Causes of the American Civil War

[hellheaven1987]

THe war of course was than inevitable because of a lack a good formal way of leaving the Union outside of a new Convention which they would have lost so...

I think Lincoln was relieved when Fort Sumter was assaulted, since it gave North a formal excuse to break the deadlock using force.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

I grew up in the U.S. South. And yes, they do teach down here that the "primary cause" of the Civil war was States' rights and the Federal taxes/etc. on the Cotton industry that led to that debate. However I think that has more to do with the modern day emphasis on States' rights than a denial of slavery or racism.

Nevertheless, as a Southerner, the primary cause of the Civil War was slavery. Period. Hands down. End of discussion. All of the states rights debates can be tied to government policies that point back to the slave-based industries of cotton and tobacco (and to a much lesser extent Indigo, Surgarcane, Rice, etc.).

[Cyclops]

I think Lincoln was relieved when Fort Sumter was assaulted, since it gave North a formal excuse to break the deadlock using force.

I think he steepled his fingers and intoned "it begins".

Whether he was a good or bad man (and I suppose he was basically a good person) he was a politician of very great ability and manoeuvred the pro-slavery faction into initiating a rupture, while making legal, semi-legal and outright illegal moves of his own to preserve the Union. I don't think he kicked off a war for fun, I think he sought to achieve his objectives politically but when it became clear the South intended to leave the Union at any cost he started the war to preserve the Union on his own terms (rather than oversee the dissolution of the United States, or start the war badly).

As a president he was dealt one of the worst hands (almost as bad as Washington) and played it extremely capably with the US and in particular the Federal Government emerging from the conflict better organised than before it began. In particular the quite dangerous issue of European adventurism in Mexico was resolved, this done while fighting a civil war which is no mean feat.

The destruction of property and lives, the legacy of Southern resentment, and the political consequences for ex slaves were huge negatives but there's an argument that Lincoln had resolved so many problems already that these last few would have not been insuperable had he not been assassinated. It may have just needed a few more terms...

There is a lot of chest beating about the calculating "evil Lincoln" from the "drove ol' Dixie down" brigade but they lacked a capable politician would could lead them to victory.

[Ludicus]

I just noticed this thread. As already pointed out (Flavius Aetius) the primary cause was slavery. Very well explained here,
The US Civil War and Historical Revisionism | Critical Enquiry

Some keys points,

-The background (Louisiana Purchase in 1803; the Three Fifths Compromise; the Missouri Compromise;the Compromise of 1850; the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854; the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850)

-Competing interests - to understand sentiment regarding slavery as an institution during this period: the “Peculiar Institution” vs abolitionists positions.

-Slavery was a defining element in the Confederacy’s thinking in the CSA Constitution, forcing all new states admitted to the nation to accept slavery, and the creation of anti-slavery bills is prohibited.

- The election of Lincoln triggered a domino effect leading to the secession of South.

- The Declaration of Causes of Secession written by each southern state specifically cites the slavery question as a principal cause for the South’s decision to secede.

- The South seceded before anti-slavery forces grew strong enough to abolish the "Peculiar Institution" throughout the nation.

[Hanny]

Short version, Republican party caused the war, for the first time a party would deny the right of secession to exist, and be willing to wage war over that single issue.Slavery was present before their was States, it caused no war, but the creation of a party that denied states were soveriegns, with a right, created it instatnly it was elected to power.

I just noticed this thread. As already pointed out (Flavius Aetius) the primary cause was slavery. Very well explained here,
The US Civil War and Historical Revisionism | Critical Enquiry.

Except till the 1930 almost all acounts of the conflict wrote its cause was preservation of the Union, then during ww2 it changed to one of abolition of slavery, and the CS wishing to retain it, ( Uk Dept of Publ;ic works asked every former s;lave if they were happeir no or when as a slave, majority replied they were happier as slaves) slavery went from a benign unprofitable practice to one of a gulag system. In the 50 and civil rights era, Dixcrats were tarred with being pro slavery, in the 70s and 80s, it was found slavery was highly profitable, and 5hat sl;ave income puit them in the lowest 20% income band, lived longer than free afro ameriucans, ate better, had more children, marriage break up was lower. Today a third of the US States teach the causes were many, but dont give slavery as the top one, in fact i dont bknow any state that tewaches only slavery caused the war, certrainly thats not how the public understand it acording to opinion polls.

Some keys points,


-The background (Louisiana Purchase in 1803; the Three Fifths Compromise; the Missouri Compromise;the Compromise of 1850; the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854; the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850).

La purchase
“If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form,” he said in his first inaugural address in 1801, “let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it.”


In a January 29, 1804 letter to Dr. Joseph priestly, who had ask Jefferson his opinion of the New England secession movement that was gaining momentum, he wrote: “Whether we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, believe not very important to the happiness of either part. Those of the western confederacy will be as much our children & descendants as those of the eastern . . . and did I now foresee a separation at some future day,, yet should feel the duty & the desire to promote the western interests as zealously as the eastern, doing all the good for both portions of our future family . . .” Jefferson offered the same opinion to John C. Breckenridge on August 12 1803 when New Englanders were threatening secession after the Louisiana purchase. If there were a “separation,” he wrote, “God bless them both & keep them in the union if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better.”


No one said States are not Sov and cannot secede.


3/5 comprimise was because Northerns refused to acount slaves as a full white person for political representation and would only acept them as 3/5th of a free white person. Enfranchiing of slaves and making them citizens of that state saw a large increase in free black citizens who had no federal status, being neither free white or 3/5 slave for political representation,k ie the Northerns made it less of an incentive to emanicpate.


Main secedes from Massachustes, no one bats an eye, and is admitted into the Union to maintain equal slave and free states in political representation.


Comprimise of 1850 saw free states outnumber slave, but slavery in large Terr who will become states in the future, and the FSA Act to return slaves from free states becomes a federal law. Free States igore the FS, Mass calls for its abolition.


Kansa Nebraska is weeks before the conflict and caused squat.


Repub;ican pary comes into life, with the principliple that States cannot secede, and will be treaed as treason if they do, in 56 election the South, slave States unite
s it will secede if such a party is eolcted to power, ditto for 1860. They would risk all rather than be in Union with a party with its radical ideas.

-Competing interests - to understand sentiment regarding slavery as an institution during this period: the “Peculiar Institution” vs abolitionists positions..

Abolitionisonist were the fringepart of the Republican party, never more than 20k membership, Norther raciism, with segregation on its law books, was no worse mopf better than in the South.


Comprimise of 1850 saw free states outnumber slave, but slavery in large Terr who will become states in the future, and the FSA Act to return slaves from free states becomes a federal law. Free States igore the FS, Mass calls for its abolition.


Kansa Nebraska is weeks before the conflict and caused squat.


Repub;ican pary comes into life, with the principliple that States cannot secede, and will be treaed as treason if they do, in 56 election the South, slave States unite
s it will secede if such a party is eolcted to power, ditto for 1860. They would risk all rather than be in Union with a party with its radical ideas.

-Slavery was a defining element in the Confederacy’s thinking in the CSA Constitution, forcing all new states admitted to the nation to accept slavery, and the creation of anti-slavery bills is prohibited.

CS Constitution was exactly the same as the US Constitution on slavery. USSC had recently rulled slavery to be constitutionbal protected over the whole Union and Coingress had no authority to limit it, and had struck down every liberty law the free states had passed.

- The election of Lincoln triggered a domino effect leading to the secession of South.


- The Declaration of Causes of Secession written by each southern state specifically cites the slavery question as a principal cause for the South’s decision to secede.

Except the upper South votednot to secede over the election of the Rpublicans, but would so vote when it coerced. No upper Slave state secedes over slavery, they all do so over coercion.

- The South seceded before anti-slavery forces grew strong enough to abolish the "Peculiar Institution" throughout the nation.

Except the 13th original amendment was passed, sent for ratification after POTUS did not veto it, and passed by couple of Northern states.


marshal explaining why VA can secede in teh debate over if to ace3de“We are threatened with the loss of our liberties by the possible abuse of power, notwithstanding the maxim, that those who give may take away. It is the people that give power, and can take it back. What shall restrain them? They are the masters who give it, and of whom their servants hold it.” (Elliot’s Debates, Vol III, p. 233.)
Justice Marshal:
Judge Pendelton agreed:




We, the people, possessing all power, form a government, such as we think will secure happiness: and suppose, in adopting this plan, we should be mistaken in the end; where is the cause of alarm on that quarter? In the same plan we point out an easy and quiet method of reforming what may be found amiss. No, but, say gentlemen, we have put the introduction of that method in the hands of our servants, who will interrupt it from motives of self-interest. What then?... Who shall dare to resist the people? No, we will assemble in Convention; wholly recall our delegated powers, or reform them so as to prevent such abuse; and punish those servants who have perverted powers, designed for our happiness, to their own emolument.




We have the evidence of those who signed it, Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania ,“a mere compact resting on the good faith of the parties.” That compact can be unilaterally broken at any point by the same people of the States which ratified it."






Secession is not repugnent to tne constitution, there being no bar against it in the constitution, but is allowed to happen because States ratified it as seperate states with the xpressed condition of secion included in state ratifications. all contracts are between those who sign and ratify, the federal governemnet is created by those who signed the Constitution, and acts as their representaivs. The Constitution creates the Federal government and defines and grants it authority to act in the Constitution, it had no sovreignty before the States gifted it to it to act on their behalf, it does not sign the AoC or the Constitution. It existed not before the States created it, and no one from it signs teh Constitution. Only competent authorty can enter into a compact, the federal Governemnt only becomes such after the required number of States ratified the Constitution.




who are the parties that create and are bound by the Constittion, Madison explaining it for us:
‘MW‘Who are the parties to…[the Constitution]? The people – but not the people as composing one great body; but the people as composing thirteen sovereignties.” This is because the UK crown who had sovreign rights over the citizens of the colonies, in the treaty of Paris passed it to the 13 seperate States, not to congress or the federal government.


Congress agreed with Madsion whenever they voted on the nature of the compact, “Resolved, That the people of the several States thus united by the constitutional compact, in forming that instrument, and in creating a general government to carry into effect the objects for which they were formed, delegated to that government, for that purpose, certain definite powers, to be exercised jointly, reserving, at the same time, each State to itself, the residuary mass of powers, to be exercised by its own separate government; and that whenever the general government assumes the exercise of powers not delegated by the compact, its acts are unauthorized, and are of no effect; and that the same government is not made the final judge of the powers delegated to it, since that would make its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among sovereign parties, without any common judge, each has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of the infraction as of the mode and measure of redress.


US Congreess 1833, motion passed and won by vote in congress




Resolved, That in the adoption of the Federal Constitution, the States adopting the same acted severally as free and independent sovereignties, delegating a portion of their powers to be exercised by the Federal Government for the increased security of each, against dangers domestic as well as foreign; and that any intermeddling by any one or more States, or by a combination of their citizens, with the domestic institutions of the others, on any pretext, whether political, moral, or religious, with the view to their disturbance or subversion, is in violation of the Constitution, insulting to the States so interfered with, endangers their domestic peace and tranquillity--objects for which the Constitution was formed--and, by necessary consequence, serves to weaken and destroy the Union itself.


US Congress 1860 motion passed 36 to 19 by vote in congress.


Madison to d Webster during nulification crisses, telling Webster he was just wrong It is fortunate when disputed theories, can be decided by undisputed facts. And here the undisputed fact is, that the Constitution was made by the people, but as embodied into the several States, who were parties to it; and therefore made by the States in their highest authoritative capacity. (Letter from James Madison to Daniel Webster, March 15, 1833)​


AoC was ended by each seperate state unilatewraly secedding untill NC and RI remained, they never leave, but the people of each state at convention enter into the newer Union under the Constition. Madison explains the union is more perfect because sovreign rights are ezxcercised by teh4 seperate people of the state, not their elected reps. The perpetual Un ion with england, given in colonial cjharters and given the seperate right of unliaterl secesion by james the first , which every colony was in was also ended by seperate states between 1774 and 1776. Theyhad done so beofe in 1689 when chosing which mionarch to follow and before that in the ECW in 1643 again choseingf parliment or Monarch.


On examining the first relation, it appears, on one hand, that the Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but, on the other, that this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State, the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution, will not be a national, but a federal act.




That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors; the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a majority of the people of the Union, nor from that of a majority of the States. It must result from the unanimous assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules have been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution. Madison


http://www.freedomformula.us/articles/f ... araphrase/


The ratification by the people separately from so many independent states will be a federal and not a national act. It is obvious from this single consideration that it is to result neither from the decision of a majority of the people of the Union, nor from that of a majority of the states. It must result from the unanimous assent of the states that are parties to it. This is no different than their ordinary assent to matters of their states other than it is being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by the authority of the people themselves. If the people were regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States, would bind the minority; in the same manner as the majority in each state must bind the minority. The will of the majority would have to be determined either by counting the individual votes nationwide or by considering the will of a majority of the states, as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules has been adopted. Each state in ratifying the Constitution is considered as a sovereign body independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this regard the new Constitution will be a federal and not a national Constitution.
Caldrv Bull 1798, Justice Chase who also signed the DOI for Mass.
The nature and end of legislative power limit the excercise of it.This fundamental principle flows from the very principle of our free Republican government, that no man should be complelled to do what the laws do not require, nor refrain from that acts the laws pemit. These acts whether federal or state, Legilsature cannot do, without excedding their authority.There are ceratin fixed vital principles in our free republican governments, which will determine and overule a flagrant abuse of legilsative power, as to authorise manifest injustice by posutive law, or take away that security for personal liberty or protection private propertry whereof the government was established.
Upto the creation of the Republican party practiacly every state used threats of secesion as the norm, to get a better comrimise. This is waht the Republicnas said was wrong with the system, it was placing the majority at the mercy of the minority and preventing things betting done that the majority wanted. but thats the whole point of the constition, it was excatly amde to do that to prevent exactly that kind of theng! and is an undeniable product of a Union of equal state in vol Union. The Republicans were the revoltionarys, they wanted to end the ststes rights and repalce it with majority rule. Now the Southernstates stood on the principle of consent to be governed, and its only when incoln uses coercion that the WBTS starts, slavery had abeen a moral fulcrume to move public opion and sentiment to be sure, just as the tariff was used as a economic fulcrome, but the issue was soley on the form of government and who would control the federal Union. The republ;icans found a wayt to make their section dominate in perpetuaty by forbidding the extension of slavery into new states, this ment that soverthen state would be unable to effect federqal government because they would alwyas be outvoted in the future, or by using the rules of the game the Republicans had found a away to be in power for the next century, which is what happened anyway pretty much, this was no different from the Southern ststes haveing been in control for the prev century and doing things there way.
Hayne crushed webster argument in Congress,


Sir i put the case home to the gentleman.Is there any violation of the constition rights of states and the liberties of citizens, which if sanctioned by congress and the Sc, he would belive to be thright and duty of a state to resist?.Does he contend for the right opf passive obiedience and non rsoistance?.Would he justfioy open resistance to an act of congress, sanctioned by the courts, which would abolish trail by jury?, or destroy freedom of religion or freedom of the press/. yes he would advocate resoistance in such case and so would i, so would all of us.But such reasistance in his doctrine would be rebelion and revolution, in mine it would be legal and constional resistance.
So what does secesion do?, well it romoves from the whole that which the whole did not own, so the whole losses nothing it had a claim on, it losses access to resources etc it had access to and will no doubt now miss, it is a peacfull remedy that could otherwise require force to settle, now if there is an undeniable right of revolution to abolish government whay is there not a peacfull and lawfull way to remove yourself?, easy peasy there is, its called secesion, you cannot be a member of the UN and not have signed the aceptence of the constional right of secesion contained in your entry into the UN, there are no countrys not in the Un btw. USA currently usses this as part of its legal protection and aceptence of Taiwan secesion from China. Where does the principle come from?, it comes from Romns sessio, in which the plebs when the patricians passed a law they felt unjust simply left the city and went to beocme citizens in another city and left the patricians with no one to govern, when they repealled whatever law that upset those it governed, the plebs returened to pay tax, be sent to war and generally be governed.


Madison, Federalist Papers, Number XXXIX.
"The Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals comprising one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State — the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution will not be a national, but a federal act.
That it will be a federal, and not a national act, as these terms are understood by objectors, the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a majority of the people of the Union, nor from that of a majority of the States. It must result from the unanimous assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority; in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States, as evidences of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these has been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its voluntary act."
"When resort can be had to no common superior, the parties to the compact must themselves be the rightful judges, whether the bargain has been pursued or violated."


Abraham Lincoln to Albert Hodges, April 4, 1864




“I have done no official act in mere deference to my abstract judgment and feeling on slavery. I did understand however, that my oath to preserve the constitution to the best of my ability, imposed upon me the duty of preserving, by every indispensable means, that government—that nation—of which that constitution was the organic law. Was it possible to lose the nation, and yet preserve the constitution? By general law life and limb must be protected; yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life; but a life is never wisely given to save a limb. I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the constitution, through the preservation of the nation. Right or wrong, I assumed this ground, and now avow it.”


Here Lincoln explains why he committed treason. Post war Davies demanded to be trued for treason, the first 4 uS lawyers advised Stanton they could not win, as did Lieber, and quit, that left the AG who had no choice but to take the case,, who told Stanton he would lose and the governemnt would lose all they had gained on the battlefield, Bledsoe had between Lincon 17 times ion court loseing only once and was Davis lawyer, and was certain he would win in court.

[IronBrig4]

From the historian Adam Goodheart: http://www.npr.org/2011/04/12/135246...50-years-later

"When you go back and you look at the actual documents, many people have said since then that it was about states' rights, but really the only significant state right that people were arguing about in 1860 was the right to own what was known as slave property — property and slaves unimpeded — and to be able to travel with that property anywhere that you wanted to. So it's clear that this was really about slavery in almost every significant way, but we've sort of pushed that to the side because of course we want to believe that our country is a country that's always stood for freedom. And ... certainly it's difficult for some Southern Americans to accept that their ancestors fought a war on behalf of slavery. And I think that Northerners really, for the cause of national reconciliation, decided to push that aside — decided to accept Southerners' denials or demurrals."

I find the Lost Cause narrative to be fascinating. It was a coping mechanism for defeated ex-Confederates, and a means to rationalize the rebellion's utter failure. It's also one of the rare cases in which the vanquished, not the victors, wrote the history of the war. Figures such as Lee, Jackson, and Stuart were canonized while Longstreet's reputation was destroyed in the South.

[conon394]

Oh dear Hanny is on the spot to defend the CSA - only a matter of time.

Short version, Republican party caused the war, for the first time a party would deny the right of secession to exist, and be willing to wage war over that single issue.Slavery was present before their was States, it caused no war, but the creation of a party that denied states were soveriegns, with a right, created it instatnly it was elected to power.

Where is the right to succession in the Constitution. Please cite.

Madison to d Webster during nulification crisses, telling Webster he was just wrong It is fortunate when disputed theories, can be decided by undisputed facts. And here the undisputed fact is, that the Constitution was made by the people, but as embodied into the several States, who were parties to it; and therefore made by the States in their highest authoritative capacity. (Letter from James Madison to Daniel Webster, March 15, 1833)​

Really are we going to play this game letters - really. How many other letters can you find? I go with the preamble we the people of the united states and then the rest of the document which says very little about succession or annulment oh wait I meant nothing, or god as well if we verge off into that territory. I could also argue the frank embarrassment actually to the existence of say slavery which should maybe be noticed since nobody writing the document could quite bring themselves to be honest about it.

Where was Rhode Islands status as a free state when it came on the rule of the Federal government quite w/o a voting for it yet?

But have your lost cause fantasy. The simple fact is the Slave holding elite faced the prospect that even with their 3/5th edge they knew it was going away - the political power Jefferson got in 1800 and fun little vile institution they liked was was dead. All by perfectly normal process of the way the country ran. They just wanted to take their ball and go home when the game did not go their way, unlike the Federalists in New England to swallow the inane slave holder war of of 1812.

“I have done no official act in mere deference to my abstract judgment and feeling on slavery. I did understand however, that my oath to preserve the constitution to the best of my ability, imposed upon me the duty of preserving, by every indispensable means, that government—that nation—of which that constitution was the organic law. Was it possible to lose the nation, and yet preserve the constitution? By general law life and limb must be protected; yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life; but a life is never wisely given to save a limb. I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the constitution, through the preservation of the nation. Right or wrong, I assumed this ground, and now avow it.”


Here Lincoln explains why he committed treason. Post war Davies demanded to be trued for treason, the first 4 uS lawyers advised Stanton they could not win, as did Lieber, and quit, that left the AG who had no choice but to take the case,, who told Stanton he would lose and the governemnt would lose all they had gained on the battlefield, Bledsoe had between Lincon 17 times ion court loseing only once and was Davis lawyer, and was certain he would win in court.

Nice no linked small part of a larger letter.

Executive Mansion,
Washington, April 4, 1864.
A.G. Hodges, Esq
Frankfort, Ky.
My dear Sir: You ask me to put in writing the substance of what I verbally said the other day, in your presence, to Governor Bramlette and Senator Dixon. It was about as follows:



"I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel. And yet I have never understood that the Presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right to act officially upon this judgment and feeling. It was in the oath I took that I would, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. I could not take the office without taking the oath. Nor was it my view that I might take an oath to get power, and break the oath in using the power. I understood, too, that in ordinary civil administration this oath even forbade me to practically indulge my primary abstract judgment on the moral question of slavery. I had publicly declared this many times, and in many ways. And I aver that, to this day, I have done no official act in mere deference to my abstract judgment and feeling on slavery. I did understand however, that my oath to preserve the constitution to the best of my ability, imposed upon me the duty of preserving, by every indispensable means, that government -- that nation -- of which that constitution was the organic law. Was it possible to lose the nation, and yet preserve the constitution? By general law life and limb must be protected; yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life; but a life is never wisely given to save a limb. I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the constitution, through the preservation of the nation. Right or wrong, I assumed this ground, and now avow it. I could not feel that, to the best of my ability, I had even tried to preserve the constitution, if, to save slavery, or any minor matter, I should permit the wreck of government, country, and Constitution all together. When, early in the war, Gen. Fremont attempted military emancipation, I forbade it, because I did not then think it an indispensable necessity. When a little later, Gen. Cameron, then Secretary of War, suggested the arming of the blacks, I objected, because I did not yet think it an indispensable necessity. When, still later, Gen. Hunter attempted military emancipation, I again forbade it, because I did not yet think the indispensable necessity had come. When, in March, and May, and July 1862 I made earnest, and successive appeals to the border states to favor compensated emancipation, I believed the indispensable necessity for military emancipation, and arming the blacks would come, unless averted by that measure. They declined the proposition; and I was, in my best judgment, driven to the alternative of either surrendering the Union, and with it, the Constitution, or of laying strong hand upon the colored element. I chose the latter. In choosing it, I hoped for greater gain than loss; but of this, I was not entirely confident. More than a year of trial now shows no loss by it in our foreign relations, none in our home popular sentiment, none in our white military force, -- no loss by it any how or any where. On the contrary, it shows a gain of quite a hundred and thirty thousand soldiers, seamen, and laborers. These are palpable facts, about which, as facts, there can be no cavilling. We have the men; and we could not have had them without the measure.



And now let any Union man who complains of the measure, test himself by writing down in one line that he is for subduing the rebellion by force of arms; and in the next, that he is for taking these hundred and thirty thousand men from the Union side, and placing them where they would be but for the measure he condemns. If he can not face his case so stated, it is only because he can not face the truth.



I add a word which was not in the verbal conversation. In telling this tale I attempt no compliment to my own sagacity. I claim not to have controlled events, but confess plainly that events have controlled me. Now, at the end of three years struggle the nation's condition is not what either party, or any man devised, or expected. God alone can claim it. Whither it is tending seems plain. If God now wills the removal of a great wrong, and wills also that we of the North as well as you of the South, shall pay fairly for our complicity in that wrong, impartial history will find therein new cause to attest and revere the justice and goodness of God. Yours truly,



A. Lincoln



-----------


In any case case Hanny you are wrong - Otherwise you must accept the US independence was legally unsound and won only by the power of France. And not to mention hypocritical since you really can have the founding document of your rebellion state all men are created equal but have the vice president of the CSA formally assert that is suddenly not the case. would seem a bit of impasse and being Looses the CSA justifications really do not matter.

You really should be arguing for the UK to reclaim the US not tying to save traitors in the defense of slavery

[daelin4]

I was listening so Thomas Woods' podcast on the subject, and he describes how the South thinks of government differently than that of the North; basically, the South sees governance as self-governance, and thus the issue of slavery the federal government is telling states what they can do with their laws. As far as they are concerned, a central government with such power us a bad idea. This is the Compact theory of federal constitutions, and one that Southerners argue and base their decisions on, but of course not one the federal government supports.
Naturally, when the Southern states secede based on their principles, it is only naturally for the federal government to support it's own principle and conflict ensures. Ultimately what ends up happening is might makes right: the Union by virtue of larger army, infrastructure etc., beats the Confederacy and re-establishes itself over the seceded states.

In that case, the cause of civil war is a difference (and dissension) of views of how the federal government should operate. It was, after all, a part of a country that tried to break away, and by force of arms was not able to stay that way.

[IronBrig4]

And to answer an earlier question, four slave states (Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware) stayed in the Union because slavery was not as integral to their way of life. They could get by without slavery whereas states like South Carolina could not.

[athanaric]

Short version, Republican party caused the war, for the first time a party would deny the right of secession to exist, and be willing to wage war over that single issue.Slavery was present before their was States, it caused no war, but the creation of a party that denied states were soveriegns, with a right, created it instatnly it was elected to power.

Actually, slavery is unconstitutional in the US. Says there right in the first sentence IIRC. All states agreed to abide by the US constitution, right? The GOP was simply more literal and less hypocritical on this issue than the others. The institution of slavery clashed with the legal and philosophical foundations of the country as well as with the dominant religion. It was just bad luck for the Confederate slave owners to be part of the USA and not some other place where the dominant culture has no problem with slavery.

[B. W.]

And to answer an earlier question, four slave states (Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware) stayed in the Union because slavery was not as integral to their way of life. They could get by without slavery whereas states like South Carolina could not.

Well since you're mentioning such things, the Virginia secession convention was 2 to 1 against secession until Lincoln ordered 75,000 troops to be raised for war with the south. I guess you're going to say that slavery wasn't integral to Virginia's economy, which would necessarily mean that slavery wasn't the primary cause of the war.

BTW, Virginia's secession was the reason Lee left the Union army.

[conon394]

No it was legal (at the time), it was succession over the potential on it being removed (by the democratic and legal means of the state) that was illegal. Again the key issue here is the original Constitution (what it was on paper then) allowed it and the deals made to enact it provided the Southern elites power for some 6 decades. But when demographics finally saw the North maybe take back ascendancy the slave states got all whinny. And Lost. But succession was not legal for any reason in the text that was law no matter how many letters Hanny cites about how somebody felt. They had a mechanism for that amendments but wow I guess cheating felt better.

You know eventually Hanny is going to back to the fall out of the Glorious Revolution was legal some how because winning by war is legal and dunno that only works if it is in England and sure really seeing a France won the Revolutionary war for the USA I guess we really should ask France how they feel about succession now.

[IronBrig4]

That would be more suited to the VV thread. But Virginia was more dependent on slavery than the four states I mentioned, and this can be seen in the Virginia Unionists warning that secession would lead to Union support for abolition. And two years later, the part of Virginia that was LEAST dependent on slavery broke off from the state in order to rejoin the Union.

Have a look at this 1861 map depicting the distribution of slaves in the South. The regions with the fewest slaves tended to be pro-Union.https://www.census.gov/history/www/r...s_in_1860.html

[Elfdude]

Well since you're mentioning such things, the Virginia secession convention was 2 to 1 against secession until Lincoln ordered 75,000 troops to be raised for war with the south. I guess you're going to say that slavery wasn't integral to Virginia's economy, which would necessarily mean that slavery wasn't the primary cause of the war.

BTW, Virginia's secession was the reason Lee left the Union army.

No they weren't. This revisionist history is hilarious. Virginia did elect representatives to discuss the subject and yes outright secessionists were outnumbered. However the things the "moderates" and even several "unionists" wanted was a guarentee of slavery and the ability to expand it below the missouri compromise line. They felt that this could be protected. Throughout February and into March Virginia held debates but it was never willing under any circumstance to let go of slavery. That was what made the difference.

"What was the reason that induced Georgia to take the step of secession? This reason may be summed up in one single proposition. It was a conviction, a deep conviction on the part of Georgia, that a separation from the North-was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery. ... If things are allowed to go on as they are, it is certain that slavery is to be abolished. By the time the north shall have attained the power, the black race will be in a large majority, and then we will have black governors, black legislatures, black juries, black everything. Is it to be supposed that the white race will stand for that? It is not a supposable case ... war will break out everywhere like hidden fire from the earth, and it is probable that the white race, being superior in every respect, may push the other back. ... we will be overpowered and our men will be compelled to wander like vagabonds all over the earth; and as for our women, the horrors of their state we cannot contemplate in imagination. That is the fate which abolition will bring upon the white race. ... We will be completely exterminated, and the land will be left in the possession of the blacks, and then it will go back to a wilderness and become another Africa... Suppose they elevated Charles Sumner to the presidency? Suppose they elevated Fred Douglass, your escaped slave, to the presidency? What would be your position in such an event? I say give me pestilence and famine sooner than that."


— Henry Lewis Benning, speech to the Virginia Convention, February 18, 1861

"Sir, the great question which is now uprooting this Government to its foundation – the great question which underlies all our deliberations here, is the question of African slavery."


— Thomas F. Goode, speech to the Virginia Secession Convention, (March 28, 1861)

By April 6th the delegation elected 3 representatives to dispatch to washington and find out if Virginia could keep its compromise. However they arrived by April 12th after the notorious attack on Fort Sumter. This is where public support really eroded as news paper after news paper (most of the media was pro secession) printed the glories of the defeat of the foreign unionist invaders at Fort Sumter. By April 15th when Lincoln called for militias to enforce the laws of the union Virginia still hadn't seceded and still wanted to preserve slavery and it's place in the Union. The secretary of war requested a quota met of 3 regiments of 2,340 men from Virginia. Duno where you got 75,000 troops from. Anyways this request was denied, the convention formally requested a state referendum to seceed and under the unassailable logic that Virginia was a slave state and slavery must survive if Virginia were to maintain their way of life. The public voted 4 out of 5 in favor although most votes invariably came from the wealthy of the state and the overall vote count was just barely 10% of the total population.

So yeah 100% about slavery and the only way states rights intersected that was in regards to protecting slavery.

[B. W.]

That would be more suited to the VV thread. But Virginia was more dependent on slavery than the four states I mentioned, and this can be seen in the Virginia Unionists warning that secession would lead to Union support for abolition. And two years later, the part of Virginia that was LEAST dependent on slavery broke off from the state in order to rejoin the Union.

Have a look at this 1861 map depicting the distribution of slaves in the South. The regions with the fewest slaves tended to be pro-Union.https://www.census.gov/history/www/r...s_in_1860.html

I couldn't expand the image to get a better look because my security settings would not allow it, but no matter here's a better image:



So it's easy to see that by county in each state slavery wasn't such a big issue. Given the number of seaports in the south it is easy to conclude that free trade, and Lincoln's history of legal activities concerning it, was the primary reason for secession. Northern mercantile interests had fought a number of legal battles on the trade issue and Lincoln was their hand picked man and southern merchants knew it. Almost 80% of southerners did not own slaves. However, the mercantile interests in the South held sway over the government just as they did in the North, and just as they do today.

[Ludicus]

1860...Almost 80% of southerners did not own slaves...So it's easy to see that by county in each state slavery wasn't such a big issue.

Already debunked.Map: View Larger [5.5MB PDF]
In 1860, some Southern states had more slaves than free population:Southern Carolina, Mississippi,and Florida.Total population:12,240,296. Slave population:3,950,343.In 1860, the the southern States were the largest slaveholding country in the western world.Not even Brazil in its entire history had as many slaves as the US had in 1860.

free trade, and Lincoln's history of legal activities concerning it, was the primary reason for secession

The Declaration of Causes of Secession written by each southern state below specifically cites the slavery question as a principal cause for the South's decision to secede. Read the declarations, GEORGIA | MISSISSIPPI | SOUTH CAROLINA | TEXAS | VIRGINIA.

[The spartan]

So it's easy to see that by county in each state slavery wasn't such a big issue. Given the number of seaports in the south it is easy to conclude that free trade, and Lincoln's history of legal activities concerning it, was the primary reason for secession. Northern mercantile interests had fought a number of legal battles on the trade issue and Lincoln was their hand picked man and southern merchants knew it. Almost 80% of southerners did not own slaves. However, the mercantile interests in the South held sway over the government just as they did in the North, and just as they do today.

What the heck are you talking about? It is like you are trying to override a long studied historical event with your google search and armchair analysis. Slavery was the first and foremost issue of the war. That isn't a controversial opinion, it was even thought as such at the time (1860). There were additional issues, but none as big as slavery, it was too deeply ingrained in Southern culture and economics.

[Elfdude]

I couldn't expand the image to get a better look because my security settings would not allow it, but no matter here's a better image:



So it's easy to see that by county in each state slavery wasn't such a big issue. Given the number of seaports in the south it is easy to conclude that free trade, and Lincoln's history of legal activities concerning it, was the primary reason for secession. Northern mercantile interests had fought a number of legal battles on the trade issue and Lincoln was their hand picked man and southern merchants knew it. Almost 80% of southerners did not own slaves. However, the mercantile interests in the South held sway over the government just as they did in the North, and just as they do today.

Actually many non-slaving owning southerners did protest the war. However the people who controlled the majority of wealth also controlled the political power. Most southerners fought to protect what they viewed as their home. Furthermore the idea that it was trade issues is hilarious because on numerous occassions the south won enormous concessions from the North and regularly used the federal government towards ensuring southern supremacy. It went both ways. The difference is when the same political system everyone had agreed to seemed to favor limitations of slavery the South decided democracy or not it wasn't acceptable.

[IronBrig4]

Not owning slaves did not mean individuals were not dependent on slavery. Overseers, steamboat crews, watermen, and stevedores throughout the South were dependent on transporting and handling cotton and other cash crops. That's because the South's economy was inextricably tied to slavery.

The Scots-Irish mountaineers, in Appalachia and the Ozarks, who lived on the margins of the South's economy, were strongly pro-Union.

I think these posts really belong in the VV thread.

[B. W.]

Already debunked.Map: View Larger [5.5MB PDF]
In 1860, some Southern states had more slaves than free population:Southern Carolina, Mississippi,and Florida.Total population:12,240,296. Slave population:3,950,343.In 1860, the the southern States were the largest slaveholding country in the western world.Not even Brazil in its entire history had as many slaves as the US had in 1860.


The Declaration of Causes of Secession written by each southern state below specifically cites the slavery question as a principal cause for the South's decision to secede. Read the declarations, GEORGIA | MISSISSIPPI | SOUTH CAROLINA | TEXAS | VIRGINIA.

Virginia, Tennessee, and one other state did not join the Confederacy until after Lincoln was installed in office and asked for 75,000 troops to be called up for the purpose of invading the south. This was months after the initial secession by the other states. Their principal reason was because they refused to join a fight against other southerners.

The fact that Brazil had fewer slaves in 1860 was not exactly because of benevolence. The government had collapsed and the British had put immense pressure on Brazil to reduce slavery. Despite this, in 1872, seven years after the American civil war, the were still 1.5 million slaves in Brazil. Collectively, the number of slaves in North America pales in comparison to central and South America.

What the heck are you talking about? It is like you are trying to override a long studied historical event with your google search and armchair analysis. Slavery was the first and foremost issue of the war. That isn't a controversial opinion, it was even thought as such at the time (1860). There were additional issues, but none as big as slavery, it was too deeply ingrained in Southern culture and economics.

I think you'll find some familiar characters in this article:

https://www.archives.gov/publication...er/bridge.html

One thing the article barely scratches is the fact that the south was extremely upset at this development and Lincoln was a major figure in it.

And, as I said, it's the wealthy that control the actions of the government: