war on the United States.
Obviously, the Confederacy expected to win its war, and early on its confidence seemed justified.
But long-term, northern numbers, industry and leadership overwhelmed the rebellion and demonstrated for all time that the Confederates' methods for declaring their secession is not acceptable constitutionally.
Constitutional methods for seceding remain as our Founders intended: by mutual consent -- through Congress and/or the Supreme Court -- or by "usurpations" or "oppressions" having that same effect.
So you posted as sarcasm arguments that others have made seriously, and expected me to notice the little twinkle in your eye?
Seriously, was your Dr. Boli also making a joke?
The 1848 "law" was the new state constitution. "Support" for the constitution didn't necessarily imply support for all it's provisions, but so far, we've only got your word that he did supported either the 1848 constitution or the 1853 law..
I guess the idea behind all this stuff is that Lincoln isn't what his admirers make him out to be. But neither were the 19th century Southerners that neo-confederates idolize. They were all creatures or their own era, none of whom would measure up to 21st century standards.
For all that, Lincoln was "better" by current standards on racial issues than at least 90% of his countrymen.
your last line,
it doesn’t make it right with hsi racist attitudes, contrast to say Brown.
Thanks for that reply but I was hoping an answer to the questions.
do you think that it;s right to fight people and kill them in order to force them to live with you?
Also I take it seeing as you did not answer is that you support America fighting for independance but do you not support the south having their independance and instead you would fight to force them to live with you?
Something that isn’t mentioned a lot is the difference in the utterances and writings at the time of the war and in the era prior to the war from region to region.
As one living in Platte County, MO, born in Jackson County Mo, growing up in Johnson County, Kansas, schooling in Lawrence, with ancestors in Osawatomie and Fulton, Kansas, I was reared in the lore of the Border War.
David Atchison was the former Senator in Clay and Platte County that prompted the Kansas-Nebraska Act as a means to introduce slavery into Kansas. In his speaches and writings, in his associates utterances and actions, everything was “about” slavery. The efforts to get a slave-holder constitution in Kansas to expand slave holding state balances of power was in every day’s newspaper in the late 1850s.
The abolitionists, the slave holder rights, the issues with settlers from New England, the border jumpers going to vote from Missouri — it was a real era of warfare.
To suggest that this prequel to the Civil War, one of the circumstances that prompted succession, was about anything other that slavery and the balance of power to preserve it is only done with a refusal to read the primary sources.
The prison collapse, the raid in Osceola, and the burned out district south of Kansas City are all issues to be raised on the Confederate behalf, but Tarrifs and other issues were not discussed at the time to any extent in all the anger.
I don’t recall a beckett08 but I do recall several times when you’ve been humiliated...or embarrassed yourself. Some things never change.
no course you do not remember ARF, the last time you jumped in trying to be a big shot you ended up looking like a fool over Beckett08
Yea you certainly like to jump in with two feet, oh and in case you were not around then she was banned and I was right, she was a troll.
But they didn't. While Topeka had integrated even before the court decision was handed down, at least one of the Southern counties involved in the decision disbanded their public school system rather than integrate. And yet another opportunity to grab the moral high ground was lost.
You’ll have to refresh my memory noob. Who is the becket person and why should I GAD? The only one I do remember as being a consistent troll on these threads is you.
newb, seriously ARF GAD?
You dont; remember , course not LOL
Funny how you looked like a prize plum for defending her and actually you defended a ANSWER anti war occupy protest troll.
But then again you always troll for my me or others who do not agree with you, .
I wonder if you're gonna get the "new guy" speech for saying that (lol).
Check it out. One of the short list of websites I try to visit every day.
I think the North should have let the South go, but if the slaves had rebelled the North should have aided their rebellion.
Again, you ask the wrong question -- a question which is irrelevant to actual history of the Civil War era.
The first real question is: should contracts be enforced?
And one relevant analogy would be:
Some years later, your cousin is replaced by another manager who announces that in the future he will not negotiate any more special deals.
So what do you do?
In this analogy, the Confederacy first announced it would not pay off its loan (secession) then went to the bank fully armed and robbed it at gun point (Fort Sumter).
It then declared war on the bank and raised an army to kill bank employees.
Now the real questions are: first, should your contract be enforced, and further, what should be your punishments for unlawful behavior?
So all your propaganda-talk about "fighting and killing people" to "force them to live with you" is a nonsensical distraction.
In summary, the real question is: what is the proper treatment of criminals?
I think President Lincoln responded appropriately to their behavior.
all I want to know is what you think,forget about this war right now or any other war I’m ASKING YOU all it would take is a yes or no.
Do you think it is right to force people to live with you and have to kill some of them to force them?
Did you support the American independance from Britain and do you not support the south having her independance?
agree with that, fighting and killing people in order to make them live with you is just wrong.
Russian saw break aways and I bet most on here woudl have agreed that they break away from Russia
Most would agree breaking away from Britain was right.
But then why woudl those people oppose the south have that same right.
If the north east today wanted to break away I’d be all for it , they want to leave and have a liberal utopia then , please go ahead, I’d lose no sleep over it at all.
I guess not. But if you're ahead of the curve, that is something. Also, nobody in elective politics with a chance of winning is going to be as absolutist or as committed as a fanatic operating outside and against the system.
understand your point you made but I do slightly disagree with it and it;s no point saying why as we would just go back and forth.
Lee was just an average General
No Slavery No War
Should have invaded Canada and taken that out.
Mexico too, put them good Reb soldiers to work doin something useful
Should have sent them back to their homeland and families in Africa
Yes, he did say that. But in his Civil War memoirs, (which I’ve read) he also said the southern cause was for one of the worst (evils) ever i.e. slavery.
yes, Of course he did. That would be the right thing to say....later..
Neither of those quotes is legitimate.
You can have your own opinions, no matter how crazy, but you don’t get to make up your own facts.
Glad you straightened me out on this, now I can sleep much better at night.
But in answer: anyone who does not wish to live near me has always been free to move. Of course they are not free to force me to move, or steal my stuff or declare war on me. And if they have signed a contract agreeing to certain terms and conditions, they are not free to break the contract, in Madison's words, "at pleasure".
When they do such things, there will be serious consequences.
As to whether I'd support “the south having her independence,” that would depend 100% on precisely how “the south” went about the process of seeking “independence”.
a question is never wrong especially when asking for ones view.
Actually not in your life time but there coudl be a time when the south east especially CA wants to leave the union so it’s not meaningless for today or the future and countries throughoutt he world break away from their mother country.
Latvia, Balkans etc I wondered if you supported them breaking away just as if the north east today or the south said B/S to this we want out or even CA voting to get away and join Mexico wiht of course Mexico behind the scenes pushing this and make no mistake that is teir ultimate goal.
Immigration an issue where ones own country can be invaded and not a shot fired
If you reread my comment I think we are making the same statement. Maybe mine wasn’t clear.
It's the wrong question when it does not address the real issue.
There is no debate about a "right to secede", it was acknowledged by our Founders and by everyone since, including on these threads.
So your claim of some disagreement here is simply a tool for distracting from the real historical and potential future debates.
As I said before: our Founders acknowledged a "right to secede" (though not in those exact words, of course), but if and only if certain conditions were met.
Those conditions included "mutual consent" or "usurpations" and "oppression" having the same effect.
So the question in 1860 (or today) is: do those conditions for authorized secession exist?
The answer for 1860 was: certainly not.
The answer for today is: that's debatable, but no state today will vote to secede, so the question is irrelevant.
manc: "Actually not in your life time but there coudl be a time when the south east especially CA wants to leave the union so its not meaningless for today or the future and countries throughoutt he world break away from their mother country."
You mean, of course, the south west.
Again, the question is not their "right" to secede, the issue is the process they use to accomplish that end.
If a state legitimately votes and then applies to Congress and/or the Supreme Court to secede, agrees to accept it's share of such items as the National Debt (now $16 trillion), agrees to reasonable settlements of Federal property issues, etc., etc., and if during all this time (years?, decades?) remains friendly, peaceful and lawful, and does not change its mind along the way... then you could have a Constitutionally authorized secession, imho.
manc: "Immigration an issue where ones own country can be invaded and not a shot fired"
Democrats have always played "dirty pool", long before even 1860, but on this issue they may be playing with fire.
Still, it's very hard to imagine illegal immigrants voting to exchange the United States welfare system for that of Mexico... ;-)
south west, indeed you’re correect.
As for a question, I just wanted to know what you thought, LOL, WOW
Civil War aka the Great Rebellion...
There were no tariffs on southern products (at least none enacted by the US). Southern products were exported, and tariffs are enacted only on imports.
The north had plenty of cash crops. No cash crops needed slaves, as was shown by southern agricultural productivity after the war, when slavey was no more.
One issue loomed larger than any other in that year as in the previous three decades: the Northern tariff. It was imposed to benefit Northern industrial interests by subsidizing their production through public works.
But it had the effect of forcing the South to pay more for manufactured goods and disproportionately taxing it to support the central government. It also injured the South’s trading relations with other parts of the world.
In effect, the South was being looted to pay for the North’s early version of industrial policy. The battle over the tariff began in 1828, with the “tariff of abomination.”
Thirty year later, with the South paying 87 percent of federal tariff revenue while having their livelihoods threatened by protectionist legislation, it became impossible for the two regions to be governed under the same regime.
The South as a region was being reduced to a slave status, with the federal government as its master.
Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
First, the victors didn’t write the books. Everyone did. Jeff Davis, a loser in every sense of the word, wrote two.
Second, the federal government didn’t tell states what to do, outside where they had clear authority in the constitution. The southern states rebelled even before Lincoln took office. Nothing Lincoln did can possibly justify the previous event of secession. The tariffs were low when the southern states pretended secession, and so they can not assert that the tariff was a cause of seccession.
For the south it was about slavery. Shameful, but true.
Of course the war was about slavery. That Lincoln didn’t start the war makes his views on how slave policy during the war immaterial. So then we look to those who started the insurrection and war.
The southern fire eaters claimed that the Republican administration would interfere with slavery. That the Republican administration did not interfere with slavery in the border states proved that they were at best incorrect, at worst, dirty liars.
The south had independence within the federal union.
The colonies that became the various states declared independence after the English began conducting war against them, as stated in the Declaration of Independence.
Breaking political bounds may have good reasons, and may have bad reasons. In 1776 the reasons were good. In 1860 the reasons were bad, so bad that southern partisans today have to lie about them.
There was no “Northern Tariff”. Rather there was a US tariff. It was low at the time of secession. In part due to secession, tariff rates were raised, by national legislation, and signed into law by President Buchanan. the higher tariff could not have been passed without southern cooperation, which was accomplished by the southern senators refusing to vote against it.
The south did not pay anything like 87% of the tariff. Tariffs were paid at ports. Most of the imports came to northern cities. The tariff records are available, and have been reviewed.
Most tariffs were for raw materials, which were the basis for industry, and northerners paid them so they could get the stuff they needed for their industries. The other category of tariff was on luxury goods. Rich southerners did indeed pay tariff on their luxuries, but poor southerners, both free and slave, did not.
Where was the money spent? Most of the forts (e.g. Ft Sumter) were built at smaller ports in the south, paying slave owners rent for their ‘property’. Ft. Sumter was perhaps distinguished by being built not on South Carolina soil, but rather on a shoal, with that shoal being built up using stone from NY and MA.
to some yes, to some no, thouands of union troops did not put their boots on and leave their farms ot free the slaves, nor did thousands of southerners put teir boots on and keep slavery.
Lincoln himself said he was not starting this war but I guess you’ll ingore that because you’ve been taught that in 5th grade
LOL YES HE only said slaves in those areas he had no control over could be freed but notice how he never freed any slaves in his control on the border states.
His wifes family once owned slaves
My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that..”
or how about when a certain offcier I;m sure you know who thatwas did free the slaves in a certain state and I;m sur eyou know that right and he Lincoln went bat crazzy and demanded that those slaves be sent back to their master
funny how he ever went by parish, I wonder why, o yes that was becasue those areas he had control over,\
Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana (except the parishes of St. Bernard, Palquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James, Ascension, Assumption, Terrebone, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the city of New Orleans), Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkeley, Accomac, Morthhampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Anne, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth), and which excepted parts are for the present left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.
In 1776 the reasons were good.
because it does it it fits your own narrative
Point out the lie, or you are the liar.
take it you did not read my post otherwise if you had you would have understood what Lincoln said and his actions.
You have a nerve to say I should point out a lie when I corrected you plus you was the one harping crap about southern partisans have to lie about.
You’re the one who jumped on a thread which died away and you’re the one who came on here saying what you said if it were the fact.
I understand Lincoln. He wouldn’t let the slave power destroy the country through their insurrection.
Slavery was the reason the slave power began their insurrection. That is not sufficient reason. You agree with that because you deny that it was the reason.
Lincoln's primary intention was to hold the country together. To his discredit he was willing to "kick the can" on slavery in order to effectuate this primary motivation.
You attempt to color the water by bringing up snippets of Lincoln quotations that by today's sensibilities appear racist. By those standards there wasn't a person living in the 1850's who wasn't a racist. In other words, it is immaterial and not worthy of merit.
BTW: Both of you are a bit to casual about tossing off the "lie and "liar" appellation ;-). Manc, you didn't correct anyone, you merely offered a differing opinion.
Good catch. Like “Where’s Waldo?” there’s usually one quote of the old saw “victors write the history” foolishness in these threads.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.