Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The American Civil War was fought because of a complex mix of slavery, economic policy (protectionist tariffs), faction (sectionalism and the collapse of the two party system), and federalism (States Rights).
Not at all. The war was fought for one reason, and one reason only: because Lincoln said that "no state can lawfully get out of the Union by its own mere motion," and that therefore it was his legal "duty" to stop them. PERIOD.
If he had said otherwise, i.e. that the states COULD lawfully get out of the Union "by their own mere motion," then there would have been no war; the states would have simply seceded in peace.
Therefore Lincoln's claims, are the sole reason that the war was fought; before this claim by Lincoln on March 4, 1861, sitting President Buchanan had clearly stated that he had no right to stop the states from seceding. Presidents Madison, Jefferson, and Calhoun also clearly stated the same.
The question becomes, then, CAN the states get out of the Union by their own mere motion? They certainly could do it prior to ratifying the Constitution, since they got out of the prior union of 1781 in order to do so.
This means that they were soveriegn nations just like France, Italy and Spain prior to ratifying the Constitution.
So, then, did they willingly and intentionally surrender or "merge" their individual sovereignty into a single nation, by ratifying the Constitution?
The answer is NO, since the Constitution doesn't specifically state this-- and a nation can't lose (or gain) its sovereignty by anything less than a direct and express declaration.
Madison, the so-called "Father of the Constitution," even specifically stated that each state was "a people in their highest sovereign capacity," and that therefore "there could be no tribunal higher than the people of the state to determine the meaning of the Constitution."
So it's clear that Lincoln caused the war, by lying about international law to claim the states as federal property-- just like Saddam Hussein did about Kuwait, Hitler did about the Germanic states, and Stalin did about the Baltics... and Genghis Khan did about the whole world. They were equally wrong, and so Lincoln was just as bad as the rest of them if not worse.
Funny you think you're arguing with me when my point was pretty much the same as your own......
You're using semantics to create an argument with me that isn't there. "Let them go" and such. It was VERY clear to the South that once they seceded that chances were that the North wasn't just going to let them go without a fight. The phrase "Let them go" doesn't imply what the South did was right or wrong... Just the actions of the North and whether they were actually going to DO something to prevent it.
Sumter was the powder keg and EVERYONE at the time knew that what occurred there was going to dictate whether the North and South went to war or not...
If Lincoln pulls the troops, there's no war. If Lincoln re-supplys the troops, there is. Yeah, it was really that simple because this question was a microcosm for Lincoln's ultimate attitude on whether or not he intended to make a fuss (changing my phrasing for your benefit ) over the secession.... Does he recognize Southern Soil now as a foreign nation that his army has no right to occupy??? Or does he think that it is STILL United States soil that the Confederacy has no claim over???
I believe that Lincoln considered the Confederacy to be U.S. soil, although he did make a diplomatic blunder and refer to the naval "blockade" he intended to impose (blockade being a term reserved for action taken against a foreign power--which he did not intend to imply).
I believe that Lincoln considered the Confederacy to be U.S. soil, although he did make a diplomatic blunder and refer to the naval "blockade" he intended to impose (blockade being a term reserved for action taken against a foreign power--which he did not intend to imply).
The blockade also had the unintended consequence of Europe having to recognize the existence of the Confederacy.... Not SUPPORT them mind you, but at least recognize them...
Most people only what the "herd" has been taught about the War of Northern Aggression and they totally believe the fact that it was strictly about slavery and nothing else. That shows them to be quite ignorant of the true history of that era.
Thats true of many eras. The Revolution and the civil war/of northern agression are very complicated and diverse. Its simplier and easier to teach some simple and easy ideas so people don't have to think. Thinking people tend to ask hard to answer questions and the more sheep the easier it is to control.
We leave out how the patriots terrorized their loyalist neighbors when we teach kids about the revolution along with a lot of other things which disturb the image we like to have. Similarly, while slavery was a cornerstone of the other war, it wasn't the the moral center to most people. Economics started it and once it began like a steamroller it kept on until it was done. But if you look at the conditions in Northern industry, they had nothing to be morally superior about.
Its very simple to list reasons but there are so many shades to them I think its impossible for your average person who does not read history (or to be honest, care about it) to see the layers. Its easier to fix on a couple of absolutes than exercise the brain.
Wars in the end tend to demolish moral concerns rather than elevating them.
The origins of the Civil War? That's simple: slavery, slavery, and slavery.
Saying that the Civil War was not about the issue of slavery is like saying the invasion of Afghanistan had very little to do with the events of Sept 11th.
The war was about the institution of slavery. Distorting the issues and trying to defend the defeated Confederacy is absurd. The most damning evidence of the wars sole cause being the defense of slavery is reflected in the various seceding states declarations. Here is Georgia as one example:
The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.
The other states declarations read similarly. The only right the confederate states we fighting for was the right to continue the immoral institution of slavery.
History was my major and slavery was an issue, not THE issue. I had to write papers on this topic. Oh well, that's what I get for having revisionist history professors. States RATS had not only to do with slavery, tariffs and, well, ok, the economics of slavery were also root causes. Lincoln made slavery a moral issue with the emancipation proclamation to keep the french and british out of the war. Worked like a chaaahhhm.
The issue was slavery. Read the beginning of Georgia's declaration of secession:
The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.
The other states declarations start with similar language. All other economic issues are intimately tied to the institution of slavery and its continuation.
But if you look at the conditions in Northern industry, they had nothing to be morally superior about.
which is why northern workers were eager to be enslaved.
oh wait, they werent. Folks risked their lives to escape slavery, in order to become working class northerners (and free blacks in the north were still subject to discrimination).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) over the secession.... Does he recognize Southern Soil now as a foreign nation that his army has no right to occupy??? Or does he think that it is STILL United States soil that the Confederacy has no claim over???
The issue was slavery
