What Caused the Civil War?

[swivel]

Not much new could possibly be added to this discussion. There are more history books written by Americans about the Civil War than any other topic. And, thanks to the "Lost Cause" tradition of bitter Southerners after the war, there are still two sides to this debate.

There are those who understand clearly that the Civil War was about slavery. That this issue was a threat to the Union before the Constitution was even written. That the pre-war writings of everyone involved bears this out, and only the post-war revisionism disagrees.

The argument from people who are raised in the South, or by Southerners, is that the North was the aggressor. That Lincoln was an evil despot who wanted greater Federal power, and would gladly sacrafice the lives of millions to gain it. That the war was about "States Rights", without further admitting that the only "right" in question was the ownership of other men.

This intellectual failing, to me, is far more heinous than Holocaust Deniers. More people were killed by slavery than Nazis, and to forgive the South of this sin, by casting the North as the bad guy, is unforgivable. We should try to help these people, and distance ourselves from those who refuse the help.

So, how do we help them? One side can quote pre-war evidence, and the other side can quote some of the massive output from the "Lost Cause" tradition. I think the best place to look is the source. Instead of pretending to know what the States were thinking when they seceded, why not just go to the documents they wrote to justify their leaving?

But wouldn't this be unfair to the people who think the Southern States were wrong? Why would we just take their word for why they were leaving? Because, they weren't even moral enough to know that what they were doing was an ethical travesty. They didn't even try to hide it.

From Mississippi's Declaration of the Cause of Secession:
(I am not cherry-picking, this is the VERY BEGINNING of the document. As per legal and literary tradition, the most important and germane bits go up top)

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

Okay, so, for Mississippi, the Civil War was about slavery. No doubt about it. So we can no longer tolerate anyone saying that the "South" seceded because of States' rights. They now have to name which States did so, because clearly all of them didn't.

Let's look at South Carolina. South Carolina's Declaration of Secession is the one that these Holocaust Deniers go to most often. And for good reason. 80% of the document details the fact that the Union of States was entered into voluntarily, and therefore, each State should be able to leave voluntarily. There is some history about the Civil War, and some Constitutional law regarding the Federal powers over State commerce. So, did South Carolina leave because they sought State autonomy?

Let's look:

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them.

Holy shit. South Carolina's first statement of causation for secession was a WEAKENING FEDERAL GOVERNMENT! This is just too much. They are complaining that the states listed were daring to assert their own rights! It goes on:

In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

Clearly, South Carolina did not revolt because of any right of the State other than to own slaves. This is the only beef to be found in the entire document. No other non-slavery wrong is listed. Damning evidence.

The Texas document I love, because they at least show some racism towards their Hispanic neighbors before launching into the meat of why they left:

In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.

For years past this abolition organization has been actively sowing the seeds of discord through the Union, and has rendered the federal congress the arena for spreading firebrands and hatred between the slave-holding and non-slave-holding States.

By consolidating their strength, they have placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress, and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and encroachments.

They have proclaimed, and at the ballot box sustained, the revolutionary doctrine that there is a 'higher law' than the constitution and laws of our Federal Union, and virtually that they will disregard their oaths and trample upon our rights.

They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture, and have repeatedly murdered Southern citizens while lawfully seeking their rendition.

Holy shit. Texans do everything big, don't they? Such venom and hate, which was not a product of their time (other countries had already abolished slavery, including the North). No, the real culprit is seen right in this very document. God was telling them that slavery was right. It's in the Old Testament.

The first two lines of the Georgia document contains a clue. See if you can spot it without me bolding anything:

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.

Did you find it? The clear pronouncement of why they are leaving?


People, these are the LEGAL REASONS given for secession. All the crap about "States Rights" comes from a movement of racist Southerners called the "Lost Cause". It is a system which is founded on the worshiping of General Lee, the damning of Lincoln, and the substitution of "States Rights" for "Racism". Every sober historian knows this, and yet the lunacy persists. Please try to help educate those who are ignorant, so we can recognize those who are left. They are the racist amongst us.


http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

[dop]

Thanks Swiv, really interesting stuff.

[CPL CHUD]

Slavery was certainly a huge issue surrounding the civil war of our country. Even the Confederate constitution mentions it prominently. People wrongly believed, as Plato and Aristotle before them, that slaves were a neccessary part of a perfectly organized democratic society. I'm sure I could find a dozen quotes calling for the abolishment of the Union in favor of a pro-slavery legislation.

[swivel]

I'm sure I could find a dozen quotes calling for the abolishment of the Union in favor of a pro-slavery legislation.

Share whatever you have.

I'm still looking for a pre-war document that asserts the reason for secession has a non-slavery motivation. As far as I'm concerned, every post-war claim is bullshit. These are rationalizations made after slavery had been abolished.

Psychological studies have shown that we re-create our motivations as time goes on, and new evidence arises. The only way to know why the States left is to look at what they were saying and doing in THAT MOMENT.

And at the time, they were calling for a stronger Federal Government to enforce fugitive slave laws, and complaining about the "rights" of other States to free their slaves. This is really and open-and-shut case. What fascinates me more is the people who can be presented with this evidence, and because of the brainwashing they underwent as youth, or their inherent racism, can cling to such an outright falsehood.

The history is easy for me to grasp. The moral failings of people in the present is what this thread is really about.

[CPL CHUD]

Here's a pretty meaty listing of quotes...

http://faculty.winthrop.edu/huffmons/SlaveryQuotations.htm

"No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."
~Confederate Constitution

People have to also keep in mind that the South viewed slavery as essential to its culture and economical health. It was not widely viewed as a moral issue. Even though slavery was not a big deal to the average citizen of the southern states it was a critically viewed issue by political leaders and religious authorities.

[swivel]

"No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."
~Confederate Constitution

What fascinates me about that post is that it is double-damning to the Lost Causers. Not only does it demonstrate the centrality of slavery to their self-image, it also shows that the right of a State to be independent of the central government is a Lost Cause myth. Here is a law that tells the States of the confederacy what they may not do, as demanded by the central government.

Another fun fact: The Confederacy used the war as an excuse to trample the rights of States. They nationalized industry and began conscription! Imagine my horror when I encounter people who call themselves Libertarian, and they proceed to disclaim their love for what the South stood for, which was individual liberty. The slave-holding, industry-nationalizing, pressed-service South is heralded as the bastion of freedom! Meanwhile, the Free-Market, Free-State, Duly-Elected North is seen as the enemy of liberty.

It isn't just wrong of them, it is crazy of them. Wrong people you can reason with.

[gprime]

First, I think your tone is unjustified. Most people who argue that the civil war was not exclusively about slavery aren't making claims that slavery was okay. There is a big difference between declaring it just, and saying that it wasn't the sole cause for discord among the states. Moreover, defending the rights of the states to leave the Union and form the CSA does not translate to excusing any particular practice pertaining to wartime conduct.

Second, there is no doubt that Lincoln was a tyrant. Jefferson foresaw seccesion as a potential issue (http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b75d2fa71a5.htm), but not as something he could outlaw. He opted to find political remedies instead. Realistically, Northern hostility and a lack of cool-headed leadership made that an impossibility. So the states did what they were legally entitled to, and left the Union. Once they were no longer Americans, the specific details of their actions are not particularly relevant. What is relevant, at least as it pertains the United States, is the conduct of the Union leadership, specifically Lincoln.

Like it or not, Lincoln did a number of illegal things beyond denying states the right to withdraw from the country. He suspended habius corpus (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/813646/posts), setting a dangerous precident. Before that, it was always understood that it required a declaration of congress to suspend habius corpus and apply martial law. And he did not have this when he first began his reign of tyranny. His "four score and seven years ago" speech talks about the birth of the nation, and therefore allowed him to overlook the notion of state's rights (http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/237931in.html). He also had the Postmaster General halt delivery of over 100 anti-Lincoln papers, and ignored hand-delivered supreme court rulings (http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo14.html).

He was of course okay with slavery. To him, it had to be abolished only in the context of the war. We know this because in an August 22, 1862 letter to Horace Greeley he said, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union." Further, in his 1960 inagural address he declared, "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

Now let us look at the causes. Slavery was a factor, but not the biggest one. And it is really a sub-issue under state's rights. Remember that regardless of what we now understand, slavery was considered a right at the time. And there was legal grounds for this, most importantly the Constitution itself. State's rights mattered. So did cultural and economic differences (http://americanhistory.about.com/od/civilwarmenu/a/cause_civil_war.htm) between the North and the South. The decline of nullification rights certainly didn't help much.

Swivel, nobody here would claim that slavery was right, or that it was irrelevant. But you seem to be looking at a cropped version of history.

[swivel]

Lincoln did what wartime presidents did up to and excluding George Bush Sr. FDR did the same crap. Doesn't make it any less wrong, but it doesn't make Lincoln a tyrant.

The South seceded because Lincoln was elected president, forcing the war. Lincoln did not bring the war to the South, the South brought it upon themselves. Lincoln's personal writings reveal how disgusted he was with the entire affair. A disgust that you do not find in the writings of many of the South.

Yes, Lincoln was a racist. Almost everyone was at the time. This isn't about Lincoln. This is about why the Southern States bolted from the Union. They did so because they saw that the end of slavery was coming, and they were doing whatever they could to preserve their cherished institution.

Duly noted is the fact that you have not disputed the meat of my post, the Causes of Secession, which the Southern States, themselves, wrote. THEY say it was about slavery, who are you to re-write history?

[gprime]

But Swivel, the other presidents since Lincoln were able to act as they did because of the example he set. Had he followed the law, who's to say his successors wouldn't also have?

Also, Lincoln's victory forced the war only in the sense that he was willing to keep the Union together, without consideration for the cost or the associated legal issues. Had a more moderate, Constitutionally-literate leader been chosen, war could have avoided, and we would have two countries instead of one.

And you can say what you will about the end of slavery coming. But the fact is, even if slavery were the core issue, it was still a question of rights, courtesy of the Constitution. So then, there was clearly more at stake in the war than slavery.

[swivel]

But Swivel, the other presidents since Lincoln were able to act as they did because of the example he set. Had he followed the law, who's to say his successors wouldn't also have?

Also, Lincoln's victory forced the war only in the sense that he was willing to keep the Union together, without consideration for the cost or the associated legal issues. Had a more moderate, Constitutionally-literate leader been chosen, war could have avoided, and we would have two countries instead of one.

And you can say what you will about the end of slavery coming. But the fact is, even if slavery were the core issue, it was still a question of rights, courtesy of the Constitution. So then, there was clearly more at stake in the war than slavery.

That is just an argument of semantics. What "States Rights" were they arguing for besides slavery? Or the "right" to secede, which just brings us back to why they were seceding. Which always leads to slavery.

You need to address the "Causes of Secession", written by the States themselves, which clearly state the reason for leaving being slavery and slavery only.

Also, you ignore the contention by the Southern States that the Federal government intervene on the fugitive slave issue. Or the nationalization of industry, and conscription. Again, where were the Southern States when it came to any right other than the "right" to own other men? They pissed on all other rights in a vain attempt to cling to this single one. They were wrong in every way a group of people can be wrong. And so are their present-day defenders.

[I am Legend]

born in NOLA, raised in Mississippi.

the civil war was about slavery disguised as states rights. if the issue was whether or not people could own tire swings, i guarantee there would have been no civil war.

[swivel]

born in NOLA, raised in Mississippi.

the civil war was about slavery disguised as states rights. if the issue was whether or not people could own tire swings, i guarantee there would have been no civil war.

What else did these States have in common? They were all slave-owning States. What else?

Nothing. The argument that this was about States Rights in general fails. This was about the right of slave-owning States to own slaves. And their right to force the Federal government to round up escaped slaves in other States, and return them.

[CPL CHUD]

born in NOLA, raised in Mississippi.

the civil war was about slavery disguised as states rights. if the issue was whether or not people could own tire swings, i guarantee there would have been no civil war.

I agree. They saw it as absolutely essential to their economy. Arguing around it is an exercise in semantics, especially when it is clearly written in many documents from that time period using very specific language. I'm not an expert on the subject, but this seems kind of obvious to me. As always I'm open to what the other side of the fence thinks though.

Plus, how cool would it be to have slaves....

[swivel]

Plus, how cool would it be to have slaves....

It's pretty cool. We call them "wives" now. It is a technicality that allows us to avoid certain laws.

[CPL CHUD]

It's pretty cool. We call them "wives" now. It is a technicality that allows us to avoid certain laws.

I needs me one. Meatloaf isn't going to make itself.

[KillBill20]

The New Warriors were filming a Reality TV show in Stamford, Connecticut when Nitro exploded and killed thousands. This lead the United States Government to form the Superhero Registration Act.

Some heroes, like Iron Man see this as the natural evolution of things. While others, like Captain American think its all a bunch of bullshit.

Do I have the wrong Civil War?

~Kyle

[swivel]

The New Warriors were filming a Reality TV show in Stamford, Connecticut when Nitro exploded and killed thousands. This lead the United States Government to form the Superhero Registration Act.

Some heroes, like Iron Man see this as the natural evolution of things. While others, like Captain American think its all a bunch of bullshit.

Do I have the wrong Civil War?

~Kyle

Fuck me. This is the best post of the month of February. Let's see if it holds up before we award you your prize.

[TXChris]

To say that slavery was the issue which drove the War is just entirely too simplistic. I feel that it really cheapens the lives lost on both sides. Can one honestly sit back and say the death and destruction of so many lives was pursued because of this one idea? I think not. You show the written words, but refuse to acknowledge the true meaning behind them. At the end of this post I have added links to the full declarations of secession, along with some other interesting reading, so that others may read and understand what truly drove these states to break from the Union. You, Swivel, have argued against the literal translation of the Constitution in previous threads. Yet, we find you here arguing for the literal reading of the secession documents. It would seem that you are changing the "rules" depending on what you are arguing.

At the time there were two factions of people in the states that made up the U.S. There were those that believed in strong, federal power, and those that believed in limited federal government. THIS is what it all boils down to. THIS is precisely why so many men on both sides of the fight were willing to die; these two monumental ideas about government. Sure, there were those who were willing to die for the ideas of slavery, or economics, or tariffs, etc. But, for so many individuals to lay down their lives, it has to be something more. If one is to look at the letters of those soldiers, on both sides, one can see that they knew they were going to probably die terrible deaths. They wore no rose-colored glasses. Yet, they continued to fight. And what for? They died for what the future of America would become; either strong, centralized power or limited federal power.

While the need for secession had to be given a tangible word, slavery, that could not possibly drive so many people to die so willingly. As a matter of fact, if one is to look at the Confederate Constitution it is almost exactly as the original Constitution. In it, slavery was recognized and protected, as a state right, but it also banned importing slaves “from any foreign country other than the slave-holding States or Territories of the United States of America.” In contrast, Lincoln did not ban slave ownership in the Union states. Lincoln was looking to keep the all the states under federal control at any cost. Nobody can deny that. So, is it not prudent then to suggest that Lincoln caused the War by declaring secession illegal after the South had already seceeded and established the Confederacy? (BTW, there is a link below detailing the ridiculousness of claiming secession illegal. If it were illegal, then one must declare our very own Declaration of Independence illegal. Who, here, is willing to do that?) Remember, the Confederacy adopted their Constitution on February 4th, 1861. Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4, 1961. The Confederacy was formed before Lincoln ever came to power. It's pretty obvious that Lincoln was provoking a war with the Confederacy.

It also must be noted that after the War no Confederate statesman was ever brought to trial for the secession. I think that speaks quite loudly for the understanding that secession was, in fact, not illegal.

Interesting independent reading, including the full text of quoted secession writings by the original poster:

Confederate States of America Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/scarsec.htm)

Confederate States of American Georgia Secession (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/geosec.htm)

Confederate States of America Mississippi Secession (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/missec.htm)

Confederate States of America A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union. (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/texsec.htm)

Well thought-out legal look at the Constitution and secession (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20041124.html)

Was Secession Treason (http://www.daveblackonline.com/was_secession_treason.htm)

Fantastic collection of links to documents concerning the Confederacy at that time in history (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/csapage.htm)

Of Contracts and Constitutions (http://www.lewrockwell.com/dieteman/dieteman75.html)

[swivel]

But the States didn't split according to who wanted States rights and who wanted Federal rights. The only thing the seceding States had in common was Slavery.

Does it cheapen the lives lost? Of course it does. But wars are waged by people who would rather be doing something else at the bequest of those whose interests are served.

Was the Civil War about slavery because people in the South loved whipping blacks? No. Was the Civil War about slavery because the people in the South thought their economy depended on the labor of blacks? Yes.

I also linked to the full Causes of Secession. They completely destroy your argument, and the argument of all Lost Causers.

(glad you found the thread)

[TXChris]

I disagree with you. Not only did they have slavery they also had the belief in limited federal power. The Union, on the other hand, had, in common, the belief in strong, centralized federal power.

That being as it is, I just do not see how the links I supplied destroy my argument. As a matter of fact, in the Mississippi declaration of secessation it clearly points out, when speaking about the Federal government, "It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better." And that was truth. There was no law outlawing slavery in the Union and Missippi showed that with the inclusion of that statement.

I believe the problem you are having understanding our position, meaning those who see beyond the written word "slavery," is that you are merely reading the words and not understanding the meaning behind them. I refuse to believe it is because you are stupid, rather I think it is because you feel so strongly in your position that racism is innate and the cause of most evil.

EDIT: If the South's economy had been strongly dependent upon the farming of wheat and the federal government had declared the farming of wheat illegal, the South would still have seceded. Not because of farming wheat, but because the federal government did not protect their rights to farm wheat as was provided by the passing of the Constitution. Of course, this is taking into consideration that the Federal government deemed it illegal, which I, again reiterate, they did not do with slavery.

[swivel]

I disagree with you. Not only did they have slavery they also had the belief in limited federal power. The Union, on the other hand, had, in common, the belief in strong, centralized federal power.

EDIT: If the South's economy had been strongly dependent upon the farming of wheat and the federal government had declared the farming of wheat illegal, the South would still have seceded. Not because of farming wheat, but because the federal government did not protect their rights to farm wheat as was provided by the passing of the Constitution. Of course, this is taking into consideration that the Federal government deemed it illegal, which I, again reiterate, they did not do with slavery.

But they weren't united in their limitation of Federal power. They wanted MORE federal power in returning fugitive slaves. They wanted MORE federal power in determining whether or not new states would be slave or free. They were forcing new states to be "slave" states when they didn't even have the soil and climate to support plantation farming. They weren't about limited central government AFTER seceding either.

You case here is vapid.

I agree that wheat would have been the central issue if it had been the central issue. That is a very tight circle.

I disagree that the South was not watching their institution become illegal. What do you think the fugitive slave law was saying? It basically said that any slave which can get out of the South would be free and given asylum in the North. Again, you just don't have your facts straight. You are a Lost Causer, and everything you believe on this issue is revisionism history written by a defeated foe. They have suckered you by talking about "smaller" government. But the only issues they ever argued for, when it comes to States Rights, is the right to own slaves and the right to secede (over the right to own slaves).

This wasn't about taxation. It wasn't about trade restrictions. It wasn't about voting records. It wasn't about anything but a perceived threat on the institution of slavery.

Another telling place to see this is the attitude of foreign nations, which distanced themselves from the South out of fear of being associated with slavery.

Honestly, Holocaust Deniers have more evidence than this, and probably less evil intentions.

[TXChris]

But they weren't united in their limitation of Federal power. They wanted MORE federal power in returning fugitive slaves. They wanted MORE federal power in determining whether or not new states would be slave or free. They were forcing new states to be "slave" states when they didn't even have the soil and climate to support plantation farming. They weren't about limited central government AFTER seceding either.

You case here is vapid.

I agree that wheat would have been the central issue if it had been the central issue. That is a very tight circle.

I disagree that the South was not watching their institution become illegal. What do you think the fugitive slave law was saying? It basically said that any slave which can get out of the South would be free and given asylum in the North. Again, you just don't have your facts straight. You are a Lost Causer, and everything you believe on this issue is revisionism history written by a defeated foe. They have suckered you by talking about "smaller" government. But the only issues they ever argued for, when it comes to States Rights, is the right to own slaves and the right to secede (over the right to own slaves).

This wasn't about taxation. It wasn't about trade restrictions. It wasn't about voting records. It wasn't about anything but a perceived threat on the institution of slavery.

Another telling place to see this is the attitude of foreign nations, which distanced themselves from the South out of fear of being associated with slavery.

Honestly, Holocaust Deniers have more evidence than this, and probably less evil intentions.

And the North wasn't united in their expansion of Federal power. But, in general, those from the Union states believed in strong, central Federal government, and those in the Confederacy believed in limited Federal government. That's easily discerned from the various writings of those in the Confederacy prior to, and during, the time period in question.

Honestly, I'm not sure where you are coming up with the South forcing new states to be slave states. In truth, they were rightly bothered by the fact that the Federal government chose to force new states to be anti-slavery in order to be admitted to the Union. This is a well-founded fear as it guarantees there would be increased support for policies deemed OK by the Northern states while giving the Southern states next to nothing in regards to a voice. The irony of this is that now we have all these federal laws being passed to "promote" equality and to give the minority an "equal" voice.

The Fugitive Slave Law actually stated that any slave who escaped from the South would be returned to the owner. So, I'm confused by what you were trying to say in that fourth paragraph. It would seem that, based solely on what you wrote, you actually do not have a command of the facts. :confused:

You have to remember, Swivel, as morally-defunct as one sees slavery today, at the time it was protected by the Constitution. What Lincoln did set the precedence that the federal government could do whatever they want and it didn't have to abide by the laws set forth. You see it as OK because eventually slavery was ended, so the ends justify the means, in your eyes. This is highly unethical. However, if it were an issue you believed in that was being destroyed, I have no doubt you would talk about the audacity of it. The problem is, when you allow the government to do as they did you have to accept them doing that at every other point, regardless of whether they support your cause or not...especially if they do not defend your position.

The truth is in the writings of each of the declarations of secession. They talk about the root of the secessions quite clearly. I'm not about to quote the entire declarations of all the states, but there are links in this thread for others to deduce what they may. I repeat, you are too hung up on the word "slave" to understand the underlying motivations. If I say I take a stance against a federal speed limit, the base of my belief is being against the federal government creating law that intrudes upon my personal liberty. The federal speed limit is the tangible object of this belief, but it does not make my belief that the federal government is trampling my personal liberty less valid or less a base for my position.

Now, see, there you go again turning this into a pissing contest. Why can't you be civil in a disagreement instead of resorting to childish name-calling, ESPECIALLY in an instance which you cannot prove and that I cannot disprove without knowing each other personally? As I said, it turns a relevant discussion into a pissing contest and ends up ruining the thread. :mad:

[CPL CHUD]

I thought the controversy surrounding the fugitive slave law was that it wasn't being enforced in the North where they believed it to be unconstitutional and unethical. It'd actually be a case of the South wanting the North to abide by their laws, hence making a case for increased federal power.

[swivel]

I thought the controversy surrounding the fugitive slave law was that it wasn't being enforced in the North where they believed it to be unconstitutional and unethical. It'd actually be a case of the South wanting the North to abide by their laws, hence making a case for increased federal power.

Don't worry, you remember correctly. TXChris is clueless on this issue. The Southern States were not interested in "States' Rights" per se. They were only interested in PARTICULAR States Rights. Namely: The Right to own other human beings. And the right to secede when it looked like the North was going to take this other right away.

And the argument that it was "OK" to own people back then is bullshit. The reason this all took place is because morality was progressing to a point that would no longer tolerate this.

[TXChris]

Don't worry, you remember correctly. TXChris is clueless on this issue. The Southern States were not interested in "States' Rights" per se. They were only interested in PARTICULAR States Rights. Namely: The Right to own other human beings. And the right to secede when it looked like the North was going to take this other right away.

And the argument that it was "OK" to own people back then is bullshit. The reason this all took place is because morality was progressing to a point that would no longer tolerate this.

They were interested in the rights that were guaranteed by the Constitution. Period. I would say I don't understand why you cannot see it, but I do know why you can't. It is because you are so emotionally invested in this argument. You cannot get past your emotion and that is what is holding you back. It wasn't just their right to own slaves. That was a right afforded to all the states. The southern states were just the last ones to take advantage of it. The truth is, it doesn't matter what kind of morality you want to attach to it AT THIS POINT in time. Yes, slavery is a terrible thing. There is no doubting it today. The fact is, moral or not in today's societal views, it was guaranteed at that time. When the federal government decided to ignore what was written in the Constitution, which the states freely agreed to come together under, that is more than reason enough for the states to secede. Remember, the Constitution was an agreement between the states. If the agreement is no longer being followed then all parties involved have every right to disengage from said agreement. If you do not believe in the right of secession then, remember, our very own Declaration of Independence has to be seen as invalid. Whether it is the right to own slaves or drink cherry slurpies on Sunday in the park, when the government decides to ignore what the states agreed upon it is a pure and blatant attack on those states. On a side note, I find it pretty ironic that people defend Lincoln's "whatever it takes" attitude to keep the Southern states as part of the Union when our government continues to recognize countries that break off from other countries, the recent Kosovo incident being the latest example.

As far as clueless goes, I am hardly that. The Fugitive Slave Law was enacted to return runaway slaves to their owners. You said it was to guarantee their safety when they escaped to the North. Section 6 of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/fugitive.htm). As I stated before, just because somebody decided that it wasn't moral does not make it any less valid a law. Once government ignores its own laws EVERYBODY'S rights are in jeopardy. It sets a very dangerous precedent.

And, just so you are aware, nobody has said it was "OK" to own anyone back then; just that it was legal. As a matter of fact, I have yet to see ANYONE in ANY of these threads say that it was OK. Say what you may, Swivel, but the fact that the Confederate Constitution made illegal the importation of new slaves while the Union never made slavery illegal at all, says more than anything in this thread to this point. The South seceded because the federal government was not upholding that which was guaranteed to all states. Whether all states decided to take advantage of it or not is immaterial. The North, on the other hand, was fighting to keep the Southern states from seceding...not to make slavery illegal. It was a war for the future of America. Either strong centralized federal power or limited federal power. THAT is why so many people died, on both sides, even though they knew their deaths would most likely be unbelievably painful.

By the way, I would appreciate it if you could explain to me the validity of your "evidence" that slavery was the cause for secession. I mentioned that in previous arguments you had stated that the Constitution could not be read literally, but, instead, needed to be understood in a certain context. In starting this thread you bold words that mention slavery as the reason for secession, telling us to look at what was written. Which one is it? Should we be required to read the words or the intention of documents? Or does it change depending on which is more advantageous to one's position?

[TXChris]

I thought the controversy surrounding the fugitive slave law was that it wasn't being enforced in the North where they believed it to be unconstitutional and unethical. It'd actually be a case of the South wanting the North to abide by their laws, hence making a case for increased federal power.

Exactly, that was the controversy. I was just correcting Swivel's understanding of the actual Fugitive Slave law, itself. Where you are wrong is in the belief that the South wanted the North to abide by their laws. It was about all the states abiding by the laws that were passed by the federal government. It's easy, in this case, to become emotionally invested in the anti-slavery aspect of this argument. But, one has to get past that to see what was really going on. Remember, the Fugitive Slave law was passed because a big enough majority of those voting agreed to it. This wasn't just the South that said "this is the law and that's all there is to it."

[swivel]

By the way, I would appreciate it if you could explain to me the validity of your "evidence" that slavery was the cause for secession. I mentioned that in previous arguments you had stated that the Constitution could not be read literally, but, instead, needed to be understood in a certain context. In starting this thread you bold words that mention slavery as the reason for secession, telling us to look at what was written. Which one is it? Should we be required to read the words or the intention of documents? Or does it change depending on which is more advantageous to one's position?

The Constitution was written to be as simple and vague as possible. That is why immediate amendments were needed, and have been needed ever since. The founders knew that this was a temporary solution, a fluid document. It was a risky experiment, and we tend to forget that today, especially the dolts who think the founders had it all figured out that first time, and we should develop a cult of worship around them, and never look for ways to improve ourselves and our country. I have no respect for the morons that fall into this trap.

The Causes of Secession were something altogether. They were written to explain a just cause for them voiding a contract that they had entered into willingly. The argument was that if they could form the Union, of their own volition, they should be able to absolve that Union. But they knew that history would not judge them favorably if they did this on a whim. They needed a reason. Thus the Causes of Secession were written. These were not fluid documents, that contained instructions on how to change them over time. They were the answer to a question: "Why are you tearing the Union apart?" Their answer was, "Slavery".

I don't understand how people can get so brainwashed as youth that they even doubt the word of the States that they have been taught to worship. The war was over slavery, according to all of the States that were involved. The only people who say that the war was over "States Rights" are the post-war Southerners who realized that they would not be looked upon favorably by those who follow, and the people who cling to their cause due to childhood brainwashing, geographical pressures, and racism.

I'm sorry that this offends you, but you are putting yourself in an ugly position on this one. You can not supply a statement from a seceding State that says, "This war is about unfair taxation above all else", or "This war is about foreign tariffs above all else". And yet I have given sources which clearly state that this war was about slavery above all else.

Spin all you want, it doesn't make anyone dizzy but you.

[CPL CHUD]

Exactly, that was the controversy. I was just correcting Swivel's understanding of the actual Fugitive Slave law, itself. Where you are wrong is in the belief that the South wanted the North to abide by their laws. It was about all the states abiding by the laws that were passed by the federal government. It's easy, in this case, to become emotionally invested in the anti-slavery aspect of this argument. But, one has to get past that to see what was really going on. Remember, the Fugitive Slave law was passed because a big enough majority of those voting agreed to it. This wasn't just the South that said "this is the law and that's all there is to it."I'm not emotionally invested at all. Remember, I think having slaves would be fucking awesome; I'm a totally bigoted racist. I'm only approaching this objectively and typing as quickly as possible before my white hood gets in the way of seeing the screen again.

It was controversal because in the Northern states slavery was illegal and in the South it wasn't. So returning people to the South to be put back into slavery that were technically free up North caused the discretion between the two. It was definitely a law that seperated the North and South on the issue of the legality of slavery. The federal government, to appease the Southern slave owners, placed fines on people that did not abide by the Fugitive Slave law. It didn't really benefit anybody else but the South, and is kind of damning to the arguement that the South wanted a war to decrease federal power. I'm not saying that slavery was the only reason the civil war happend, just the primary cause that seems to underline all the other causes.

[TXChris]

That still doesn't make a case for literal acceptance. Just because the Constitution gives the ability to be amended it does not mean that what was written was not meant exactly as it was written. When the Constitution states that all powers not expressely given to the federal government are reserved to the states, it means exactly what it says. This is a literal translation, but it is also supported by the rest of the document. The same goes for the documents of secession. They clearly state slavery as only ONE of many reasons for secession, and from what was written in all of the documents of secession, it was really the final blow to the southern states...the straw that broke the camel's back, if you will. When one actually looks at what is the driving motivation behind it all...the thing that ties all the reasons together...it is the federal government's decision to ignore the rights of the states which were already agreed upon (by signing the Constitution) when they created the Union.

It is my belief that those who argue that slavery was not the cause for secession are really arguing that it was not the driving force behind it. Those that argue slavery was the cause for secession are clearly arguing that it was the only cause for it. Therein is where the disagreement lies. So, while those of us that debate the validity of the slavery cause have been duped into taking a side opposite yours, our belief is in the underlying cause which is what we have been arguing from the beginning.

Missisippi, along with the other seceeding states, in their documents of secession, actually go to great lengths to detail many things that the government had been doing prior to the secession. It was not purely about slavery by any means. As even you said, they documented their reasons for secession. If you can show everyone one document of secession where the only reason they state for their secession is slavery, then your case is a lot closer to being won. But, until you can show everyone that, your case that secession was rooted in slavery is not supported.

Facts not entered into evidence in the initial post on this thread (bare with me as this is quite long, but by no means is it all-encompassing):

1.) In Missisippi's document of secession it states "....and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization..."

While you argue that racism and hatred are the cause of this, that line alone clearly shows that their belief was that by outlawing slavery their very existence would be threatened. They were detailing the importance of slaves in their commerce and civilization, not rooting the necessity of slavery in hatred.

2.) They go on to document some facts for their secession. The first one they list is, "The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory."

Imagine that, their very first fact listed for their secession was not slavery at all, but rather the Ordinance of 1787. As a matter of fact, the first THREE facts they used to support their secession were based on the loss of territory. One could argue if slavery, based in hatred, was first and foremost in their minds that would have been the first fact they would have listed.

3.) Another fact cited was, "It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion."

Once again, the federal government, by purposely negating the ability of new states to be admitted if they upheld the right to own slaves, was indirectly attacking current slave-holding member states. The increase of non-slave states meant that the slave states would have less of a voice in THEIR federal government. Remember, they joined the Union as equals with non-slave states. Here the federal government was working to make the slave states less important in law creation than the non-slave states.

4.) Texas' document of secession adds more by stating, "The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States."

Texas clearly states that the federal government, under the controlling majority of the North, had kept them, and others like them, from having access to land so that the slave-holding states would eventually lose power.

5.) Texas goes on to state, "The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refuse reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas."

Whoa, imagine that. Texas is pissed off because the federal government is not helping to protect them as a member state of the Union. They were more secure as a Republic than they were then as a state.

6.) Then there is this, when speaking of the northern states, "By consolidating their strength, they have placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress, and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and encroachments."

Once again, the base concern was a loss of voice to protect themselves against federal power encroachment.

7.) They even speak of being attacked by northern citizens, "They have invaded Southern soil and murdered unoffending citizens, and through the press their leading men and a fanatical pulpit have bestowed praise upon the actors and assassins in these crimes, while the governors of several of their States have refused to deliver parties implicated and indicted for participation in such offenses, upon the legal demands of the States aggrieved."

It's not just that they were attacked, but the attackers were not even brought to justice. Instead, they were praised for what they did. Texas felt it was not protected by the federal government.

8.) I am not even going to begin pasting Georgia's document of secession. It is so greatly worded that there is much that I would have to add to this post. So, I will mention the points detailed. The first of which is Georgia's detailing of the fact that the new manufacturing industries in the North needed to be funded by the federal treasury, which got its money from all states, including those from the South. The southern states, on the other hand, never needed the federal government to support them. Georgia continues to detail numerous special favors and Government bounties afforded the North. They then go on to explain how this has given the North more federal power and enabled them to have a federally-created unequal voice in federal law.

9.) Georgia details how, though they too fought, and shed blood, for, and paid for, the land which the U.S. won from Mexico, they were not given equal rights to it.

10.) When referring to the prohibition of slavery in the Territories, "For forty years this question has been considered and debated in the halls of Congress, before the people, by the press, and before the tribunals of justice. The majority of the people of the North in 1860 decided it in their own favor. We refuse to submit to that judgment, and in vindication of our refusal we offer the Constitution of our country and point to the total absence of any express power to exclude us. We offer the practice of our Government for the first thirty years of its existence in complete refutation of the position that any such power is either necessary or proper to the execution of any other power in relation to the Territories. We offer the judgment of a large minority of the people of the North, amounting to more than one-third, who united with the unanimous voice of the South against this usurpation; and, finally, we offer the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States, the highest judicial tribunal of our country, in our favor. This evidence ought to be conclusive that we have never surrendered this right. The conduct of our adversaries admonishes us that if we had surrendered it, it is time to resume it."

This clearly shows that their belief was that the federal government was overstepping its bounds. It was ignoring its own Constitution, which all states had agreed upon. Georgia also documents that greater than 1/3 of the Northern population sided with them. It looks like it is quite possible that the North was not quite as anti-slavery as one is led to believe.

11.) There continues to be more documentation, by Georgia, of the federal government's ignoring of the Constitution when it came to the South:

"The Constitution declares that persons charged with crimes in one State and fleeing to another shall be delivered up on the demand of the executive authority of the State from which they may flee, to be tried in the jurisdiction where the crime was committed. It would appear difficult to employ language freer from ambiguity, yet for above twenty years the non-slave-holding States generally have wholly refused to deliver up to us persons charged with crimes affecting slave property. Our confederates, with punic faith, shield and give sanctuary to all criminals who seek to deprive us of this property or who use it to destroy us. This clause of the Constitution has no other sanction than their good faith; that is withheld from us; we are remediless in the Union; out of it we are remitted to the laws of nations.

A similar provision of the Constitution requires them to surrender fugitives from labor. This provision and the one last referred to were our main inducements for confederating with the Northern States. Without them it is historically true that we would have rejected the Constitution. In the fourth year of the Republic Congress passed a law to give full vigor and efficiency to this important provision. This act depended to a considerable degree upon the local magistrates in the several States for its efficiency. The non-slave-holding States generally repealed all laws intended to aid the execution of that act, and imposed penalties upon those citizens whose loyalty to the Constitution and their oaths might induce them to discharge their duty. Congress then passed the act of 1850, providing for the complete execution of this duty by Federal officers. This law, which their own bad faith rendered absolutely indispensible for the protection of constitutional rights, was instantly met with ferocious revilings and all conceivable modes of hostility. The Supreme Court unanimously, and their own local courts with equal unanimity (with the single and temporary exception of the supreme court of Wisconsin), sustained its constitutionality in all of its provisions. Yet it stands to-day a dead letter for all practicable purposes in every non-slave-holding State in the Union. We have their convenants, we have their oaths to keep and observe it, but the unfortunate claimant, even accompanied by a Federal officer with the mandate of the highest judicial authority in his hands, is everywhere met with fraud, with force, and with legislative enactments to elude, to resist, and defeat him. Claimants are murdered with impunity; officers of the law are beaten by frantic mobs instigated by inflammatory appeals from persons holding the highest public employment in these States, and supported by legislation in conflict with the clearest provisions of the Constitution, and even the ordinary principles of humanity. In several of our confederate States a citizen cannot travel the highway with his servant who may voluntarily accompany him, without being declared by law a felon and being subjected to infamous punishments. It is difficult to perceive how we could suffer more by the hostility than by the fraternity of such brethren.

The public law of civilized nations requires every State to restrain its citizens or subjects from committing acts injurious to the peace and security of any other State and from attempting to excite insurrection, or to lessen the security, or to disturb the tranquillity of their neighbors, and our Constitution wisely gives Congress the power to punish all offenses against the laws of nations."

12.) South Carolina takes on the whole pact argument quite well, in detailing its right to seceed, "We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences."

They use this "law of compact" as a base for their secession, with proof of the federal government's failure to uphold the provisions of the compact (Constitution) in relation to the southern states.

13.) "The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be 'to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.'....These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions."

South Carolina is asserting its equality with all states, including non-slave holding states. It then goes on to document the ways in which their equality had been consistently denied.

14.) South Carolina honestly felt they were being labeled as the enemy by the purposeful ignoring of the Constitution, the compact between all states in the Union. "The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy."

[TXChris]

I'm not emotionally invested at all. Remember, I think having slaves would be fucking awesome; I'm a totally bigoted racist. I'm only approaching this objectively and typing as quickly as possible before my white hood gets in the way of seeing the screen again.

It was controversal because in the Northern states slavery was illegal and in the South it wasn't. So returning people to the South to be put back into slavery that were technically free up North caused the discretion between the two. It was definitely a law that seperated the North and South on the issue of the legality of slavery. The federal government, to appease the Southern slave owners, placed fines on people that did not abide by the Fugitive Slave law. It didn't really benefit anybody else but the South, and is kind of damning to the arguement that the South wanted a war to decrease federal power. I'm not saying that slavery was the only reason the civil war happend, just the primary cause that seems to underline all the other causes.

In all honesty, I wasn't referring to you as emotionally-invested in it, rather people in general. I definitely appreciate your input.

When reading through the documents of secession, it is clear that the states saw the federal government as intrusive towards them. Every document of secession lists the federal government's refusal to enforce Article 4 as a big reason for secession. Yes, some of the northern areas "outlawed" slavery, etc., but the Constitution clearly protected the institution of it. Do I believe slavery is ok? Not at all, but things were as they were at the time. Law was as it was. If they were so stuck on ending slavery than an amendment should have been passed outlawing it. That would have been in adherence to the Constitution. But, they didn't. The federal government basically refused to enforce the Constitution, and by doing so failed to uphold the pact between the states, as was its duty. When one reads those documents of secession it is easy to see the South's fear of the federal government. After all, the Constitution guaranteed they would be equals with all other states entering into the pact, yet here they were being singled out and having their rights, which were guaranteed by the Constitution, denied.

As far as the Fugitive Slave Act only benefiting the southern states goes, woman's suffrage does not benefit me, but that does not make it all the less valid or enforceable. It is law, amended into the Constitution, and as such deserves to be upheld by all parties agreeing to the pact of the Union.

[swivel]

I never argued that hatred and racism were the cause of slavery or the civil war. I only state the obvious, the Civil War was completely about the institution of slavery.

I don't even argue that the North wanted to free the slaves. What they wanted was political and economic power. They didn't give a shit about the slaves, or the southern states. And the Southern states didn't give a shit about the North.

The pressure to end slavery was coming from some free, educated blacks, and some noble and outspoken religious folks in the north. There was some international pressure building as well. The big struggle was with the make-up of the Senate, and the extra 2 seats granted to new states. But, this wouldn't be an issue if it wasn't for the fact that Slavery was such a divisive issue that all votes split right along partisan lines between pro-slave and free states. How could this be the issue you use to determine your every vote, and it NOT be the issue that led to the war.

I only bring racism into the discussion because it is one of the three prime motivations for arguing that the Civil War was not about slavery. Hope this clears that up.

[swivel]

As far as the Fugitive Slave Act only benefiting the southern states goes, woman's suffrage does not benefit me, but that does not make it all the less valid or enforceable. It is law, amended into the Constitution, and as such deserves to be upheld by all parties agreeing to the pact of the Union.

In other words: The rule of the Federal outweighs the rule of the State. Can't you see the problem this poses to "Lost Causers"? Your entire argument falls apart right here, even if we didn't have the words of the seceding States which clearly say that slavery is the reason for them leaving.

[KillBill20]

Fuck me. This is the best post of the month of February. Let's see if it holds up before we award you your prize.

I do what I can (to get things severely off topic)

~Kyle

[TXChris]

I never argued that hatred and racism were the cause of slavery or the civil war. I only state the obvious, the Civil War was completely about the institution of slavery.

I don't even argue that the North wanted to free the slaves. What they wanted was political and economic power. They didn't give a shit about the slaves, or the southern states. And the Southern states didn't give a shit about the North.

The pressure to end slavery was coming from some free, educated blacks, and some noble and outspoken religious folks in the north. There was some international pressure building as well. The big struggle was with the make-up of the Senate, and the extra 2 seats granted to new states. But, this wouldn't be an issue if it wasn't for the fact that Slavery was such a divisive issue that all votes split right along partisan lines between pro-slave and free states. How could this be the issue you use to determine your every vote, and it NOT be the issue that led to the war.

I only bring racism into the discussion because it is one of the three prime motivations for arguing that the Civil War was not about slavery. Hope this clears that up.

And, unfortunately, that is where you and I will continue to disagree quite pointedly. As I quoted from the various documents of secession, previously in this thread, there was more to it than slavery. It was most basically about the erosion of the South's feeling of protection from the other states by the federal government. They joined the Union with the understanding that they would be protected in the same way they saw the other states would be protected. However, as it was shown, they lost a lot of that belief in protection by the various acts and refusal to uphold the Constitution by the federal government. Mentioned were various territorial disputes, government-funding of business in the north which would never have made it if not for the tax dollars pushed their way, the quite noticeable fact that slavery was to be abolished without doing anything to help the black man stand equally among the populace, etc. So, while slavery, as it pertains to the South's mere survival, was an issue, it was by no means the only, nor the most important, issue. Rather, it was the final issue...as I said, the straw that broke the camel's back.

True, the South was rightly justified in worrying about the federal government's requirement that all states entering the Union be non-slave-holding. Obviously, that puts them on less-than-equal footing with other states. The funny thing is, one can see the turmoil this requirement caused states entering the Union as some saw an importance in protecting slavery through their own Constitutions. It wasn't like these new states came in with the feeling that slavery was necessarily a bad thing.

[TXChris]

In other words: The rule of the Federal outweighs the rule of the State. Can't you see the problem this poses to "Lost Causers"? Your entire argument falls apart right here, even if we didn't have the words of the seceding States which clearly say that slavery is the reason for them leaving.

Actually, it doesn't fall apart at all. The states agreed to abide by laws that were passed by the federal government, which means laws that they all voted on. That was ONE law that was passed by the federal government, which means all states should have been forced to uphold it. It was the South's protection against encroachment by northern states. When certain states did not uphold it, and the fed. let them get away with it, there is only one remedy for that party. With any centralized power, the waring factions will always work to pass laws that benefit them. THAT is the problem with centralized power. In this case, when it came down to it the fed. was not doing what it was created to do, and the South, rightly so, saw a reason for secession. When the federal government, which all states agreed to create, passes a law, then, yes, THAT law overrides an individual state's law. It wasn't like the South was using the federal government to force their lifestyle upon the North. No, they were just intent on making sure that no other states forced their will upon them.

[swivel]

You are saying that slavery was not the most important reason for the outbreak of the Civil War?

I'm sorry, dude. You are 100% wrong. Every document written by the seceding states talks about slavery more than any other issue, by a very wide margin. Your blindness to this reality calls into question your ability to be reasoned with on any other subject. You will have this haunt you on this forum until you perform an honest re-evaluation of these bizarre beliefs.

All of the secondary issues that you list:

It was most basically about the erosion of the South's feeling of protection from the other states by the federal government. They joined the Union with the understanding that they would be protected in the same way they saw the other states would be protected. However, as it was shown, they lost a lot of that belief in protection by the various acts and refusal to uphold the Constitution by the federal government. Mentioned were various territorial disputes, government-funding of business in the north which would never have made it if not for the tax dollars pushed their way, the quite noticeable fact that slavery was to be abolished without doing anything to help the black man stand equally among the populace, etc.

Are all related to slavery on a very primal level. Why did they care about the formation of new states? Because those States were choosing to be free States, which the South saw as an erosion of their FEDERAL POWERS. So they attempted to FORCE OTHER STATES to be slave States, even though they had no need.

Why did they care about the ability of the Federal Government to protect them? Because they wanted the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to suppress the RIGHTS OF THE STATES to prevent fugitive slaves from falling under the jurisdiction of the state they resided in. If you study up on extradition law you will find a similarity with countries and international regulations. Some countries do not recognize the laws of other countries, so, if a criminal finds itself in this other country, THEIR law overrides international law. Again, the argument of "States Rights" falls flat on its face when you argue that the Fugitive Slave law was an attempt to protect the property of the Southern State. That right no longer applies once you cross a border. The fugitive now comes under their jurisdiction, and FORCING THE RECOGNITION of the Southern States' law on the Northern State via Federal strong-arming blows the "Lost Cause" argument out of the fucking water. No doubt. End of your argument on this issue. Destroyed. Fini.

Please come up with a reason for the Civil War that is more primary than slavery, and show me in a pre-war document where this reason is given higher billing than slavery. I already know this to be an impossibility, so the argument has been won.

Let go of what you have been told. Re-examine this with an open mind. I recommend "Battlecry of Freedom" for the most honest treatment of the Civil War.

[TXChris]

Am I correct in assuming, at this point, that you have changed your position from that of the Civil War being only about slavery to slavery being the most important issue? I am just trying to clarify based upon your opening statement.

Yes, every document talks about it because it was the latest issue...the final one with which they decided they could not take anymore of the way things were becoming. As I have shown, there were many other issues listed, but the common bond between all issues was the South's assertion that the federal government was playing favorites with the northern states. The fed. was no longer an arbitrator. It had become the strongarm of the North. It was the South's belief that the federal government was no longer giving the southern states the same treatment that it was giving the northern states, and this was true. The fed. was no longer abiding by the Consitution, which all parties (states) had agreed to in creation of the fed. This is very reasonable. People put up with a lot from other individuals until they hit the point at which they decide that things have gone too far. That does not mean that the issue which caused them to finally tell the other person to take a flying leap is any more or less important than the other issues; only that it was the final issue. This is basic human nature.

See, the problem you are having is that you are taking a superficial issue and giving it the importance of a base principle. Slavery for the sake of slavery was not a reason for the South to seceed. It was deeper than that, which I have shown in quoting their own words.

I'm really not sure where you are getting this thing about the new states "wanting" to be free states, as the truth is that the fed. was interested in forcing to become free states in order to be allowed admittance into the Union. Southern states didn't want to force the new states to become pro-slave states, rather they resented the fact that the federal government would not allow pro-slave states into the Union. The South didn't want more say, in the federal government, than the North; they just wanted an equal say, and how equal can it be when the fed. disallows pro-slave states from becoming members? It started when Missouri, a slave-holding territory, attempted admittance into the Union. Of course, we all know this led to the Missouri Compromise. But, that point in history clearly defines the South's position that the fed. was purposely putting them on a less-than-equal footing with the North.

One cannot apply international disputes between countries to states within the same country. Whereas separate countries are not bound by any pact, the states are bound by the pact (the Constitution) that created the federal government and the promise of the member states to abide by the laws created. So, I'm sorry, but you have no case here.

I have shown you in multiple posts that the War was about more than slavery, but you continue to fail to acknowledge it. Quotes were taken from the very same documents you have quoted from, and yet you close your eyes. You, for some reason, cannot see deeper than the word "slavery." Slavery was not created for the sake of slavery. In everything one does there are always underlying motives...driving beliefs and principles. THESE beliefs and principles were clearly outlined in the various documents of secession, and I spent a lot of time quoting and explaining them earlier in this thread. As I showed, there was one central principle that was documented time and again, throughout all the reasons listed for secession. That principle was the belief that the fed. was no longer treating the South as equals with the North.

[swivel]

Am I correct in assuming, at this point, that you have changed your position from that of the Civil War being only about slavery to slavery being the most important issue? I am just trying to clarify based upon your opening statement.

Nope. I'm just trying to win you over slowly. I already have you saying that slavery was important, just not the most important thing. Next, I want you to admit that it was the most important thing. Finally, I want you to admit that it was the only reason for the war.

You are the one losing traction here, my friend.

[TXChris]

Actually, you don't have me conceding anything. I took some time to directly clarify my position, earlier. As I said, most of us that can see deeper into the argument than y'all have allowed ourselves, at times, to be suckered into defending a wording that is not 100% consistent with our belief. Our belief is the underlying principle of the secession, not the "glossy, easy-to-sell in today's society" reason. If I may liken it to clothing, your assertion that slavery was the issue can be compared to the clothing one wears on one's body. It is the outer layer...more superficial. My assertion that the true reason for secession was the South's loss of equality in the Union, by the North's use of the fed. as a strongarm, is like the body underneath the clothes.

[swivel]

Actually, you don't have me conceding anything. I took some time to directly clarify my position, earlier. As I said, most of us that can see deeper into the argument than y'all have allowed ourselves, at times, to be suckered into defending a wording that is not 100% consistent with our belief. Our belief is the underlying principle of the secession, not the "glossy, easy-to-sell in today's society" reason. If I may liken it to clothing, your assertion that slavery was the issue can be compared to the clothing one wears on one's body. It is the outer layer...more superficial. My assertion that the true reason for secession was the South's loss of equality in the Union, by the North's use of the fed. as a strongarm, is like the body underneath the clothes.

So, you are saying that the South was not guilty of using the Fed as a strongarm to have fugitive slaves returned?

You seem inconsistent on this issue. As for blaming others for having a simplistic view of the issue, you are backwards once again. The way I see it, most of us see the Civil War as a tragedy that could have been avoided, with wrongs committed on both sides. You absolve the South of any wrongdoing. Seeing the war as a simplistic act of "Northern Aggression". You don't see how the South was trampling on States Rights with the fugitive slave act. You don't see how hypocritical the South was when it crushed States Rights within the confederacy. You have all the standard views of someone who is geographically biased. I've argued these same issues with hundreds of people who differ from you not one iota. I've read the same "lost cause" books that you have read, and you all touch on the very same points, and make the same mistakes.

The South did not want a smaller federal government. They wanted more power in the Federal government. The did not have the stance of, "New States can do whatever they want, as long as we are left to our own affairs". Their legislation was bossy and nosy and manipulative. Just as the North's was. That is what politicians do, they look after their own interests.

The Civil War was 100% about slavery. It was the single issue that divided the States into two groups. This was seen during the framing of the Constitution, and was a major hurdle in forming the Union in the first place. The Southern States had this to say during the Constitutional Convention:

William R. Davie of North Carolina] said . . . he saw that it was meant by some gentlemen to deprive the Southern States of any share of representation for their blacks. He was sure that North Carolina would never confederate on any terms that did not rate them at least as three-fifths. If the Eastern States meant, therefore, to exclude them altogether, the business was at an end. [p. 19.]

Mr. Pinckney. South Carolina can never receive the plan if it prohibits the slave trade. [p. 25.]

Gen. Pinckney. South Carolina and Georgia cannot do without slaves. . . . He . . . should consider a rejection of the clause as an exclusion of South Carolina from the Union. [p. 27.]

Mr. [Hugh] Williamson [of North Carolina] stated . . . the Southern States could not be members of the Union if the clause should be rejected. . . . [p. 28.]

Mr. [John] Rutledge [of South Carolina]. If the Convention thinks that North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, will ever agree to the plan, unless their right to import slaves be untouched, the expectation is vain. The people of those States will never be such fools, as to give up so important an interest. He was strenuous against striking out the section. . . . [p. 29.]

This was blackmail. The only way you would get a Union, is if slavery was protected by the Constitution. And it was, in many ways.

Here is some of what the North had to say (source is here (http://www.joshualetter.org/slavery/constitution.htm)):

Mr. Gouverneur Morris [of Pensylvania] . . . could never agree to give such encouragement to the slave trade, as would be given by allowing them a representation for their negroes; and he did not believe those States would ever confederate on terms that would deprive them of that trade. [p. 18.]

Mr. [Roger] Sherman [of Connecticut] said it was better to let the Southern States import slaves, than to part with them, if they made that a sine qua non. . . . [p. 29.]

Mr. [Hugh] Williamson [of North Carolina] said, that both in opinion and practice he was against slavery; but thought it more in favor of humanity, from a view of all circumstances, to let in South Carolina and Georgia on those terms, than to exclude them from the Union. [p. 30.]

Many of the founders foresaw the coming war of philosophies over slavery. But it was too important to them to establish the Union, and hope to win future battles when they arose. How can these men, 60+ years BEFORE the Civil War, understand that the country was divided on this single issue, and you not see it after the fact? How can the seceding States admit, in document after document, that this was the reason for the war, and you not see it?

It has to be geographical bias.

[TXChris]

I could ask you the exact same question. How could document after document speak of issues other than slavery, also, as a reason for secession, and you not see it? The difference between you and I is that I see the underlying motivation, not just the superficial scapegoat. It's easy to use slavery as the sole reason for the War in today's society with the morals that are currently held by the populace. It's much more difficult to go beyond that and see what really drove the War.

I'm not arguing that slavery was not an issue at all, at any point in the country's history. It was indeed a most difficult issue, as you said, from the first days before the creation of the Union. But, that is not what we are discussing here. Nor are we discussing whether slavery is right or wrong. It is time we got this thread back on track. What we are discussing is the reason for the War in the first place. And, that, goes beyond slavery. The reason for the War was that the North did not want the South to seceed, which it had already done. The underlying issue was, do the states have the right to opt out of a pact when the framework is violated by the fed, or does the fed. have supreme power over the states regardless of the fed.'s wrongdoings? Even more plainly put, was the pact going to support, from that day on, the recognition of individual and state liberty or federal power under the guise of the "common good?" I would've been pissed if I were the fed., too. After all, the South was an important source of revenue for the burgeoning federal government and the loss of the southern states would hurt the fed. a hell of a lot. Remember, at the end of the day, it is not the South which attacked the North. They only seceded peacefully. It was the North that was intent on keeping them as a part of the Union against their will, and at all costs.

[swivel]

Cool. Let's start with a simple question, so I can pin your viewpoint down.

Q: Do you think slavery was the most important issue leading up to, and causing the war between the North and the South?

[TXChris]

Since I really just answered that in my last post I will go ahead and quote it here.

The reason for the War was that the North did not want the South to secede, which it had already done. The underlying issue was, do the states have the right to opt out of a pact when the framework is violated by the fed, or does the fed. have supreme power over the states regardless of the fed.'s wrongdoings? Even more plainly put, was the pact going to support, from that day on, the recognition of individual and state liberty or federal power under the guise of the "common good?"

If I may go on to explain it just a bit more. The fact is, slavery was not illegal, so the federal government could not force the pro-slave states to outlaw it. What was required of the federal government, by the member states, however, was a strict adherence to the laws passed by it. These are laws agreed upon by the majority of member states. Morality is not at issue here. Slavery as right or wrong is not the issue. What is at issue is adherence to the law. At the point that the fed. decides to ignore those laws, those that are hurt by this course of action, as a recourse, have the remedy of secession from the Union (dissolution of the pact).

[swivel]

Wonderful game of semantics there.

Now, first, stop bringing morality up. We both agree that morality is a different discussion. Sometimes we mix these two up, but I'm trying to keep the discussion focused.

Of course slavery wasn't illegal. Do you not understand that the discussion at the time was precisely this? The North wanted to make slavery illegal. We can debate whether this was on moral grounds, or just as a mean to harm the Southern economy, but that is secondary. The fact remains that the end of slavery was coming, everyone was aware of this, and the South pre-empted the issue by withdrawing from the Union. Why did they leave the Union? What right were they trying to protect?

The right to own slaves.

Do we parse this with nonsense about "States Rights?" Or "Limiting the scope of the federal government?" Only if we want to appear foolish. What was the issue around which all of your semantic games play? Slavery. What did the seceding states have in common? Slavery. What institution did southern states say was integral to the very fabric of their existence? Slavery. What was the reason given by these states for secession? Slavery.

What blows me away is the verbal calisthenics Southerners will go through to get around the obvious. Instead of saying, "The South wanted the right to own slaves", they say, "The South wanted rights". Instead of saying, "The South did not want Federal interference in their system of slavery", they say, "The South did not want Federal interference".

This is what you are doing. You are taking slavery out of every issue you bring up, as if those issues would have existed without slavery. This was ONLY about slavery. Questions of rights, federal power, the right to secede, the powers granted by the Constitution are all issues that revolved around slavery. Every pre-war document drives this point home.


Now, please answer this question with a yes or a no:

Q: Was slavery the most important issue leading up to and causing the American Civil War?

[TXChris]

Why would I answer a question in which there are only two answers, niether of which fully supports my position? That is leading on your part. This is not allowed in a court of law for a reason. The correct, unbiased, way to ask the question would have been, "What do you feel is the reason for the Civil War?" And, as such, that is the question I aswered. By phrasing it as you did I only have two choices, neither of which correctly identify with my position. That was what I was referring to earlier in the thread when I stated that people with my position have been consistently led into defending a position which does not wholly or acurately present our view. We have the ability to see beyond the over-simplified result that you, and others siding with you, stand behind.

The truth is, unlike what you stated, no matter what the issue had been if the federal government did as they did it would have been the word (like "slavery") you would have been bogged down with, rather than understanding the principle drive. You're so intent on making this out of slavery that you completely forgo the most basic thing you are saying which is the federal government stomped on the rights of the southern states, in direct violation of the Constitution.

As far as what you said about the North wanting to outlaw slavery, their ability to do that was rightly vested in the ability to pass amendements to the Constitution and the passing of federal law. However, they chose not to do that. So, instead of doing as was agreed would be done, by all parties when creating the Constitution, the North decided to instead use the federal government to do their bidding in violation of the Constitution. The means should never justify the end because then a dangerous precedent is set in which that same "logic" can be used to subvert everyone's rights at any time...even the ones you hold dear to your heart. By taking the base issue and adding the word "slavery" to it does not make the base position any less valid.

[skeptical]

You know Swivel, I don't always agree with everything you post but I think you are dead on on this one. I was born and raised a Southerner and if I had lived back then I probably would have been lynched or ran out of the south because I happen to agree with the Yankees on this subject. The South had no right to do what they did.

[skeptical]

Yes, slavery was the main issue leading up to the civil war. That and stupidity and selfishness. Ya know, you argue like my husband does Swivel. "Stick to the subject! Dont' digress! Stick to the issues at hand! LMAO!

[swivel]

You won't answer the question because you are starting to realize how crazy your answer sounds.

Either 51% or more of the "cause" of the Civil war was slavery. OR 50% or less of the Civil War was about slavery. It is a YES or NO question, even though it doesn't pretend to pin precise percentages on the cause.

So, I ask you again: Was the majority of the reason for the Civil War slavery?

You either think that it was more than half the reason, or less than or equal to half the reason. I need to know which before this debate goes any further.

[TXChris]

I don't answer your question because it's incorrectly positioned which makes it biased, and because of that neither answer represents my position 100%. Once again, it's leading by being misleading. That is why I answered the question you should have asked and THAT gives you my position loud and clear. It's really that simple.

[swivel]

I don't answer your question because it's incorrectly positioned which makes it biased, and because of that neither answer represents my position 100%. Once again, it's leading by being misleading. That is why I answered the question you should have asked and THAT gives you my position loud and clear. It's really that simple.

I trust that anyone actually suffering through this debate can see this for what it is, and that this must end my discussion with you on this topic.

If you aren't even willing to state your position, I don't understand how we can go on debating it. It is a Yes or No question. It isn't overly complex. You just want to be able to argue that the Civil War wasn't about slavery without explicitly stating as much.

[Kathy]

I trust that anyone actually suffering through this debate can see this for what it is, and that this must end my discussion with you on this topic.



YAY! Who's hosting the after party?

[TXChris]

I trust that anyone actually suffering through this debate can see this for what it is, and that this must end my discussion with you on this topic.

If you aren't even willing to state your position, I don't understand how we can go on debating it. It is a Yes or No question. It isn't overly complex. You just want to be able to argue that the Civil War wasn't about slavery without explicitly stating as much.

Come on, Swivel, you're kidding me, right? My position has been stated emphatically numerous times throughout this thread. Just because you see the only two logical reasons for the War being slavery or not slavery does not make them the only two viable reasons. THAT is my contention and the reason for which I don't answer your question as you stated it. I have given you the unbiased question that should be asked in place of your leading question. Once again, what you are trying to do is lead the discussion toward an outcome you want. It is attempted by lawyers quite often, but is overruled by judges because it does not allow a person to answer the question with their true feelings or belief. You want to argue the glossy, easy-to-sell reason for such loss of human life and I choose to argue the deeper, true intention behind what transpired. Trying to drum up emotional support on your behalf does not negate what you are attempting to do.

[CPL CHUD]

Things are just being repeated ad nauseum. It's a good breaking point.

For the record though I think KillBill20 won it. You'll get your no-prize in the mail in a few man!