South Started Civil War Over Slavery

[alan1]

I don't know if I understand. As long as you see your definition as a personal one I have no qualms.

And as long as you see yours as personal one I have no qualms.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

How does this prove anything? It takes two sides to fight a war, and they might do so for entirely different reasons. The argument is not that the North initially fought the war to end slavery, but rather that the north fought to stop the South from seceding because of slavery.

Your tariff argument fails because it does not explain why the Southern states seceded when they did. The big tariff that was passed during this time period that could be seen as upsetting to Southerners was the Morril Tariff. But it passed the House in May 1860. Nothing else happened to it until March 1861. If this tariff was the reason they seceded they would have done so in May or March, not in December/January.

What does explain the timing is the election of Abraham Lincoln who was seen (somewhat incorrectly) as a threat towards slavery.

This is true but you presuppose that Jefferson Davis's government had the right pay for the South's portion of the national debt and federal land. Lincoln denied that right.

This is somewhat true. But there is a large difference between the legal right of secession, and the right of revolution. The founders, and Lincoln himself, would have concluded that the South had the right of revolution. But if there was a revolution Lincoln had the duty to try and stop it.

The right of secession is an entirely different story. Some founders would say that it existed, while others would deny it. Madison would be very unclear and appear to flip flop on the issue. It CANNOT be concluded what the founders would have thought about the subject.

However, the south did not secede over the issue of slavery. It was predominantly over tariffs. They seceded when Lincoln won the election because they knew that he had every intention of keeping the tariffs in place and probably making them even worse. Lincoln once called himself "an old Henry Clay Whig," Henry Clay being a proponent of high protectionist tariffs as part of his "American System."

Lincoln certainly did deny the south's right to leave the Union, but I believe that they did have this right. The Constitution does not deny the right to secede to the states, and does not give the federal government the authority to stop a state from leaving the Union.

There is no right of revolution. A revolution occurs when a government refuses to acknowledge the right of secession. The 13 British colonies seceded from Great Britain, but only needed the revolution because Great Britain did not acknowledge their right to independence. Otherwise they could have peacefully seceded and no revolution would have been necessary.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I wasn't sure if it was toward the end. I meant to say he didn't express these feelings BEFORE the war started. If he were a white supremacist, why sign the Emancipation Proclamation? or put another way, if he were not an abolitionist, why sign the Emancipation Proclamation?

The Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave. It was a stunt pulled by Lincoln because the war was going poorly for him at that time. His intentions were to incite southern slaves to rise up and kill their masters. A better question you should ask is why did Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation not free any of the slaves in the five slave-states that remained in the Union? The answer is that he only intended to free the slaves of the people that were not "loyal" to the Union, not all slaves. Lincoln stated many times that he did not believe in or support equality between black and white people.

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races..."

"...I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

- Abraham Lincoln

 

[hopner33]

However, the south did not secede over the issue of slavery. It was predominantly over tariffs. They seceded when Lincoln won the election because they knew that he had every intention of keeping the tariffs in place and probably making them even worse. Lincoln once called himself "an old Henry Clay Whig," Henry Clay being a proponent of high protectionist tariffs as part of his "American System."

Don't you see that this still fails to explain the timing? If all that was needed for secession was a "Henry Clay Whig", why did the South not secede when Zachary Taylor won the Presidency? Hell, how did Clay carry NC, TN, and KY(more of a southern state in 1844 than 1860) in 1844 if being a Henry Clay Whig was sufficient for secession?

Lincoln certainly did deny the south's right to leave the Union, but I believe that they did have this right. The Constitution does not deny the right to secede to the states, and does not give the federal government the authority to stop a state from leaving the Union.

There is no right of revolution. A revolution occurs when a government refuses to acknowledge the right of secession. The 13 British colonies seceded from Great Britain, but only needed the revolution because Great Britain did not acknowledge their right to independence. Otherwise they could have peacefully seceded and no revolution would have been necessary.

Don't you see that when you bring up the Constitution to justify the South's secession you are making a legal argument? Revolution is extralegal, one does not have to appeal to a document or a law to make the case.
Which did the South appeal to? The Constitution or a natural right of revolution? I want to hear your answer.

 

[alan1]

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races..."

"...I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

- Abraham Lincoln

Was Lincoln a liberal or a conservative?

 

[hopner33]

The Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave. It was a stunt pulled by Lincoln because the war was going poorly for him at that time. His intentions were to incite southern slaves to rise up and kill their masters. A better question you should ask is why did Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation not free any of the slaves in the five slave-states that remained in the Union? The answer is that he only intended to free the slaves of the people that were not "loyal" to the Union, not all slaves. Lincoln stated many times that he did not believe in or support equality between black and white people.

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races..."

"...I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

- Abraham Lincoln

Almost every slave that was freed by the federal government before the 13th amendment was freed by the emancipation proclamation. That seems like more than one.

And why did you not mention that Lincoln tried to purchase the freedom of all Union slave states in 1862? That seems to contradict your notion that Lincoln only wanted to free COnfederate slaves.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Don't you see that this still fails to explain the timing? If all that was needed for secession was a "Henry Clay Whig", why did the South not secede when Zachary Taylor won the Presidency? Hell, how did Clay carry NC, TN, and KY(more of a southern state in 1844 than 1860) in 1844 if being a Henry Clay Whig was sufficient for secession?

Don't you see that when you bring up the Constitution to justify the South's secession you are making a legal argument? Revolution is extralegal, one does not have to appeal to a document or a law to make the case.
Which did the South appeal to? The Constitution or a natural right of revolution? I want to hear your answer.

Did you not yourself cite the Morrill Tariff? That along with the ascension of a "Henry Clay Whig" with every intention of imposing these tariffs on the south was too much for them to bear any longer. Let's not forget that the Confederate Constitution prohibited tariffs, which goes to show how much they detested protectionism.

"Our present position has been achieved in a manner unprecedented in the history of nations. It illustrates the American idea that government rests upon the consent of the governed, and that it is the right of the people to alter or abolish a government whenever it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established. The declared purposes of the compact of Union from which we have withdrawn were to establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, to provide for the common defence, to promote the general welfare, and to secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity; and when in the judgment of the sovereign States now comprising this Confederacy it had been perverted from the purposes for which it was ordained, and had ceased to answer the ends for which it was established, an appeal to the ballot box declared that so far as they were concerned the government created by that compact should cease to exist. In this they merely asserted a right which the Declaration of Independence of 1776 defined to be inalienable." - Jefferson Davis, Inaugural Address of 1861

http://www.civilwarhome.com/davisinauguraladdress.htm

The Confederate States intended to peacefully secede from the Union. This was made impossible by Lincoln, and they were forced to fight to defend their independence.

 

[hopner33]

Did you not yourself cite the Morrill Tariff? That along with the ascension of a "Henry Clay Whig" with every intention of imposing these tariffs on the south was too much for them to bear any longer. Let's not forget that the Confederate Constitution prohibited tariffs, which goes to show how much they detested protectionism.

"Our present position has been achieved in a manner unprecedented in the history of nations. It illustrates the American idea that government rests upon the consent of the governed, and that it is the right of the people to alter or abolish a government whenever it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established. The declared purposes of the compact of Union from which we have withdrawn were to establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, to provide for the common defence, to promote the general welfare, and to secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity; and when in the judgment of the sovereign States now comprising this Confederacy it had been perverted from the purposes for which it was ordained, and had ceased to answer the ends for which it was established, an appeal to the ballot box declared that so far as they were concerned the government created by that compact should cease to exist. In this they merely asserted a right which the Declaration of Independence of 1776 defined to be inalienable." - Jefferson Davis, Inaugural Address of 1861

Jefferson Davis's Inaugural Address

The Confederate States intended to peacefully secede from the Union. This was made impossible by Lincoln, and they were forced to fight to defend their independence.

Then why not secede in 1842 when a tariff was actually passed that raised levels higher than ever and there was a Whig President?

And if it was the Morril Tariff, why did the South not wait until it passed the Senate? That was no assured thing and without the Senate's approval there would have been no tariff for Lincoln to do anything with.

And you are correct that the South wanted to peacefully secede from the Union. But that right was not given to them. The Nazis wanted to murder all the Jews peacefully. World War Two is America's fault. (I admit that was probably a terrible analogy but I am getting tired)

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Then why not secede in 1842 when a tariff was actually passed that raised levels higher than ever and there was a Whig President?

And if it was the Morril Tariff, why did the South not wait until it passed the Senate? That was no assured thing and without the Senate's approval there would have been no tariff for Lincoln to do anything with.

And you are correct that the South wanted to peacefully secede from the Union. But that right was not given to them. The Nazis wanted to murder all the Jews peacefully. World War Two is America's fault. (I admit that was probably a terrible analogy but I am getting tired)

Perhaps in 1842 the southern states were willing to work within the system, and when they seceded they were tired of trying to do so. I wasn't around back then, and I don't think they kept records of why they didn't secede at a specific time. The best you or I can do in respect to your questions is speculate.

You cannot murder someone peacefully and without infringing on their liberties, obviously. If the south secedes peacefully then they are not infringing on the rights of anybody else. Oh, except the right of the federal government to plunder them for the benefit of the north.

 

[hopner33]

Perhaps in 1842 the southern states were willing to work within the system, and when they seceded they were tired of trying to do so. I wasn't around back then, and I don't think they kept records of why they didn't secede at a specific time. The best you or I can do in respect to your questions is speculate.

You cannot murder someone peacefully and without infringing on their liberties, obviously. If the south secedes peacefully then they are not infringing on the rights of anybody else. Oh, except the right of the federal government to plunder them for the benefit of the north.

Speculate? All I know is that you are claiming that the election of a pro-tariff President+ a new tariff is a sufficient condition for secession. That is obviously false. If your argument has any merit you would explain why Southerners acted differently in 1860.

The issue of slavery does explain the difference in 1860 over previous years by looking at the sectional buildup of the 1850s over the issue of slavery.

And without infringing on liberties?!! I don't even feel like responding.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Speculate? All I know is that you are claiming that the election of a pro-tariff President+ a new tariff is a sufficient condition for secession. That is obviously false. If your argument has any merit you would explain why Southerners acted differently in 1860.

The issue of slavery does explain the difference in 1860 over previous years by looking at the sectional buildup of the 1850s over the issue of slavery.

And without infringing on liberties?!! I don't even feel like responding.

Yes, speculate. That's all we can do when it comes to the question of, "Why did the south secede at one point, as opposed to another?" There certainly were worse tariffs than the Morrill Tariff, the Tariff of Abominations comes to mind.

What I meant when I said they were not infringing on anybody else's liberties was that of free men in other states. For example, the liberties of a free man in Ohio were not infringed upon by Virginia choosing to leave the Union. Obviously I misspoke, as the liberties of the slaves were clearly infringed upon.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

However, the south did not secede over the issue of slavery. It was predominantly over tariffs. They seceded when Lincoln won the election because they knew that he had every intention of keeping the tariffs in place and probably making them even worse. Lincoln once called himself "an old Henry Clay Whig," Henry Clay being a proponent of high protectionist tariffs as part of his "American System."

Lincoln certainly did deny the south's right to leave the Union, but I believe that they did have this right. The Constitution does not deny the right to secede to the states, and does not give the federal government the authority to stop a state from leaving the Union.

There is no right of revolution. A revolution occurs when a government refuses to acknowledge the right of secession. The 13 British colonies seceded from Great Britain, but only needed the revolution because Great Britain did not acknowledge their right to independence. Otherwise they could have peacefully seceded and no revolution would have been necessary.

And yet the articles they posted from their own State Governments disagree with your claim, They state the over riding reason for leaving was the threat to Slavery. The Articles of Secession in most of those States state that the main reason for leaving was Slavery.

 

[editec]

Perhaps in 1842 the southern states were willing to work within the system, and when they seceded they were tired of trying to do so. I wasn't around back then, and I don't think they kept records of why they didn't secede at a specific time. The best you or I can do in respect to your questions is speculate.

Possibly because the TEXAS issue was still up in the air?

Remember that some of the problem was that the South was afraid of losing control in Congress, but that with enough new Slave states they didn't feel threatened.

So while the Army of the Republic was still working to bring the South still another state where they could own slaves, things looked like they were working out for them.

This is pure conjecture, BTW.

The South should have seceded in the 1840s BEFORE the North had developed the industrial might that it had by 1860.

Had they pulled the trigger twenty years before they did, they'd have probably won their independence.

Remember ALSO that there were secessionists in the North (Rhode Island for example) at that time who might have been sympathetic to their plight, too.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Possibly because the TEXAS issue was still up in the air?

Remember that some of the problem was that the South was afraid of losing control in Congress, but that with enough new Slave states they didn't feel threatened.

So while the Army of the Republic was still working to bring the South still another state where they could own slaves, things looked like they were working out for them.

This is pure conjecture, BTW.

The South should have seceded in the 1840s BEFORE the North had developed the industrial might that it had by 1860.

Had they pulled the trigger twenty years before they did, they'd have probably won their independence.

Remember ALSO that there were secessionists in the North (Rhode Island for example) at that time who might have been sympathetic to their plight, too.

They threatened to leave under Jackson, well at least South Carolina and he did as Lincoln though more forcefully. He threatened to send Troops to quell any rebellion. Lincoln did nothing at all until the South fired on US Troops, he did not even raise an army.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Washington also believed that States nor parts of States had the right to rebel or leave the Union. He put down several as President. Even going into the field for one as the Commanding General.

 

[editec]

They threatened to leave under Jackson, well at least South Carolina and he did as Lincoln though more forcefully. He threatened to send Troops to quell any rebellion. Lincoln did nothing at all until the South fired on US Troops, he did not even raise an army.

Sessionist movements existed both in the North and the South long before 1861, that is definitely the truth.

Often those sessionists wanted to leave the states over the issue of trade laws, that is also true.

that the South objected to trade tariffs ALSO true.

Now whether or not tariffs were AN issue, suggesting that they were THE issue is a bit of a stretch.

The issue of tariffs and the issue of slavery are interlinked.

Since the South was a slave powered agricultural power with little industry of its own, naturally they objected to having to pay tariffs on good brough to them (mostly) from England.

After all, they were flush with British coin since they sold so much cotton to the mills of England, and they objected to having to pay tariffs on the good they brought into the States.


Now would tariffs ALONE have forced their hand? Sans the threat of the North upsetting their entire economy by freeing the slaves, I mean?

I rather doubt it, but of course, we will NEVER know, now.

The fact is that the successionists AT THE TIME, openly stated that they were fighting for their "particular instiution" and that particular instiution was slavery.

I tend to credit the actual words of players who were in charge of the secessionist movement much more than I believe the modern revisionists (Southern apologists) who now claim to know the motives of players that they never met and whose words they apprently seldom bother to read.

The only "states' right" they apparently could not do without was their right to own slaves.

 

[hopner33]

Yes, speculate. That's all we can do when it comes to the question of, "Why did the south secede at one point, as opposed to another?" There certainly were worse tariffs than the Morrill Tariff, the Tariff of Abominations comes to mind.

What I meant when I said they were not infringing on anybody else's liberties was that of free men in other states. For example, the liberties of a free man in Ohio were not infringed upon by Virginia choosing to leave the Union. Obviously I misspoke, as the liberties of the slaves were clearly infringed upon.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you are using speculate in the sense that we can never conclusively determine why something happened. We can't tell if explanation A or B is better because they are both speculations. That is an incredibally foolish belief!
If I "speculated" that the South seceded in 1860 because of prevailing wind currents in the Mediterranean, my speculation would be a failure. While your tariff "speculation" does have more explanatory power than wind, it still fails to explain a lot as I have shown.
Don't give me "There is no real answer to historical questions" crap.

 

[Gunny]

The South started the Civil War because they felt that slavery as an institution was in danger, which meant that white supremecy was in danger.

You're just as wrong now as you were the first time you posted that.