The Civil War, and it's causes.

[KoihimeNakamura]

From http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=107084

We recently got badly offtrack and I'm more posting this because I'm curious.

So, Jerome da Gnome: You think the primary cause is states rights. Can you explain how you got here?

[ImaginalDisc]

From http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=107084

We recently got badly offtrack and I'm more posting this because I'm curious.

So, Jerome da Gnome: You think the primary cause is states rights. Can you explain how you got here?

This argument always falls apart when you ask, "The states' rights to do what?"

[JoeEllison]

This argument always falls apart when you ask, "The states' rights to do what?"

Well, the correct answer is "own slaves," but the twists and turns people put reality through in order to avoid giving the correct answer is usually entertaining.

[KoihimeNakamura]

I thought I'd give him the benefit of the doubt. But yes, that is a uh.. notable flaw

[ImaginalDisc]

Well, the correct answer is "own slaves," but the twists and turns people put reality through in order to avoid giving the correct answer is usually entertaining.

Yeah. I started with a big post trying to premptively unravel those arguments, but I stopped when I realized it was going to invole historic beef and pork prices and gave the whole thing up.

[mijopaalmc]

Well, the correct answer is "own slaves," but the twists and turns people put reality through in order to avoid giving the correct answer is usually entertaining.

The basic problem with this argument is that it ignores that there were many other states' rights at issue than just slavery and that slavery was as much an economic issue for the South as it was a moral issue in the North. For instance, as I recall from high school history (so the specifics might be wrong but the generalities have some backing), Congress wanted to decrease tariffs on trade goods that were produced in the South and wanted to levy taxes more heavily on interstate commerce in the South. Furthermore, the representable population (i.e., the population for which congressional representatives could be apportioned) of the South was growing much more slowly than the representable population of the North, thereby threatening to provide the North with the supermajority needed to override a presidential veto on any legislation that benefited the South. There was therefore a perception in the South that, regardless of the specific issue (and, yes, slavery was a huge economic and moral issue), they were losing their constitutionally mandated representation in Congress, which in a of itself is a big deal because political representation was and is still today perceived by the average American to be the most important cause of the Revolutionary War.

[hgc]

...
There was therefore a perception in the South that, regardless of the specific issue (and, yes, slavery was a huge economic and moral issue), they were losing their constitutionally mandated representation in Congress, which in a of itself is a big deal because political representation was and is still today perceived by the average American to be the most important cause of the Revolutionary War.


Funny, just last evening, over drinks, a co-worker was telling a story of a conversation with one of his children. The child was talking about being taught in school about the Revolutionary War. He asked her, "which Revolutionary War?" The point being that, in his opinion, there were two of them, and the second one (what we call The Civil War) is still being fought. In some sense, I think he's got a point, but not for the same reason he thinks he's got a point. He's a confederate sympathiser licking his wounds, and would no doubt, if I had pursued the conversation, have taken up the case of non-slavery causes of the Confederate states' secessions.

I'm going to enjoy this thread. More later...

[Metullus]

This argument always falls apart when you ask, "The states' rights to do what?"
The right of the various states to secede from the Union and establish a separate and independent country. It was the secession of the Confederate states to which President Lincoln objected and against which he fought.

We can debate the reasons that the various southern states seceded and the slavery question was certainly one of those reasons, but it was not the only one. It should also be kept in mind that four slave states, Missouri, Kentucky, Delaware, and Maryland, did not secede from the Union, and remained slave states throughout most of the war; Maryland outlawed slavery in 1864, Kentucky, Delaware and Missouri did so in 1865 (IIRC). West Virginia, a state that was formed from several Virginian counties that resisted secession, was also a slave state throughout the war. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation specifically excluded slaves in these states.

[Vic Vega]

Though there certainly were a multitude of reasons for the civil war, I firmly believe that there would have been no Civil War without the issue of slavery.

[fuelair]

Or, if no one/group had attempted to break the unwritten contract that bound the states together (and, it was not the South that did that - they just tried to uphold the principal that a broken contract was no longer a binding contract). And, just for the record, I loathe slavery and a lot of Southern ideas around it and recognize that it was indeed the primary cause of the CW. That has no bearing on the contract situation. I am absolutely convinced that the Southern states had every right to secede. And I suspect that if they had not been the first to fire (stupidity on South's part), it probably would not have happened anyway.

[mijopaalmc]

Or, if no one/group had attempted to break the unwritten contract that bound the states together (and, it was not the South that did that - they just tried to uphold the principal that a broken contract was no longer a binding contract). And, just for the record, I loathe slavery and a lot of Southern ideas around it and recognize that it was indeed the primary cause of the CW. That has no bearing on the contract situation. I am absolutely convinced that the Southern states had every right to secede. And I suspect that if they had not been the first to fire (stupidity on South's part), it probably would not have happened anyway.

Can you point to a contract that founded this nation?

[ImaginalDisc]

The right of the various states to secede from the Union and establish a separate and independent country. It was the secession of the Confederate states to which President Lincoln objected and against which he fought.

We can debate the reasons that the various southern states seceded and the slavery question was certainly one of those reasons, but it was not the only one. It should also be kept in mind that four slave states, Missouri, Kentucky, Delaware, and Maryland, did not secede from the Union, and remained slave states throughout most of the war; Maryland outlawed slavery in 1864, Kentucky, Delaware and Missouri did so in 1865 (IIRC). West Virginia, a state that was formed from several Virginian counties that resisted secession, was also a slave state throughout the war. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation specifically excluded slaves in these states.

I'm sorry, but that dog won't hunt.

You're saying that the Southern States seceded over the issue of whether or not they had the right to seceded. They seceded over the issue of slavery, because slavery had become a bloody, divisive issue in the formation of new states and the openly political divide between southern states with (in Northern eyes) disproportionately large power in congress, and other mutual mistrust stemming for economic and social causes which were all a direct result of slavery. That some slave states did not secede speaks more to the complex nature of the divide between the states than idea that slavery was somehow irrelevant.

[gtc]

This argument always falls apart when you ask, "The states' rights to do what?"

I shall remember this post. You have got right to the heart of the matter.

[Chaos]

The right of the various states to secede from the Union and establish a separate and independent country. It was the secession of the Confederate states to which President Lincoln objected and against which he fought.

But WAS there a right for states to secede? That is the point, I think. My admittedly limited exposure to the subject has not, to date, confronted me with anything that could convince me that such a right existed.

There was, of course, always the option for individual people who didn´t like the way things were to move to a country where things were more to their liking. They may not be allowed to force their view of things on anyone else, but nobody´s forcing them to stay if they don´t like it.

We can debate the reasons that the various southern states seceded and the slavery question was certainly one of those reasons, but it was not the only one. It should also be kept in mind that four slave states, Missouri, Kentucky, Delaware, and Maryland, did not secede from the Union, and remained slave states throughout most of the war; Maryland outlawed slavery in 1864, Kentucky, Delaware and Missouri did so in 1865 (IIRC). West Virginia, a state that was formed from several Virginian counties that resisted secession, was also a slave state throughout the war. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation specifically excluded slaves in these states.

Yeah... from what I´ve read so far, I formed the opinion that the Emancipation Proclamation was basically a propaganda move... plus of course a very useful way for throwing a spanner into the works of the Confederate economy by inducing the slaves to leave and/revolt.

[fuelair]

Can you point to a contract that founded this nation?
Did you catch the "unwritten". Got the theory from PBS many (more than 10) years ago. It is an understood in all contracts (agreements written or not) that the rules/agreements binding the parties together may not be changed by one of the parties without the change being agreed to by all or the contract becoming invalid. The Northern States were working to change the rules under the contract without the approval of the Southern parties, thus nullifying the contract. Lincoln/cronies did not want that so they were ready to try to force compliance counter to the rules. Unfortunately, as noted above, the South was stupid enough to give them a technical reason to fight instead of back off.

Again, please note, this only refers to contracts, their rules and understanding appurtenant to same. I still do not support slavery.

[bethanythemartian]

The reason that I recall (learned this when I went to school in Texas, take that however you like):

The Southern states seceded from the Union was that they though Britain had their back. They wouldn't have seceded otherwise. Britian is a world class consumer of imports with very few worth exporting and was a good portion of the Southern cotton consumer. Around the same time, India began growing high quality cotton.

Although there was a little bit of support, it wasn't what the southern states were expecting. They had known in the beginning that the North would have an advantage, because it would be easy to turn all of those can factories into arms factories, and the south had relatively few industrial resources.

They were relying on Great Britain for those kinds of supplies, and when that fell through they were stuck.

My memory and my teaching may both have been imperfect, but what I gleaned from this was: the South did it because they thought they had a shot at succeeding at seceding, and regardless of their objection to the situation would not have seceded if they had known that Great Britain would have come off as so ambivalent.

[Metullus]

I'm sorry, but that dog won't hunt.

You're saying that the Southern States seceded over the issue of whether or not they had the right to seceded. They seceded over the issue of slavery, because slavery had become a bloody, divisive issue in the formation of new states and the openly political divide between southern states with (in Northern eyes) disproportionately large power in congress, and other mutual mistrust stemming for economic and social causes which were all a direct result of slavery. That some slave states did not secede speaks more to the complex nature of the divide between the states than idea that slavery was somehow irrelevant.No. I am saying that the war was fought over the question of the right of states to secede from the Union. It was that question, and that question alone, that was settled by the war.

Your question, and the question to which I was responding, was:This argument always falls apart when you ask, "The states' rights to do what?"My response was "to secede." My response is correct.

I also pointed out that several slave states remained in the Union and remained slave states for most or all of the war. If the war itself was over the issue of slavery it is difficult to reconcile the fact that the presumably anti-slavery Union included in its ranks no fewer that 5 slave states.

You might well argue that the issue of slavery was the reason that the Confederate states seceded, but that is a different question from the one you asked and I answered.

[Metullus]

But WAS there a right for states to secede? That is the point, I think. My admittedly limited exposure to the subject has not, to date, confronted me with anything that could convince me that such a right existed.That is a good question and one of which I have at some point or another in my life come down on both sides. My opinion is that, with one exception, the answer is "no". The exception, of course, is Texas, which, when it became a state, explicitly retained the right to secede.

There was, of course, always the option for individual people who didn´t like the way things were to move to a country where things were more to their liking. They may not be allowed to force their view of things on anyone else, but nobody´s forcing them to stay if they don´t like it.The thing is that prior to the War for Southern Independence most people saw themselves as citizens of their states first and USAians second. They identified themselves as Texans or Virginians or Kentuckians rather than as Americans - not unlike the various German kingdoms / states in the early part of the last century, where many people identified themselves as Bavarians or Hessians or Swabians rather than as Germans. Their first loyalty was to their state and only secondarily to the country.

Yeah... from what I´ve read so far, I formed the opinion that the Emancipation Proclamation was basically a propaganda move... plus of course a very useful way for throwing a spanner into the works of the Confederate economy by inducing the slaves to leave and/revolt.Exactly.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Maybe we should back up. Why did they seccede? My answer is in a large part that they were afraid the North would no longer support their interests. Which is not a bad thing, but not good either. The North was slowly growing overwhelmingly antislavery, and Lincoln was just the straw that broke the camel's back.

.. I note with interest someone's nonposting.

[Metullus]

Maybe we should back up. Why did they seccede? My answer is in a large part that they were afraid the North would no longer support their interests. Which is not a bad thing, but not good either. The North was slowly growing overwhelmingly antislavery, and Lincoln was just the straw that broke the camel's back.

.. I note with interest someone's nonposting.My take on the principal impetus for secession:

While the moral question represented by slavery played a significant part, what it really boils down to is economics. The Southern states' primary trading partner was Great Britain, to whom they sold cotton (and I think tobacco) for higher prices than they could get from the Northern states and from whom they imported goods more cheaply than similar goods could be obtained from the Northern states. For the cash strapped agricultural economy of the South trade with Britain was a must.

This, of course, did not go over well with the industrialized and industrializing Northern states, who saw trade opportunities that were, in their view, rightly theirs, being stolen. The North needed the cotton but could not meet the prices paid by the far richer British; the North needed the Southern markets but could not match either the prices or, at the time, the quality of imported British goods. To the Northern states a system of tariffs looked good - it would level the playing field and remove the British trade advantage in the South. It would also, or so many Southerners thought, play havoc upon the Southern economy.

In the 1850s Northern states gained in population and influence to the point that they could dictate economic policies in the South, and it was this that led to secession. The election of Lincoln, a Republican, was, as you said, the last straw.

[Metullus]

Though there certainly were a multitude of reasons for the civil war, I firmly believe that there would have been no Civil War without the issue of slavery.Do you believe that if there was no slavery and states seceded for other reasons unrelated to slavery there would have been no Civil War?

[mijopaalmc]

I posted this in the Possible Montana Secession? thread, but I thought it was relevant to the topic here:

But the problem here is that, with the exception of the land that belonged to the original Thirteen Colonies that was incorporated into the states as they ratified the Constitution, all of the land that became the states of the United States first belonged to the federal government by treaty with other foreign powers. It was then organized by organic act and granted statehood by enabling act, but at no time did the land itself leave the ownership of the federal government. Thus, a state government that declares itself its own sovereign nation "becomes" a nation that is illegally "occupying" the sovereign territory of the United States and is therefore subject to invasion by the United States in order to regain its sovereign territory.

[fuelair]

The reason that I recall (learned this when I went to school in Texas, take that however you like):

The Southern states seceded from the Union was that they though Britain had their back. They wouldn't have seceded otherwise. Britian is a world class consumer of imports with very few worth exporting and was a good portion of the Southern cotton consumer. Around the same time, India began growing high quality cotton.

Although there was a little bit of support, it wasn't what the southern states were expecting. They had known in the beginning that the North would have an advantage, because it would be easy to turn all of those can factories into arms factories, and the south had relatively few industrial resources.

They were relying on Great Britain for those kinds of supplies, and when that fell through they were stuck.

My memory and my teaching may both have been imperfect, but what I gleaned from this was: the South did it because they thought they had a shot at succeeding at seceding, and regardless of their objection to the situation would not have seceded if they had known that Great Britain would have come off as so ambivalent.So they pulled a Bay of Pigs on the South.

[Loss Leader]

Though there certainly were a multitude of reasons for the civil war, I firmly believe that there would have been no Civil War without the issue of slavery.


Perhaps there would have been no Civil War but I think that also might have meant no USA. The Civil War settled the question of federalism v. confederation. Before the war, the North wasn't much more interested in a federalist system than the South. They adopted it as a matter of necessity during the fighting. It's that federal system that made us strong enough to become a world power during the first half of the twentieth century.

Had there been no Civil War, I don't think we could have come together as fast or as well to fight in the World Wars.



The Northern States were working to change the rules under the contract without the approval of the Southern parties, thus nullifying the contract. Lincoln/cronies did not want that so they were ready to try to force compliance counter to the rules. Unfortunately, as noted above, the South was stupid enough to give them a technical reason to fight instead of back off.


Completely incorrect. While it may be slightly helpful to think of a contract analogy, the laws of contract have absolutely no bearing on anything related to the Civil War. There are equally good reasons to discard the contract analogy:

1. The terms of the "contract" had been constantly shifting since its inception including the Alien and Sedition Acts, Marbury v. Madison and more;

2. Contracts must be for definite terms and cannot be an agreement to agree. The "contract" between the states left many issues up for future interpretation;

3. The Constitution was not a "contract" between the states but between all the people living in them. The Constitution begins, "We, the people ..." Furthermore, contracts must be signed by every person bound by their terms. The Constitution was not signed by every citizen of the US alive in 1789, let alone 1860.

The Civil War was an act of politics. Law - including contract law - had nothing to do with it.

[Hutch]

It should also be kept in mind that four slave states, Missouri, Kentucky, Delaware, and Maryland, did not secede from the Union, and remained slave states throughout most of the war.

Just a quick historical note; Missouri actually did secede, the legal elected State Government (pro-Confederate) passed an ordinance of secession, but were busy running for their lives at the time as Union troops were rapidly overrunning the state. And Maryland damn near went out, it took a lot of work (and some shooting) by Lincoln to keep them in. For a few days early in the war, Washington DC was cut off by secession-minded Marylanders in Baltimore.

Kentucky tried to start off by being neutral, of all things, being delicately balance in pro- and anti-slavery populations, and with a governor that was pro-South and a legislature that was pro-Union. It was a very touchy situation, and Kentucky finally came down on the side of the Union by a Conferderate "invasion" (ably countered by one Ulysess Simpson Grant).


More later after I do some reading. Press On.

[JoeEllison]

Yeah. I started with a big post trying to premptively unravel those arguments, but I stopped when I realized it was going to invole historic beef and pork prices and gave the whole thing up.

Have you enjoyed the convoluted non-logic involved in supporting the South's "right to secede" in order to maintain ownership of other human beings? :rolleyes:

[Metullus]

Have you enjoyed the convoluted non-logic involved in supporting the South's "right to secede" in order to maintain ownership of other human beings? :rolleyes:I must have missed those posts.

[Metullus]

I posted this in the Possible Montana Secession? thread, but I thought it was relevant to the topic here:Not quite correct. Texas was an independent republic and never federal land.

[Loss Leader]

Not quite correct. Texas was an independent republic and never federal land.


It was also never an independent republic.

[Metullus]

Just a quick historical note; Missouri actually did secede, the legal elected State Government (pro-Confederate) passed an ordinance of secession, but were busy running for their lives at the time as Union troops were rapidly overrunning the state. And Maryland damn near went out, it took a lot of work (and some shooting) by Lincoln to keep them in. For a few days early in the war, Washington DC was cut off by secession-minded Marylanders in Baltimore.

Kentucky tried to start off by being neutral, of all things, being delicately balance in pro- and anti-slavery populations, and with a governor that was pro-South and a legislature that was pro-Union. It was a very touchy situation, and Kentucky finally came down on the side of the Union by a Conferderate "invasion" (ably countered by one Ulysess Simpson Grant).


More later after I do some reading. Press On.You are, of course, correct. The important points are that there were slave states in the Union and in those states, as well as in Confederate states under Union control, slavery was not abolished until very late in the war.

[Metullus]

It was also never an independent republic.I will need to check but as I recall the Republic of Texas was a sovereign country from 1836 to 1845. It had 4 or 5 presidents - I think Sam Houston served twice.

I might, however, be wrong. It has happened before and will certainly happen again.

In any event Texas was never federal land.

[mijopaalmc]

While I welcome correction of my shamefully facile knowledge of my own natal country's history, my overarching point is not seriously effected by the fact that Texas may have never been federal lands, because by and large the rest of the United States, with the possible exception of the the original Thirteen Colonies established by royal charter, has been carved into states in the fashion which I summarized above (i.e., it entered the dominion of the United States as unorganized federal government land by treaty with foreign governments, was organized and a certain degree of self-government by organic act, and was was given the same constitutional granted autonomy as other states by enabling act).

[Metullus]

While I welcome correction of my shamefully facile knowledge of my own natal country's history, my overarching point is not seriously effected by the fact that Texas may have never been federal lands, because by and large the rest of the United States, with the possible exception of the the original Thirteen Colonies established by royal charter, has been carved into states in the fashion which I summarized above (i.e., it entered the dominion of the United States as unorganized federal government land by treaty with foreign governments, was organized and a certain degree of self-government by organic act, and was was given the same constitutional granted autonomy as other states by enabling act).Your point is well made and I had no intention of suggesting otherwise. It is interesting to note that of the 10 seceding states, 5 (Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, & Texas) would never have been federal land, and thus arguably would not be subject to the strictures you note.

Please note that I do not think any of the states except Texas enjoyed a particular "right" to secession under the Constitution.

[Chaos]

*snip*

The thing is that prior to the War for Southern Independence most people saw themselves as citizens of their states first and USAians second. They identified themselves as Texans or Virginians or Kentuckians rather than as Americans - not unlike the various German kingdoms / states in the early part of the last century, where many people identified themselves as Bavarians or Hessians or Swabians rather than as Germans. Their first loyalty was to their state and only secondarily to the country.
*snip*

That suggests an interesting analogy.

Namely, that the Civil War was more or less equivalent to the Thirty Years´ War, with the Habsburg emperor (plus Bavaria, plus loyalists) instead of the Union, the various Protestant rebellions as the Confederates, and the struggle of Reformation vs. Counter-Reformation as the Casus Belli. Except that in the Thirty Years´ War, the "rebels" were more or less successful in the end.

[bethanythemartian]

I will need to check but as I recall the Republic of Texas was a sovereign country from 1836 to 1845. It had 4 or 5 presidents - I think Sam Houston served twice.

I might, however, be wrong. It has happened before and will certainly happen again.

In any event Texas was never federal land.

Indeed, you're correct. At least, my recollection of Texas history is in line with yours.

It's the reason why the Texan flag is considered one of the six flags that have flown over Texas. It was for a very short time after the war with Mexico for independence succeeded that Texas was its own republic. That's also the reason for one star on the state flag (which is why it's called the Lone Star State, if we're going to get into the duh category here).

And yes, because Texans were so divided over the issue, when they were annexed they did put the 'with room to secede' somewhere in the contract. Still, to this day, many people in Texas wish to break it back off into its own republic.

[Gazpacho]

There were two waves of secession.

The first wave was states that undeniably seceded to preserve the institution of slavery. Four of them produced declarations (http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html) that said this unequivocally. They did not mention tariffs, nor a single "state right" except as it related to the preservation of slavery.

The second wave was slaveholding states that refused Lincoln's demand for troops to suppress the others, because the seceding states had no sins of which they were not themselves guilty.

The Crittenden Compromise was the last effort at avoiding secession. It consisted of several amendments to the constitution, all directly related to slavery.

It was also never an independent republic.
You are mistaken.
I think Sam Houston served twice.
One of the most disgraceful acts of the secessionists was to depose Houston as governor when he defied them.

[Loss Leader]

You are mistaken.



Calling oneself an independent nation does not actually make one an independent nation.

[Gazpacho]

Calling oneself an independent nation does not actually make one an independent nation.
Texas was independent for 10 years, during which it had a constitution, a legislature, several presidents, and diplomatic contacts with other countries.

PS: When you drill for oil in Texas, the state gets the royalties, not the federal government as in every state that was created from federal territory.

[Byzantine Magpie]

Metellus said: It was the secession of the Confederate states to which President Lincoln objected and against which he fought.

I would beg to disagree.

Lincoln’s message in the years before his election was anti-slavery, and he was elected on an anti-slavery agenda. Yes, it’s true that in the period immediately after his inauguration he spoke of preserving the Union rather than fighting slavery, but this was in the context of minimising the number of slave states which might secede – in the political realities of the time, if he had led the Union to war in 1861 on the grounds of fighting slavery, the border slave states like Kentucky and Delaware would almost certainly have seceded as well, which would have made the Union’s job much harder.

Lincoln benefited in another way from making preservation of the Union the issue – that way he forced the secessionists to fire the first shot, giving the Union the moral high ground. Had abolition been the issue, he would have been morally obliged to invade the secessionist states to free the slaves, and thus would have been cast as the aggressor.

I am saying that the war was fought over the question of the right of states to secede from the Union. It was that question, and that question alone, that was settled by the war…You might well argue that the issue of slavery was the reason that the Confederate states seceded, but that is a different question from the one you asked and I answered.

With respect, I think this is taking a pedantically narrow view of the issues at stake. Yes, Lincoln said, “You have no oath registered in Heaven to destroy the Government, while I have the most solemn one to preserve and defend it.” That makes it sound like he was presenting secession as the casus belli. But this is to ignore the wider context of Lincoln’s views, as expressed in the years prior to his election. It also ignores the reason that many people volunteered for the Union armies. Yes, many enlisted to preserve the Union, or because service in the Army paid and fed well, or because they’d get citizenship at the end. But there were many Abolitionists in the Union Army as well, who went to war to end slavery. It was these attitudes which transformed the war from its narrow, technical basis to its broader goal of abolishing slavery.

I’d suggest that a useful comparison would be World War One. The various nations of Europe technically went to war over Austria-Hungary’s aggression against Serbia. Does that mean that Germany, Turkey and Bulgaria supported the right of A-H to invade Serbia, and that Russia, France, Italy, Britain and the USA fought to oppose that right? Of course not. There were all sorts of other issues at stake, but it was A-H’s threat to invade Serbia which started the whole thing off.

While the moral question represented by slavery played a significant part, what it really boils down to is economics.

I won’t argue that economics played a part. But I think you’re wrong to ignore the issue of the creation of new states from out of unorganised Federal territory in the west. Which of these states would be free, and which would allow slaves, and how would this decision be made? Lincoln opposed the spreading of slavery anywhere outside where it existed at the time, which I understand the slave states considered intolerable, because of the long term consequences for the continuation of slavery. This isn’t an economic issue, but a combined political/moral one.

To summarise: Lincoln was morally opposed to slavery, and the people who elected him and who opposed him were well aware of it. The fact that he used secession as the issue to justify the start of the war, rather than slavery, was a consequence of his shaky political position at the time. It wasn’t until the strategic situation had improved (thus reducing his requirement to rely on moderate pro-slave support) that he could cast the war in more stark moral terms.

[Loss Leader]

To summarise: Lincoln was morally opposed to slavery, and the people who elected him and who opposed him were well aware of it. The fact that he used secession as the issue to justify the start of the war, rather than slavery, was a consequence of his shaky political position at the time. It wasn’t until the strategic situation had improved (thus reducing his requirement to rely on moderate pro-slave support) that he could cast the war in more stark moral terms.



Well, I don't think he had to justify the start of the war to the nation seeing as the war started when the South began shooting at them.

[bigred]

I would beg to disagree.

Lincoln’s message in the years before his election was anti-slavery, and he was elected on an anti-slavery agenda. Yes, it’s true that in the period immediately after his inauguration he spoke of preserving the Union rather than fighting slavery, but this was in the context of minimising the number of slave states which might secede – in the political realities of the time, if he had led the Union to war in 1861 on the grounds of fighting slavery, the border slave states like Kentucky and Delaware would almost certainly have seceded as well, which would have made the Union’s job much harder.

Lincoln benefited in another way from making preservation of the Union the issue – that way he forced the secessionists to fire the first shot, giving the Union the moral high ground. Had abolition been the issue, he would have been morally obliged to invade the secessionist states to free the slaves, and thus would have been cast as the aggressor.



With respect, I think this is taking a pedantically narrow view of the issues at stake. Yes, Lincoln said, “You have no oath registered in Heaven to destroy the Government, while I have the most solemn one to preserve and defend it.” That makes it sound like he was presenting secession as the casus belli. But this is to ignore the wider context of Lincoln’s views, as expressed in the years prior to his election. It also ignores the reason that many people volunteered for the Union armies. Yes, many enlisted to preserve the Union, or because service in the Army paid and fed well, or because they’d get citizenship at the end. But there were many Abolitionists in the Union Army as well, who went to war to end slavery. It was these attitudes which transformed the war from its narrow, technical basis to its broader goal of abolishing slavery.

I’d suggest that a useful comparison would be World War One. The various nations of Europe technically went to war over Austria-Hungary’s aggression against Serbia. Does that mean that Germany, Turkey and Bulgaria supported the right of A-H to invade Serbia, and that Russia, France, Italy, Britain and the USA fought to oppose that right? Of course not. There were all sorts of other issues at stake, but it was A-H’s threat to invade Serbia which started the whole thing off.



I won’t argue that economics played a part. But I think you’re wrong to ignore the issue of the creation of new states from out of unorganised Federal territory in the west. Which of these states would be free, and which would allow slaves, and how would this decision be made? Lincoln opposed the spreading of slavery anywhere outside where it existed at the time, which I understand the slave states considered intolerable, because of the long term consequences for the continuation of slavery. This isn’t an economic issue, but a combined political/moral one.

To summarise: Lincoln was morally opposed to slavery, and the people who elected him and who opposed him were well aware of it. The fact that he used secession as the issue to justify the start of the war, rather than slavery, was a consequence of his shaky political position at the time. It wasn’t until the strategic situation had improved (thus reducing his requirement to rely on moderate pro-slave support) that he could cast the war in more stark moral terms.
You said it far better than I would've.

I'm both grateful and somewhat resentful. :mad: ;)

[gtc]

Well, I don't think he had to justify the start of the war to the nation seeing as the war started when the South began shooting at them.

Morally, no. However, he did need the nation to back him.

[JA Demko]

RE: Texas reserved right to secede

Neither the 1836 nor 1876 Texas consitutions contain any such provision.

[mijopaalmc]

RE: Texas reserved right to secede

Neither the 1836 nor 1876 Texas consitutions contain any such provision.

Neither does the US Constitution (or, to the best of my knowledge, any state constitution) contain such an explicit right to secede.

[Metullus]

Metellus said:

I would beg to disagree.

Lincoln’s message in the years before his election was anti-slavery, and he was elected on an anti-slavery agenda. Yes, it’s true that in the period immediately after his inauguration he spoke of preserving the Union rather than fighting slavery, but this was in the context of minimising the number of slave states which might secede – in the political realities of the time, if he had led the Union to war in 1861 on the grounds of fighting slavery, the border slave states like Kentucky and Delaware would almost certainly have seceded as well, which would have made the Union’s job much harder.

Lincoln benefited in another way from making preservation of the Union the issue – that way he forced the secessionists to fire the first shot, giving the Union the moral high ground. Had abolition been the issue, he would have been morally obliged to invade the secessionist states to free the slaves, and thus would have been cast as the aggressor. I do not disagree with what you here. I would suggest, however, that Lincoln what have acted no differently regardless of the motivations of the secessionist states.

With respect, I think this is taking a pedantically narrow view of the issues at stake. Yes, Lincoln said, “You have no oath registered in Heaven to destroy the Government, while I have the most solemn one to preserve and defend it.” That makes it sound like he was presenting secession as the casus belli. But this is to ignore the wider context of Lincoln’s views, as expressed in the years prior to his election. It also ignores the reason that many people volunteered for the Union armies. Yes, many enlisted to preserve the Union, or because service in the Army paid and fed well, or because they’d get citizenship at the end. But there were many Abolitionists in the Union Army as well, who went to war to end slavery. It was these attitudes which transformed the war from its narrow, technical basis to its broader goal of abolishing slavery.I do not disagree with what you say here. I do not doubt that Lincoln was anti-slavery. I would suggest, however, that Lincoln what have acted no differently regardless of the motivations of the secessionist states. You are not arguing, are you, that had a state or states seceded because of, say, tariffs or unfair taxation or other disagreement with national policy, Lincoln would have stood by and done nothing?

As to the motives of many of the the volunteers on the Union side: certainly abolition was a not insignificant motive, perhaps the most significant - I would not argue otherwise. I would, however, be surprised if the defense of slavery was the most significant driving force in the volunteers that fought for the south. My view on their motivations is akin to the position of Phillip Lee when he declared his support of the Union - if the Union survived he would support it, if the Union failed he was for Kentucky, if Kentucky failed he was for Bullitt County, if Bullitt County fell apart he was for his hometown, if his hometown dissolved he was for his side of the street. (paraphrased from memory, forgive me if I screwed it up.)

I’d suggest that a useful comparison would be World War One. The various nations of Europe technically went to war over Austria-Hungary’s aggression against Serbia. Does that mean that Germany, Turkey and Bulgaria supported the right of A-H to invade Serbia, and that Russia, France, Italy, Britain and the USA fought to oppose that right? Of course not. There were all sorts of other issues at stake, but it was A-H’s threat to invade Serbia which started the whole thing off.I take your meaning. I think that a more apt analogy would be WWII in Europe. WWII, which became in the end a war against Nazism did not begin as such. Had Hitler not invaded Poland it is entirely possible that the Western European act of the World War would not have happened. Prior to September 1939 what later became the Allied nations sought peaceful co-existence with the Nazi regime. It was only after the war began that the west undertook the war on Nazism.


I won’t argue that economics played a part. But I think you’re wrong to ignore the issue of the creation of new states from out of unorganised Federal territory in the west. Which of these states would be free, and which would allow slaves, and how would this decision be made? Lincoln opposed the spreading of slavery anywhere outside where it existed at the time, which I understand the slave states considered intolerable, because of the long term consequences for the continuation of slavery. This isn’t an economic issue, but a combined political/moral one.I would change your last sentence to say that it "isn't just an economic issue..." but otherwise I would generally agree with you. I think that it is easy to understate the economic impact that, in the Southern view, the abolition of slavery would have had. I do not think that one can realistically separate the economic questions from the political and moral issues of slavery.

I was not ignoring the issue of the creation of new non-slave states and the impact that it had on the decision of many of the Southern states to secede. It was this that I think to no small degree encouraged the feeling of political impotence that led to secession.


To summarise: Lincoln was morally opposed to slavery, and the people who elected him and who opposed him were well aware of it. The fact that he used secession as the issue to justify the start of the war, rather than slavery, was a consequence of his shaky political position at the time. It wasn’t until the strategic situation had improved (thus reducing his requirement to rely on moderate pro-slave support) that he could cast the war in more stark moral terms.But even when he had the south on the defensive (post July 1863) he did not move to eradicate slavery in the areas over which he had control.

[dudalb]

Calling oneself an independent nation does not actually make one an independent nation.

Are we talking De Jure or De Facto here.
Texas was a De Facto Independent nation from 1836 to when it was annexed to the Union in 1845.
Slavery might not have been the only cause of the Civil War,but it was the major one.
Without Slavery,the differences between North and South could have been peacefully adjusted. With it,there was no way.

[Byzantine Magpie]

I said:To summarise: Lincoln was morally opposed to slavery, and the people who elected him and who opposed him were well aware of it. The fact that he used secession as the issue to justify the start of the war, rather than slavery, was a consequence of his shaky political position at the time. It wasn’t until the strategic situation had improved (thus reducing his requirement to rely on moderate pro-slave support) that he could cast the war in more stark moral terms.

Loss Leader replied:Well, I don't think he had to justify the start of the war to the nation seeing as the war started when the South began shooting at them.

No, but the point is that the South shot first because he'd maneuvered them into that position. It's possible he could have acted in a different way, in which the North shot first; say, if he'd announced an aggressive war to end slavery in the South. If that had happened, Lincoln wouldn't have got the broad support he did in 1861.

[Byzantine Magpie]

You said it far better than I would've.

Thank you.

I'm both grateful and somewhat resentful. :mad: ;)

Thank you, I think. :-)

[Byzantine Magpie]

But even when he had the south on the defensive (post July 1863) he did not move to eradicate slavery in the areas over which he had control.

From what little I've read on the subject, Lincoln had two main concerns - that such an announcement could unnecessarily antagonise the pro-Union slave states, and that he didn't have the legal right to interfere in a matter each state had to decide on. He therefore presented the Emancipation Declaration in the context of a military matter, which therefore only applied in lands in rebellion against the government.

In that sense, Lincoln's behaviour is similar to that of the Allies in World War Two with regard to the Holocaust - the best way to stop it was to defeat Germany. And so with slavery - the best way to end it in the pro-Union slave states was to conquer the Confederacy and let Kentucky and Maryland etc do the sums for themselves.

Having said all that, I wonder if anything has been written about the operation of slavery in the pro-Union slave states during the Civil War, until the abolition of slavery. How many slave owners freed their slaves voluntarily? Did slaves still run away? What was done to captured slaves?

[Metullus]

From what little I've read on the subject, Lincoln had two main concerns - that such an announcement could unnecessarily antagonise the pro-Union slave states, and that he didn't have the legal right to interfere in a matter each state had to decide on. He therefore presented the Emancipation Declaration in the context of a military matter, which therefore only applied in lands in rebellion against the government.I think that is a fair assessment. If I recall correctly the edict did not apply in Confederate areas under Union control either.

In that sense, Lincoln's behaviour is similar to that of the Allies in World War Two with regard to the Holocaust - the best way to stop it was to defeat Germany. And so with slavery - the best way to end it in the pro-Union slave states was to conquer the Confederacy and let Kentucky and Maryland etc do the sums for themselves.I quite agree with your analogy - in fact I probably would take it farther than do you. In WWII the destruction of Nazism and the ending of the Holocaust were both secondary, albeit welcome, outcomes of the sought after defeat of Germany; neither, however, was the reason that the Western democracies went to war against Germany. Likewise, I think, to Lincoln and the Republican North, the end of institution of slavery in North America was a welcome and likely outcome of the defeat of the Confederacy, but it was not, in my view, the reason the war was fought.

Having said all that, I wonder if anything has been written about the operation of slavery in the pro-Union slave states during the Civil War, until the abolition of slavery. How many slave owners freed their slaves voluntarily? Did slaves still run away? What was done to captured slaves?I will look in my library - I am certain that I have some materials on this very subject but since my illness I have had some difficulty in easily recalling references that were previously close to hand. I will post them when I find them.

[ImaginalDisc]

Have you enjoyed the convoluted non-logic involved in supporting the South's "right to secede" in order to maintain ownership of other human beings? :rolleyes:

Immensely. The idea that the South broke away over over whether or not they had the right to break away is hysterical. No other source of tension or mistrust existed at all, oh no.

It's not as if the two divergent cultures had utterly incompatible economic and social plans, which were brought into direct conflict by the westard expansion and the steady creation of new states which threatened the balance of power between them and the superiority of Northern businesses in securing control over the fate of the nation's economy stirred up any resentment among both the poor free Southerners with their agrarian economy and their wealthier, landowning, slave owning neighbors alike into a sort of fractional, fratricidal sub-patriotism.

It's not as if the Mason-Dixon line compromise over the slave-or-free issue of new states lead to Bloody Kansas and the beating of Senator Charles Sumner by Senator Prestor Brooks for having the temerity to criticize the open praise Southerners heaped on pro-slavery thugs in Kansas and Senator Brooks being innundated with fresh canes from Southerners while being villified by Northerners.

The expansion of western cattle operations and Nothern slaughterhouses tied together by train in no way depreciated the poor Southern farmer's swine values and hurt them all in their pocketbooks creating widespread resentment, because that sort of economic decline doesn't harm even those people not directly involved in raising, butchering, preserving, and distributing pork.

Nope, like soap opera characters who get a divorce over whether or not they're allowed to have a divorce, slavery wasn't a factor.

I'm not a historian, but I can read, and the issue of slavery colors every domestic issue in the United States for nearly a century.

[Praktik]

It's not as if the Mason-Dixon line compromise over the slave-or-free issue of new states lead to Bloody Kansas and the beating of Senator Charles Sumner by Senator Prestor Brooks for having the temerity to criticize the open praise Southerners heaped on pro-slavery thugs in Kansas and Senator Brooks being innundated with fresh canes from Southerners while being villified by Northerners.

I think this touches on something we haven't discussed here yet though I think the major points of contention between the North and South have all been elucidated well. The one thing we haven't discussed is the portrayal of those points of contention by politicians and the general rhetoric of the era.

I got the bug to read more into this after consuming a few books on John Brown's ill-fated rebellion and I just wanted to know - how did we get from there to a Civil War?

So I picked up "And then the War Came..." (http://www.amazon.com/War-Came-Louisiana-Paperbacks-L53/dp/080710101X/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1204656649&sr=8-9) on the recommendation of an old professor of mine.

While I think the problems between the factions were nearly insoluble what made them that way was the way the factions talked to each other and to themselves about each other.

If you take John Brown's rebellion for example there was a whole flurry of commentary on the event in the south and in the north. In the north he was lionized as a martyr and while there were clucking of tongue's regarding his methods there was much out there sympathetic to his cause and sometimes even to his means. In the south it showed them the intractable nature of the abolotionist threat, the degree to which these people were impossible to negotiate with. Alarmist writings proliferated predicting further events like this if immediate steps weren't taken to increase the readiness of militias and show strength. Writers in the south would comment on commentary up North sympathetic to Brown as evidence of the North's threatening hostility to the south, Northern writers could point to Southern tracts calling for readiness as evidence of their threatening hostility.

So my reading on this has been casual and spread out over the past few years at intervals so i haven't retained enough of it to keep going but I do have the impression from my intermittent research that the Civil War was not just the result of "real issues" and "real differences" but rather that it was that these differences were exploited in a factional atmosphere to partisan advantage.

There was a kind of hysteria that was provoked on both sides and nurtured for many years before it finally all blew up....

[Metullus]

Immensely. The idea that the South broke away over over whether or not they had the right to break away is hysterical. No other source of tension or mistrust existed at all, oh no. *snip*I must have missed that post as well. Can you point me to it?

[ImaginalDisc]

I must have missed that post as well. Can you point me to it?

Someone else must be using your account, then.

No. I am saying that the war was fought over the question of the right of states to secede from the Union. It was that question, and that question alone, that was settled by the war.

Your question, and the question to which I was responding, was:My response was "to secede." My response is correct.

Emphasis added. You have clearly stated the South seceded over the issue of whether or not they had the right to seceed. It's right there in black and white.

[mijopaalmc]

I must have missed that post as well. Can you point me to it?

Someone else must be using your account, then.

No. I am saying that the war was fought over the question of the right of states to secede from the Union. It was that question, and that question alone, that was settled by the war.

Your question, and the question to which I was responding, was:My response was "to secede." My response is correct.

Emphasis added. You have clearly stated the South secceded over the issue of whether or not they had the right to secceed. It's right there in black and white.

So are you saying that the idea that the South seceded purely over the right to secede is as patently absurd as the idea that the South seceded purely over the right to own slaves?

[Metullus]

Someone else must be using your account, then.





Emphasis added. You have clearly stated the South secceded over the issue of whether or not they had the right to secceed. It's right there in black and white.Nope. Nice quote mining though.

I said:
No. I am saying that the war was fought over the question of the right of states to secede from the Union. It was that question, and that question alone, that was settled by the war.

Your question, and the question to which I was responding, was:This argument always falls apart when you ask, "The states' rights to do what?"

My response was "to secede." My response is correct.

I also pointed out that several slave states remained in the Union and remained slave states for most or all of the war. If the war itself was over the issue of slavery it is difficult to reconcile the fact that the presumably anti-slavery Union included in its ranks no fewer that 5 slave states.

You might well argue that the issue of slavery was the reason that the Confederate states seceded, but that is a different question from the one you asked and I answered.(Emphasis added)

I did not say that the states seceded over their right to secede. Not even close.

I clearly differentiated between what the war was about - secession -and what the reasons for the secession. I do not know how I could have made it any clearer.

Using large fonts and sarcasm does not make your assertion any more true.

[Gazpacho]

Lincoln might well have allowed the southern states to secede, if they had negotiated a settlement of their affairs in the federal government first. In particular, they would have to assume a share of the federal debt.

By seceding unilaterally and giving Washington the finger, they sealed their fate. Personally I'm glad they did, since there isn't one southern state that isn't better off as a result.

[ImaginalDisc]

So are you saying that the idea that the South seceded purely over the right to secede is as patently absurd as the idea that the South seceded purely over the right to own slaves?

Post #51 contains some of the proximate causes for the war. The ultimate cause was, however, slavery. Slavery shaped the economy and culture of the South into something resembling European Feudalism, while the North underwent the industrial revolution. Those two economies were difficult to interface, and created a strong cultural and political divide between the two sides with very different ways of life and created a chasm within the federal legislature that was only widened as each new State sent Senators and Representatives into the political struggle and could potentially swing the balance of power either way.

Claiming that the war was fought over slavery - as though the North was full of nothing but grim jawed abolitionists all singing "John Brown's body lies a-mouldering in the grave. . ." while the South was full of plantation dwelling, slave owning, gentleman soldiers who had traded in their white suits for crisp West Point uniforms and then Confederate grey when their State called - is as false as saying it was fought over the issue of secession. There were a myriad of proximate causes and they were so tender and salient that the issue of slavery wasn't even put to rest until well after the war.

However, claiming that the ultimate cause of the war was anything other than slavery is absurd.

[Metullus]

Lincoln might well have allowed the southern states to secede, if they had negotiated a settlement of their affairs in the federal government first. In particular, they would have to assume a share of the federal debt.

By seceding unilaterally and giving Washington the finger, they sealed their fate. Personally I'm glad they did, since there isn't one southern state that isn't better off as a result.A hundred years ago in grad school we debated this very question. Our consensus at the time was that ultimately it was politically impossible for Lincoln and the Congress to let the south secede unhindered - that no president and no Congress would willingly preside over the dissolution of the Union. Add to the purely political (and, yes, moral) questions the potential economic consequences coupled with the very real likelihood of conflict in the western territories it is probable that war was inevitable.

Grad students take themselves so very seriously so this was, of course, the last word on the issue.:)

[Metullus]

ImaginalDisc:

Do you agree that you were mistaken when you said: You have clearly stated the South secceded over the issue of whether or not they had the right to secceed. It's right there in black and white.

[ImaginalDisc]

ImaginalDisc:

Do you agree that you were mistaken when you said:

I think it's pretty clearly what you wrote, but if I hastily misread you and you meant something else, mea culpa.

[Metullus]

I think it's pretty clearly what you wrote, but if I hastily misread you and you meant something else, mea culpa.It is neither what I wrote nor what I meant. I regret that you misread what I wrote. I appreciate that you are willing to consider the possibility that you misread it.

Do you mind if I ask you in what way my posts were unclear to you? I am not interested in starting a flame war and will understand it if you want to drop the subject - I am not out to count coup - but I was, I thought, taking pains to separate the issues in order to avoid just the sort of misunderstanding we have here encountered.

[ImaginalDisc]

It is neither what I wrote nor what I meant. I regret that you misread what I wrote. I appreciate that you are willing to consider the possibility that you misread it.

Do you mind if I ask you in what way my posts were unclear to you? I am not interested in starting a flame war and will understand it if you want to drop the subject - I am not out to count coup - but I was, I thought, taking pains to separate the issues in order to avoid just the sort of misunderstanding we have here encountered.

Your first post clearly, to me, states that the State's Rights in question was the right to seceed as opposed to the right to the insitution of slavery.

Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc
This argument always falls apart when you ask, "The states' rights to do what?"

Your reply.

The right of the various states to secede from the Union and establish a separate and independent country. It was the secession of the Confederate states to which President Lincoln objected and against which he fought.



While it's clear that the most politically unifying banner for the Union was "the preservation of the Union" and it formed the most swiftly stated and most widely supported justification for the war on the part of the North, the ultimate cause of all the strife leading up to the war was unquestionably slavery and without the insitution of slavery the Civil war would not have transpired. The root of the division and conflict was slavery.

[drkitten]

It is neither what I wrote nor what I meant. I regret that you misread what I wrote. I appreciate that you are willing to consider the possibility that you misread it.

The basic problem : the right to secede is more or less meaningless in the absence of a desire to secede. The Confederacy indeed chose to secede, and at gunpoint, if necessary, but they didn't do so in a vacuum or simply to prove a point.

There was a very real cause for the secession movement. That cause? I submit that it was slavery. The Southern states wanted to secede because they felt that only through secession could they secure their right to own slaves. Secession was an instrument, not a cause.

And the cause was "slavery."

So when people, like the various neo-Nazis and Ronulans, come along and say that the South was justified in attempting to secede, they're not simply saying that they should have had the right. They're saying that they had the right and the justification.

[Metullus]

Your first post clearly, to me, states that the State's Rights in question was the right to seceed as opposed to the right to the insitution of slavery.Just so you see where I am coming from:

The OP says in part: So, Jerome da Gnome: You think the primary cause is states rights. Can you explain how you got here?Which I took to refer to the war and not to the reasons for secession, which, given the thread title, is not, I think, an unreasonable inference.

Your comment in the 2nd post was:This argument always falls apart when you ask, "The states' rights to do what?"Since at this point in the thread there had been no mention of secession but only of the war I interpreted your comment to make reference to "states' rights" as the causus belli, and thus my response - the right of secession.

When you later misrepresented my response I took care to respond and segregate the issues of the war and secession and their respective causes.

This you evidently ignored or misread.

[Metullus]

The basic problem : the right to secede is more or less meaningless in the absence of a desire to secede.You might as well say that the right to free speech is more or less meaningless in the absence of a desire to speak. At the time of the Civil War the country was a mere 80+ years old. The hard choices and sacrifices with which the rights to self determination were won were fresh in memory. Rebellion, albeit on a small scale, against the Federal government was not unknown. The possibility of secession, however remote, was always present.

The Confederacy indeed chose to secede, and at gunpoint, if necessary, but they didn't do so in a vacuum or simply to prove a point.And I know of nobody that has argued that in this thread.

There was a very real cause for the secession movement. That cause? I submit that it was slavery. The Southern states wanted to secede because they felt that only through secession could they secure their right to own slaves. Secession was an instrument, not a cause.

And the cause was "slavery."With this I do not argue, although I would suggest that, in the view of many if not most southerners, the question of slavery was primarily an economic one, made palatable by prejudice.

So when people, like the various neo-Nazis and Ronulans, come along and say that the South was justified in attempting to secede, they're not simply saying that they should have had the right. They're saying that they had the right and the justification.To be clear I have never suggested that the south was justified in attempting to secede; I hope that it was not your intent to paint me with that soiled brush. I have merely distinguished between the war and the causes of secession.

While slavery was a motivation, perhaps the overweening motivation, for the succession of the several states, slavery is not the only possible reason that states might have sought to secede before the war. If states had seceded for reasons other than slavery I submit that the Federal government would still have taken action, military if necessary, to resist their secession.

[Deus Ex Machina]

I posted this in the Possible Montana Secession? thread, but I thought it was relevant to the topic here:

that was excellent.

Well except for Texas and California?

[Deus Ex Machina]

Metellus said:

I would beg to disagree.

Lincoln’s message in the years before his election was anti-slavery, and he was elected on an anti-slavery agenda. Yes, it’s true that in the period immediately after his inauguration he spoke of preserving the Union rather than fighting slavery, but this was in the context of minimising the number of slave states which might secede – in the political realities of the time, if he had led the Union to war in 1861 on the grounds of fighting slavery, the border slave states like Kentucky and Delaware would almost certainly have seceded as well, which would have made the Union’s job much harder.


I beg to differ - Lincoln said

"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 save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that...I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free. "

it would appear that from his end it was not slavery but secession that was the issue.

Whether the secessionist states had a "right" to secede is what the war was fought to decide wasn't it?

It was not fought - at least from what Lincoln says- to free slaves, I don't think that the secessionists were fighting merely to hold on to slaves, after all there were plenty of compromises put forth before the war began that gave them the option of continuing in that odious practice.

But I think the Southern states saw that, as time moved on and new states were added, they would fall further in the minority and would, ultimately be dictated to and that was anathema.

It was, I think, a war that had to be fought in order to decide how the union would proceed.

[Kaylee]

Post #51 contains some of the proximate causes for the war. The ultimate cause was, however, slavery. Slavery shaped the economy and culture of the South into something resembling European Feudalism, while the North underwent the industrial revolution. Those two economies were difficult to interface, and created a strong cultural and political divide between the two sides with very different ways of life and created a chasm within the federal legislature that was only widened as each new State sent Senators and Representatives into the political struggle and could potentially swing the balance of power either way.

Claiming that the war was fought over slavery - as though the North was full of nothing but grim jawed abolitionists all singing "John Brown's body lies a-mouldering in the grave. . ." while the South was full of plantation dwelling, slave owning, gentleman soldiers who had traded in their white suits for crisp West Point uniforms and then Confederate grey when their State called - is as false as saying it was fought over the issue of secession. There were a myriad of proximate causes and they were so tender and salient that the issue of slavery wasn't even put to rest until well after the war.

However, claiming that the ultimate cause of the war was anything other than slavery is absurd.

If for some reason the South had included more of an manufacturing base in their economy (despite the fact that usually slavery and mechanization didn't mix) and they did not have a difference of opinion with the North over tariffs -- do you (and other who have opinons about the causes of the Civil War) think they still would have attempted to secede from the Union?

More recently, since I've seen this thread and similar threads at JREF, I strongly suspect that the cause of the Civil War has been oversimplified in the typical grade school history textbooks and perhaps even in the typical college-level history textbooks.

For one thing, between 2/3 and 3/4 of Southern families did not own slaves. (http://www.southernhistory.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=9406&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0)
That being the case, why would a majority be willing to go to war for the benefit of a minority (Southern families that did own slaves)? Albeit, even a powerful minority?

So logically, it makes sense that slavery was not the only issue. For the record, I don't doubt that it was an important issue, but I don't understand how a minority of the South could have persuaded the majority of their neighbors to go to war over an economic issue that had nothing to do with them. So therefore, for that reason, I think there must have been other causes.

To answer my own question, although I'm not well versed in history, I would guess that if the North and South had been in agreement on the subject of tariffs, the Southern slaveowners would not have been able to persuade enough of their neighbors to be able to declare war against the North.

[ImaginalDisc]

If for some reason the South had included more of an manufacturing base in their economy (despite the fact that usually slavery and mechanization didn't mix) and they did not have a difference of opinion with the North over tariffs -- do you (and other who have opinons about the causes of the Civil War) think they still would have attempted to secede from the Union?

More recently, since I've seen this thread and similar threads at JREF, I strongly suspect that the cause of the Civil War has been oversimplified in the typical grade school history textbooks and perhaps even in the typical college-level history textbooks.

For one thing, between 2/3 and 3/4 of Southern families did not own slaves. (http://www.southernhistory.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=9406&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0)
That being the case, why would a majority be willing to go to war for the benefit of a minority (Southern families that did own slaves)? Albeit, even a powerful minority?

So logically, it makes sense that slavery was not the only issue. For the record, I don't doubt that it was an important issue, but I don't understand how a minority of the South could have persuaded the majority of their neighbors to go to war over an economic issue that had nothing to do with them. So therefore, for that reason, I think there must have been other causes.

To answer my own question, although I'm not well versed in history, I would guess that if the North and South had been in agreement on the subject of tariffs, the Southern slaveowners would not have been able to persuade enough of their neighbors to be able to declare war against the North.

I think I covered your objections here.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3495861#post3495861

There's no doubt that issues such as tariffs and the national debt where proximate causes of strife, but the reason that the economy of the South and the North were so divergent and that the power blocks in the Federal government were based on which States allowed slavery and which did not is because the culture and economy of the slave owning states was shaped more by slavery than any single other source.

[KoihimeNakamura]

I beg to differ - Lincoln said



it would appear that from his end it was not slavery but secession that was the issue.

Whether the secessionist states had a "right" to secede is what the war was fought to decide wasn't it?

It was not fought - at least from what Lincoln says- to free slaves, I don't think that the secessionists were fighting merely to hold on to slaves, after all there were plenty of compromises put forth before the war began that gave them the option of continuing in that odious practice.

But I think the Southern states saw that, as time moved on and new states were added, they would fall further in the minority and would, ultimately be dictated to and that was anathema.

It was, I think, a war that had to be fought in order to decide how the union would proceed.

Possibly. I will note that eventually, though, Lincoln decided that it w.as worth fighting on to stop slavery

[Gazpacho]

I don't think that the secessionists were fighting merely to hold on to slaves, after all there were plenty of compromises put forth before the war began that gave them the option of continuing in that odious practice.
Several compromises were put forth, but none of them had any chance of being adopted. Read the declarations of Texas, South Carolina, Georgia, and Mississippi. There is no doubt what the secessionists were fighting over.

[Kaylee]

I think I covered your objections here.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3495861#post3495861

There's no doubt that issues such as tariffs and the national debt where proximate causes of strife, but the reason that the economy of the South and the North were so divergent and that the power blocks in the Federal government were based on which States allowed slavery and which did not is because the culture and economy of the slave owning states was shaped more by slavery than any single other source.

Several compromises were put forth, but none of them had any chance of being adopted. Read the declarations of Texas, South Carolina, Georgia, and Mississippi. There is no doubt what the secessionists were fighting over.

OK, I read them (well skimmed them anyway). Here's a link in case anyone else would like to read them:
http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

I didn’t read the other state’s declarations of secessions, but I’m willing to believe that they read pretty much along the same lines. Of the 4 states whose declarations I’ve read, only Georgia went into other reason besides slavery. Financial protectionism sounds like their term for tariffs. But even so, their statement makes it clear that slavery was the main reason that they were seceding. So FWIW, I now agree, slavery and not tariffs or any other issues was the real issue behind the South’s secession.

So I tried to figure out why the southern majority, who did not own slaves and who were most likely not ever going to be able to, were willing to make the ultimate sacrifice, dying in war, for the benefit of the slave-holding minority. Because most people do act in their self-interests, but it certainly doesn't seem that they were doing so.

One source suggested that it was out of fear.
http://www.fsmitha.com/h3/h42-cw.html

The article states that most of the southern non-slave owning majority were also poor and posits that they feared no longer being guaranteed that they would not be on the lowest economic rung of society. It also theorizes that they feared what their lives would be like living among freed slaves.

I have read that the British working class was probably the main reason that the British government decided not to actively support the South. The British working class, despite the fact that many of them lost their factory jobs as a result of the Civil War, was strongly against slavery for both moral and economic reasons. They did not fear freed slaves but feared being forced to compete economically with slaves. Californians also were against slavery expanding to their state because many of them did not wish to compete economically with slaves, not just for moral reasons.

I’m pretty sure that at this time, the South had more poverty among free whites than England or California, or the North in general. So it seems that the southern majority of non-slaveholding white families were fearing the wrong thing.

==

I also looked to see if the four slave-holding states (Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri) that had elected to stay with the Union had more economic similarities with the Northern states. As far as I can determine, they did not (with the possible exception of Kentucky whose economy was not based on cotton and included selling food, mules, iron products and other goods).

Perhaps the only reason they didn’t secede was because they were border states. It seems reasonable to believe that that was the case and that therefore fear drove their actions as well. Per the same source, Virginia also had a similar economy to Kentucky, but did choose to secede. FWIW, Virginia was a border state also, but all non-border southern slave-holding states did decide to secede.