Victor Davis Hanson: [‘Response to Readership’] Why did the South start the Civil War?

VDH Private Papers ^ | February 17, 2005 | Victor Davis Hanson

[4CJ]

Don't kid yourself that Southern slave-owners were worried about the inhumanity of the cross-Atlantic slave trade.

Don't kid yourself that Yankee slave-traders were worried about the inhumanity of the cross-Atlantic slave trade which made them rich.

He [Lincoln] did have the power, as Commander-in-Chief, to free slaves in rebel states as part of the war effort.

Wrong. In 1851 the Supreme Court ruled that owners of private property seized for war efforts had to compensated. In 1866 the court ruled that the Constitution applied to all men - rulers and citizens - at all times - in war and pearce, and that no part of it may be suspended at any time.

As CIC, Lincoln had every right to quell a rebellion and punish treason.

Wrong. It wasn't a rebellion - the states seceded. A rebellion is resistance by force of arms - yet the seceded states did not wage war - they resisted invasion. Lincoln himself stated that 'marching of an army' into a state, 'without the consent of her people, and in hostility against them ... would be invasion, and it would be coercion too, if the people of that country were forced to submit.' [NOTE: Lincoln himself equated a state to a country.]

And Lincoln did not have the power to punish treason - per the Constitution, '[n]o Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.' First you have to have a trial (see Amendment V as well) before any punishment can be meted out.

Northern prosperity came from industrialization, not some imaginary looting of the South.

Northern proserity came from protectionist tariffs, which forced consumers to pay ridiculously higher prices for Yankee products.

The South remained poor after the Civil War due to its own economic policies and culture.

LOL. The Southern states were ruled by yankee carpetbaggers who plundered the states for decades. Per Amendment XIV, no Confederate could hold office nor vote - it wasn't until 1876 that the federal congress. Carpetbaggers were the elected officials - bribery was the order of the day, and plunder was the rule, not the exception.

One thing I always wanted to know, is why did the seceded state have to nullify their Acts of Secession if they were invalid? Inquiring minds want to know.

[Heyworth]

Don't kid yourself that Yankee slave-traders were worried about the inhumanity of the cross-Atlantic slave trade which made them rich.

You do love to trot out the yankee slave traders in your desperate attempts to come up with some moral equivalence to slavery, but the yankee states were more than ready to abolish slavery and the slave trade altogether in the drafting of the Constitution. It was the slave states that insisted on maintaining the trade.

From the ratification debates in North Carolina:
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a5s10.html

"A compromise likewise took place in regard to the importation of slaves. It is probable that all the members reprobated this inhuman traffic; but those of South Carolina and Georgia would not consent to an immediate prohibition of it--one reason of which was, that, during the last war, they lost a vast number of negroes, which loss they wish to supply. In the mean time, it is left to the states to admit or prohibit the importation, and Congress may impose a limited duty upon it."

Here's James Madison defending the provision (maintaining the slave trade for another 20 years) in the Virginia Assembly:

"The gentlemen from South Carolina and Georgia argued in this manner: "We have now liberty to import this species of property, and much of the property now possessed had been purchased, or otherwise acquired, in contemplation of improving it by the assistance of imported slaves. What would be the consequence of hindering us from it? The slaves of Virginia would rise in value, and we should be obliged to go to your markets." I need not expatiate on this subject. Great as the evil is, a dismemberment of the Union would be worse. If those states should disunite from the other states for not indulging them in the temporary continuance of this traffic, they might solicit and obtain aid from foreign powers."

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_9_1s14.html

[4CJ]

Is that all you're going to respond too? Virginia wanted to ban the importation of addition slaves. If you check the vote in the same volume, you'll note that several Yankee states voted to exend the period of importation - there was money to be made.

And please, drop the sanctimonious attitutude, obviously the northern states desire for union was more than enough to overcome their feelings toward slavery - they signed on the dotted line. First the money, then the morals.

[Heyworth]

Virginia wanted to ban the importation of addition slaves.

From what I can find, they all did. Except South Carolina and Georgia, who, by several accounts, including Madison's, threatened not to join the United States unless they got their way. Madison's fear was that they'd then ally themselves with some foreign power.

If you check the vote in the same volume, you'll note that several Yankee states voted to exend the period of importation - there was money to be made.

Why they voted during the consitutional convention is clear--it was the only way to appease South Carolina and Georgia. It's called sacrificing principle to the greater good. I can't find anyone in Massachusetts during the ratification debate celebrating the money they'll make in shipping slaves. If you've got some sources indicating such, I'd sincerely like to see them.

obviously the northern states desire for union was more than enough to overcome their feelings toward slavery - they signed on the dotted line.

Yes they did. And just as clearly, from all indications, South Carolina and Georgia's desire for slavery was more than enough to overcome their feelings toward union. Like you said, first the money, then the morals.