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.
Here you go. this is from a conservative organization that puts out brilliant videos on all kinds of topics.
This one is about the cause of the Civil War. The cause was slavery. period. there is no question. that is not a revisionist position. Every single Session Document stated clearly the individual states succeeded over slavery. period.
What the states that seceded actually said as their reason for seceding in their Session Documents seems to be lost on people that want to justify their own version of revisionist history.
Here you go. this is from a conservative organization that puts out brilliant videos on all kinds of topics.
This one is about the cause of the Civil War. The cause was slavery. period. there is no question. that is not a revisionist position. Every single Session Document stated clearly the individual states succeeded over slavery. period.
They tend to support mainstream conservatism, and as far as I've ever been able to tell, the majority of conservatives would say the Civil War was about, or at least mostly about, slavery. I've only ever seen outliers say it wasn't about slavery.
Slavery may have been the immediate cause, but the question being asked is if slavery hadn't existed, would other issues have arisen to cause a civil war. Any cursory study of history will tell you that the North and South were very different places, and that tensions between the two weren't just about slavery. They were essentially two different countries. The northern states had been settled by people escaping from Europe. The southern states had been settled by people extending Europe's influence. The northern states were urban/trade-oriented. The southern states were rural and agrarian. The northern states were small. The southern states were large. (Massachusetts can fit into Georgia five times). And that size is an issue when it comes to representation in the federal government.
The bottom line was that democracies, even democratic republics, always, inevitably, give the advantage to urban areas. The southern states prior to the Civil War felt they were providing the bulk of monies to fund the federal government, while all the benefit of the tariffs went to the North which was in the throes of industrialization. They had a point.
The crux of the problem as the South saw it was that that democratic advantage was growing, as the urban centers of the north attracted more and more immigrants. And their concerns were proven correct when Abraham Lincoln won the election in 1860, without appearing on a single ballot in the South. If the North could elect a President without any contribution from the South, the North would control the executive branch. The North would eventually control the legislative branch due to their population growth. And their dominance would inevitably spread to the judicial branch.
Southern politicians weren't stupid. They were very much aware of the North's growing dominance of the federal government, and they were depending on the independence of the individual states from the federal government. The individual states before the Civil War had much more autonomy than they do now. And it's important to understand that as Southern politicians were becoming aware of their tenuous relationship with the Federal government, that the Revolutionary War, the Declaration of Independence, wasn't all that long ago. It wasn't centuries ago. it was just a few decades. The South had fought, like the North, for independence from a government that had an agenda that used and abused them. After fighting for that, the South was now looking into a future where the federal government again had an agenda that potentially used and abused them. Paying for the federal government to advance the interests of the North at the expense of the interests of the South.
Slavery may have been the immediate cause, but the question being asked is if slavery hadn't existed, would other issues have arisen to cause a civil war. Any cursory study of history will tell you that the North and South were very different places, and that tensions between the two weren't just about slavery. They were essentially two different countries. The northern states had been settled by people escaping from Europe. The southern states had been settled by people extending Europe's influence. The northern states were urban/trade-oriented. The southern states were rural and agrarian. The northern states were small. The southern states were large. (Massachusetts can fit into Georgia five times). And that size is an issue when it comes to representation in the federal government.
The bottom line was that democracies, even democratic republics, always, inevitably, give the advantage to urban areas. The southern states prior to the Civil War felt they were providing the bulk of monies to fund the federal government, while all the benefit of the tariffs went to the North which was in the throes of industrialization. They had a point.
The crux of the problem as the South saw it was that that democratic advantage was growing, as the urban centers of the north attracted more and more immigrants. And their concerns were proven correct when Abraham Lincoln won the election in 1860, without appearing on a single ballot in the South. If the North could elect a President without any contribution from the South, the North would control the executive branch. The North would eventually control the legislative branch due to their population growth. And their dominance would inevitably spread to the judicial branch.
Southern politicians weren't stupid. They were very much aware of the North's growing dominance of the federal government, and they were depending on the independence of the individual states from the federal government. The individual states before the Civil War had much more autonomy than they do now. And it's important to understand that as Southern politicians were becoming aware of their tenuous relationship with the Federal government, that the Revolutionary War, the Declaration of Independence, wasn't all that long ago. It wasn't centuries ago. it was just a few decades. The South had fought, like the North, for independence from a government that had an agenda that used and abused them. After fighting for that, the South was now looking into a future where the federal government again had an agenda that potentially used and abused them. Paying for the federal government to advance the interests of the North at the expense of the interests of the South.
You didn't watch the video that Fred posted in post #59, did you? The one that shows what they are teaching about the Civil War at West Point. Or read any of the secession statements? There were other reasons for the Civil War, but they all lead back to slavery and wanting to keep it in place.
It was about secession. Preserving the Union at all costs. Slavery was the point of contention.
Southern states to Lincoln: "We want to secede from the union because"
That's all they get out before Lincoln interrupts with, "You can't".
Oh, I don't think that the Southern states said "We want to secede..", but rather more a "Buh bye...oh, and we're taking these weapons from these federal armories...and we're taking over these federal forts, even though we had originally sold the land to you feds so that you could spent federal funds to build these forts in order to protect us from foreign invasion".
And I'm pretty certain that they said it to President Buchanan first.
Funny thing is that Lincoln pursued a policy of ignoring secession when he took office. That seemed to infuriate the Southern states that had seceded, thus their attack on Ft Sumter - "Oh, ignore us, will you? We'll show you!"
I've often harbored the thought that if the South had acceded to Lincoln's policy of ignoring them, the secession fever might have broken, and the states might have, one by one, wandered back into the Union on their own. The Confederacy really, really needed an armed conflict with the United States in order to establish its existence as an independent entity...and it goes without saying that the Confederates were pretty certain they'd prevail in such a conflict.
They tend to support mainstream conservatism, and as far as I've ever been able to tell, the majority of conservatives would say the Civil War was about, or at least mostly about, slavery. I've only ever seen outliers say it wasn't about slavery.
States Rights and the little tricky clause in the Constitution the right to rebel against a over bearing Government. This is part of the reason many in the Confederate Government was not hung. Jefferson Davis and Robert Lee lived to be a ripe old age.
States Rights and the little tricky clause in the Constitution the right to rebel against a over bearing Government. This is part of the reason many in the Confederate Government was not hung. Jefferson Davis and Robert Lee lived to be a ripe old age.
Funny thing, that "little tricky clause in the Constitution"...doesn't exist.
James Madison, the guy who guided the Constitution into existence and who also led the effort to add the first ten amendments to said Constitution, stated later in life that there is no right for state secession enshrined in the Constitution. Don't quote the 10th amendment to me - the guy who wrote it was the aforementioned Mr. Madison.
As for why the Confederates weren't hung, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court claimed that the 14th Amendment already penalized the Confederate leaders and that a trial for treason would fail on double-jeopardy grounds. Toss in the fact that such a trial would have to take place in Virginia, where they wouldn't ever be able to impanel that would ever consider a conviction for Davis or Lee, and you wind up with a federal government that decided to let the Confederates simply live under the penalties of the 14th Amendment.
You are taking a very complicated thing and trying to reduce it down to a sound bite. This is a stupid way of looking at things. Its like saying WW2 was over the Jews. It played a part but it was a complicated thing going back to the punitive actions of the Germans after WW1. Its people like you who know nothing of history and want to learn by sound bites and memes that cause problems.
All other reasons for the south seceding go back to wanting to keep slaves. All of them.
All other reasons for the south seceding go back to wanting to keep slaves. All of them.
Unfortunately, the OP on this thread asks whether or not a Civil War would have happened if slavery had not existed. And while you've been adamant about the cause for the Civil War being slavery, you've ignored the question, and you haven't rebutted a single argument of those who've said that yes, a Civil War probably would have happened if slavery hadn't existed.
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.
