What Caused the Civil War?

[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):

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.

[Rotten Apple]

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!

[Waldowas]

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

Some views of the case perhaps not yet repeated ad nauseam...



- http://books.google.fi/books/about/A...cC&redir_esc=y
- http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/27/bo...pagewanted=all
- http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...the-civil-war/

I'm not saying I agree with everything Goldfield writes, but he seems to have some useful points though...