South Started Civil War Over Slavery

[editec]

Fist off, I'll address your perversion of state's rights. The Southern representation in Congress was already outnumbered and in large part, unrepresented compared to it's population and role in the economy.

Point me to a piece of legislation which proves this, would you?

As far as Southern "hostility", when the South seceeded from the Union, all lands within their boundaries, including previous federal forts, became Southern terriroty. It was the North's choice not to give up land---that no longer belonged to them...get it??

Yes, I understand the logic of it. It flows from the presupposition that the South had the RIGHT to leave the Republic. Good luck proving that that was the plan the Founding Fathers had in mind.

Good luck dealing with the fact that the Republic is often mentioned in the Federalist papers as something they were creating from the states "in perpituity"

Considering the United States Constitution (in 1861) did not delegate the power of secession to the federal government, nor prohibit it to the states, the power of secession rested with the states. As soon as the South exercised their right, obtained by the constitution, the lands within their borders belonged to them. The Union refused to leave Fort Sumter despite NUMEROUS requests and warnings. The land that Fort Sumter sat on did not belong to the North as soon as South Carolina seceeded.

You have to make the case that the consitution allowed secession. It does not. Feel free to quote anything in the Constitution you think that suggests it, though.

This war was fought over states rights. Slavery was an underlying issue...pure and simple. For those of you who complain about revisionist history, take a trip down the history brick road and remember who won the Civil War--hence, who wrote the history.

An assertion without any real argument.

Unless you're (sotto voce) asserting a theory that the Republic rewrote the Federalist papers, antibellum

That's sheer poppycock, of course.

 

[dilloduck]

Point me to a piece of legislation which proves this, would you?



Yes, I understand the logic of it. It flows from the presupposition that the South had the RIGHT to leave the Republic. Good luck proving that that was the plan the Founding Fathers had in mind.

Good luck dealing with the fact that the Republic is often mentioned in the Federalist papers as something they were creating from the states "in perpituity"




You have to make the case that the consitution allowed secession. It does not. Feel free to quote anything in the Constitution you think that suggests it, though.




An assertion without any real argument.

Unless you're (sotto voce) asserting a theory that the Republic rewrote the Federalist papers, antibellum

That's sheer poppycock, of course.

So the Civil War was begun by the North because the South seceded and it was their constitutional duty ?

 

[BrianH]

Point me to a piece of legislation which proves this, would you?



Yes, I understand the logic of it. It flows from the presupposition that the South had the RIGHT to leave the Republic. Good luck proving that that was the plan the Founding Fathers had in mind.

Good luck dealing with the fact that the Republic is often mentioned in the Federalist papers as something they were creating from the states "in perpituity"




You have to make the case that the consitution allowed secession. It does not. Feel free to quote anything in the Constitution you think that suggests it, though.




An assertion without any real argument.

Unless you're (sotto voce) asserting a theory that the Republic rewrote the Federalist papers, antibellum

That's sheer poppycock, of course.

10th Amendment: Bill of Rights: Constitution of the United States of America

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Bill of Rights editec.

Until you find anywhere in the 1861 Constitution that prohibts secession, or even mentions a state not beng able to secede, your case is retarded.

The original 13 colonies followed the Articles of Confederation that were adopted in 1781. The articles established the confederation of a permanent union... This "permanent" union lasted about 7 years until 11 of the states seceded from the confederation and ratified the Constitution that took effect in 1789--that established the principles of a more perfect union. The FF realized the jacked up principles of the Article of Confederation and scrapped it. The new Constitution that they ratified made NO mention of a state being a permanent fixture or member of the Union. You're federalist papers are not what governs this nation. When many states, such as Virginia, Rhode Island, and New York ratified the Constitution, there was a specific statement by these states that they would reserve the right to secede as well as to resume other powers granted to the United States. The right of secession was well understood and agreed to by many other of the Constitutional ratifiers....Including George Washington.

Senator Henry Cabot Lodge wrote in his book Life of Webster, (that was used at Westpoint before the Civil War) that "It is safe to say that there was not a man in the country, from Washington and Hamilton to Clinton and Mason, who did not regard the new system as an experiment from which each and every State had a right to peaceably withdraw."

Answer this for me editec...if it was not illegal to secede, why was no Confederate general held and tried for treason? Being held and tried would mean there was a law that was broken would it not?


Articles of Confederation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[BrianH]

Point me to a piece of legislation which proves this, would you?



Yes, I understand the logic of it. It flows from the presupposition that the South had the RIGHT to leave the Republic. Good luck proving that that was the plan the Founding Fathers had in mind.

Good luck dealing with the fact that the Republic is often mentioned in the Federalist papers as something they were creating from the states "in perpituity"




You have to make the case that the consitution allowed secession. It does not. Feel free to quote anything in the Constitution you think that suggests it, though.




An assertion without any real argument.

Unless you're (sotto voce) asserting a theory that the Republic rewrote the Federalist papers, antibellum

That's sheer poppycock, of course.

You want to talk about what was on the minds of the founding fathers? Remember you're talking about men who SECEDED from the Great Britain.

Here's another interesting fact. When 11 states withdrew from the Articles of Confederation...they eventually ratified the new Constitution. They seceded from the old union and started the new one. South Carolina and Rhode Island did not ratify the new consititution and were foreing countries when George Washington was inaugurated.

You and Orange Juice are a product of revisionist and propagandic history written by the winners.

 

[Charles_Main]

The idea that states can leave the union anytime they are not happy with the majority is flawed. It would lead to chaos. No Nation could survive such a thing.

 

[BrianH]

The idea that states can leave the union anytime they are not happy with the majority is flawed. It would lead to chaos. No Nation could survive such a thing.

I know that...The idea of secession is not that anyone can leave the union just because you don't like one thing. In fact, SCOTUS ruled (of course) after the war that secession was not legal. Of course, it consisted of majority Northern opinion and was yet another form of propaganda IMO.

The Founding Fathers hated the idea of a federal government posessing more powers than states. This is the exact problem they seceded from Great Britain over. The crown was exercising an authoritative power over the colonies...that included many things. The idea to secede would be only in the event that the Federal Government ignored states rights and began to exercise more powers to control the states, essentially taking away the state's sovereign power. It's very clear that many, if not all, states agreed that secession was legal. I mean hell, 11 states seceded from the union under the Articles of Confederation and joined a union under the new Constitution, all while two other states did not.

But in 1861, the Constitution made no mention of secession. It did not give the power to the federal gov. and did not prohibit it to the states. The 10th Amendment in the Bill of Rights addresses this quite well.

 

[Orange_Juice]

I think the South had the right to TRY and secceed, they just couldn't win. Just like when a southern President, a slaveholder, George Washington took an army into the north to put down the Whiskey Renbellion

 

[editec]

So the Civil War was begun by the North because the South seceded and it was they're constitutional duty ?

I don't know. You're making the assetions here.

As far as history is concerned the Southern rebels attacked Federal military bases lauching a long ongoing war between those rebels and the forces of the Republic.

 

[dilloduck]

I don't know. You're making the assetions here.

As far as history is concerned the Southern rebels attacked Federal military bases lauching a long ongoing war between those rebels and the forces of the Republic.

I'm not making any claim about morality here but the South did NOT start a war over slavery. They seceded because the government was going to screw the Souths economy. Their intention was to form a new country---not to militarily destroy the North. They were willing to negotiate with the federal government for it's interests in the South.

 

[editec]

10th Amendment: Bill of Rights: Constitution of the United States of America

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Bill of Rights editec.

Interesting interpretation of that clause.

Until you find anywhere in the 1861 Constitution that prohibts secession, or even mentions a state not beng able to secede, your case is retarded.

My retarded argument is based on the same process that the Supreme court uses whenever the meaning of the founding fathers's consitution is in question because it was often vaguely worded (and I think on purpose, too)

They seek clarification of intent from the Federal papers. The Federal papers clearly state that the Republic was being created " in perpitutity".

That is far less than ambigious language, which I do think trumps your creative, but rather stretched, interpretation of the meaning of the 10th Amendment.


Wikipedia

In United States v. Sprague (1931) the Supreme Court noted that the amendment "added nothing to the [Constitution] as originally ratified

Try again, or if that's our impasse, we'll have to agree to disagree. You with me and the Supreme court and me with you and ...who exactly?

The original 13 colonies followed the Articles of Confederation that were adopted in 1781.

That unworkable plan that everyone hated, you mean?

The Confederation that was so badly concieved that a second plan had to be devised or the American revolution everyone recognized at the time would have been single-handedly lost by us, without an enemy anywhere on the horizon?

If there was ever anything most American could agree to, it was that the confederation plan was a system that had to die.

The articles established the confederation of a permanent union... This "permanent" union lasted about 7 years until 11 of the states seceded from the

confederation (nobody seceded from that confderation, but good choice of words to try to make that point)

and ratified the Constitution that took effect in 1789--that established the principles of a more perfect union.

True.. not entirely relevant, but true.

The FF realized they'd botched the Article of Confederation and scrapped a system that really wasn't workable.

The new Constitution that they ratified made NO mention of a state being a permanent fixture or member of the Union. You're federalist papers are not what governs this nation.

My Federalist papers? That's rich. They're everybody's Federalist papers, amigo.

When many states, such as Virginia, Rhode Island, and New York ratified the Constitution, there was a specific statement by these states that they would reserve the right to secede as well as to resume other powers granted to the United States. The right of secession was well understood and agreed to by many other of the Constitutional ratifiers....Including George Washington.

Interesting. Can you lead me to those specific statements?

Senator Henry Cabot Lodge wrote in his book Life of Webster, (that was used at Westpoint before the Civil War) that "It is safe to say that there was not a man in the country, from Washington and Hamilton to Clinton and Mason, who did not regard the new system as an experiment from which each and every State had a right to peaceably withdraw."

Yeah...but experiment in the sense that they wondered if a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC would last, not experement as in they'd given the states the right to bail when it suited them.

Unless you can, per my previous request, lead me to those specific statements, I mean...those bail out clauses you mentioned.

Answer this for me editec...if it was not illegal to secede, why was no Confederate general held and tried for treason? Being held and tried would mean there was a law that was broken would it not?

Pragmatic decision, more than a legal one, I think, Brian.

Everybody was tired of that ghastly slaughter.

And had it been suspected that the North planned on hanging the leaders of the rebellion, (some of whom were worthy of the personal loyalty their troops typically had for them and would have died for) the war would have continued, or at least it have devolved into guerilla war that might have gone on for decades.

The decision not to hang the leaders was made by Lincoln before the war ended, and that really might be one of the reasons that the man is revered by many American historians.

I doubt I'd have had that sort of balls (or smarts) to be that forgiving.

 

[BrianH]

I think the South had the right to TRY and secceed, they just couldn't win. Just like when a southern President, a slaveholder, George Washington took an army into the north to put down the Whiskey Renbellion

Which is exactly what this is about. The North did nor the South went to war because of slavery. It was an underlying issue. Neither side attacked the other until the Suuth seceded and the North refused to leave Fort Sumter. The combat hostilities did not start until the South seceding pissed off the North. It was not because the North thought the South were dirty bastards who enslaved black people. They thought they were dirty bastards for seceding.

 

[bornright]

Some of you may enjoy reading this: Institute for Historical Review

 

[BrianH]

10th Amendment: Bill of Rights: Constitution of the United States of America



Interesting interpretation of that clause.

It's not an interpretation editec, it's the meaning. The reason why each state has it's own election systems, education funding, death penalty, and other state powers that cannot be infringed upon by the government. The
10th Amendment says that powers that are not delegated to the U.S government, and powers not prohibited to the states, are reserved by the states respectively. Considering that secession is not a power delegated to the U.S. Government, and is not a power prohibited to the states, the states reserved the right to seced (in 1861). It's not a stretch of imagination. Governing this nation by the Federal Papers and not the U.S. Constitution is. The only reason SCOTUS ruled the way they did, is because the North one, and is it really hard to imagine that the SC would not want the North to appear as though they had done anything wrong?...It's funny how many of you blame the government today of propoganda and brainwashing people but find it inconceivable that the government could have done the same back then. It's a classic case of northern propaganda. The winners wrote the history, simple as that.



My retarded argument is based on the same process that the Supreme court uses whenever the meaning of the founding fathers's consitution is in question because it was often vaguely worded (and I think on purpose, too)

They seek clarification of intent from the Federal papers. The Federal papers clearly state that the Republic was being created " in perpitutity".

That is far less than ambigious language, which I do think trumps your creative, but rather stretched, interpretation of the meaning of the 10th Amendment.

The Federalist papers do not trump the U.S. Constitution. The Republic was created "in perpitutity" yes, but that, in no way, states that every state that joins is a permanent fixture. The republic can still be a republic with one less state, or more for that matter. I'm sorry, but the Bill of Rights and the correct interpretation of the 10th Amendment trumps anything you've posted so far. It's the same process that deems things unconstitutional. If a state uses a power that is prohibted by the Constitution and/or delegated to the U.S. gov...then the power or act is unconstitutional. If it doesn't prohibit that power and it doesn't delegate that power to the U.S. gov., then it's not unconstitutional to exercise that power.


Wikipedia


Try again, or if that's our impasse, we'll have to agree to disagree. You with me and the Supreme court and me with you and ...who exactly?

I'll admit that what SCOTUS says is LAW no matter what I say. But that's not what I'm arguing. It was also LAW to segregate black people based on SCOTUS interpretation. It was also LAW to enslave black people during the civil war. Just because SCOTUS says it's law, does not change the fact that according to the U.S. Constitution--and a lack of specifics in the Federalist paper (i.e. "in perpitutity"), The South's secession was legal.


That unworkable plan that everyone hated, you mean?

The Confederation that was so badly concieved that a second plan had to be devised or the American revolution everyone recognized at the time would have been single-handedly lost by us, without an enemy anywhere on the horizon?

I already stated what you have stated above. 11 states seceded from the Union under the Article of Confederation and adopted the new Constitution
If there was ever anything most American could agree to, it was that the confederation plan was a system that had to die.

confederation (nobody seceded from that confderation, but good choice of words to try to make that point)



True.. not entirely relevant, but true.

The FF realized they'd botched the Article of Confederation and scrapped a system that really wasn't workable.

Why didn't they mention secession in the Constitution if they realized they had botched the Articles of Confederation--that discouraged secession?


My Federalist papers? That's rich. They're everybody's Federalist papers, amigo.



Interesting. Can you lead me to those specific statements?

Take a college class on it.

Ropes of sand: Voluntaryism and secessionism | Voluntaryist, The | Find Articles at BNET
Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York: July 26, 1788
Ratification of the Constitution: New York 1788
"That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness..."

Amendments Proposed by the Virginia Convention

Ratification of the Constitution: Virginia
"First, That each State in the Union shall respectively retain every power, jurisdiction and right which is not by this Constitution delegated to the Congress of the United States or to the departments of the Foederal [sic] Government."

Rhode Island's Ratification - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Ratification of the Constitution: Rhode Island
". The United States shall guaranty to each state its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Constitution expressly delegated to the United States."



Yeah...but experiment in the sense that they wondered if a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC would last, not experement as in they'd given the states the right to bail when it suited them.

Unless you can, per my previous request, lead me to those specific statements, I mean...those bail out clauses you mentioned.



Pragmatic decision, more than a legal one, I think, Brian.

Everybody was tired of that ghastly slaughter.

And had it been suspected that the North planned on hanging the leaders of the rebellion, (some of whom were worthy of the personal loyalty their troops typically had for them and would have died for) the war would have continued, or at least it have devolved into guerilla war that might have gone on for decades.

The decision not to hang the leaders was made by Lincoln before the war ended, and that really might be one of the reasons that the man is revered by many American historians.

I doubt I'd have had that sort of balls (or smarts) to be that forgiving.

I



Wish


You


wouldn't



break



apart



my



paragraph,



and then say the same thing I said as if it were your own idea.

The ratifications stated above all address the powers not delegated to the U.S. and not prohibited to the states. Try and find anywhere in the 1861 Constitution that delegates secession to the U.S. gov. or prohibits it to the states.

 

[bornright]

Institute for Historical Review


The 'Great Emancipator' and the Issue of Race
Abraham Lincoln's Program of Black Resettlement
Robert Morgan
Many Americans think of Abraham Lincoln, above all, as the president who freed the slaves. Immortalized as the "Great Emancipator," he is widely regarded as a champion of black freedom who supported social equality of the races, and who fought the American Civil War (1861-1865) to free the slaves.

While it is true that Lincoln regarded slavery as an evil and harmful institution, it also true, as this paper will show, that he shared the conviction of most Americans of his time, and of many prominent statesmen before and after him, that blacks could not be assimilated into white society. He rejected the notion of social equality of the races, and held to the view that blacks should be resettled abroad. As President, he supported projects to remove blacks from the United States.

Early Experiences
In 1837, at the age of 28, the self-educated Lincoln was admitted to practice law in Illinois. In at least one case, which received considerable attention at the time, he represented a slave-owner. Robert Matson, Lincoln's client, each year brought a crew of slaves from his plantation in Kentucky to a farm he owned in Illinois for seasonal work. State law permitted this, provided that the slaves did not remain in Illinois continuously for a year. In 1847, Matson brought to the farm his favorite mulatto slave, Jane Bryant (wife of his free, black overseer there), and her four children. A dispute developed between Jane Bryant and Matson's white housekeeper, who threatened to have Jane and her children returned to slavery in the South. With the help of local abolitionists, the Bryants fled. They were apprehended, and, in an affidavit sworn out before a justice of the peace, Matson claimed them as his property. Lacking the required certificates of freedom, Bryant and the children were confined to local county jail as the case was argued in court. Lincoln lost the case, and Bryant and her children were declared free. They were later resettled in Liberia.1

In 1842 Lincoln married Mary Todd, who came from one of Kentucky's most prominent slave-holding families.2 While serving as an elected representative in the Illinois legislature, he persuaded his fellow Whigs to support Zachary Taylor, a slave owner, in his successful 1848 bid for the Presidency.3 Lincoln was also a strong supporter of the Illinois law that forbid marriage between whites and blacks.4

"If all earthly power were given me," said Lincoln in a speech delivered in Peoria, Illinois, on October 16, 1854, "I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution [of slavery]. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, to their own native land." After acknowledging that this plan's "sudden execution is impossible," he asked whether freed blacks should be made "politically and socially our equals?" "My own feelings will not admit of this," he said, "and [even] if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not ... We can not, then, make them equals."5

One of Lincoln's most representative public statements on the question of racial relations was given in a speech at Springfield, Illinois, on June 26, 1857.6 In this address, he explained why he opposed the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which would have admitted Kansas into the Union as a slave state:

There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races ... A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas ...

Racial separation, Lincoln went on to say, "must be effected by colonization" of the country's blacks to a foreign land. "The enterprise is a difficult one," he acknowledged,

but "where there is a will there is a way," and what colonization needs most is a hearty will. Will springs from the two elements of moral sense and self-interest. Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and, at the same time, favorable to, or, at least, not against, our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be.

To affirm the humanity of blacks, Lincoln continued, was more likely to strengthen public sentiment on behalf of colonization than the Democrats' efforts to "crush all sympathy for him, and cultivate and excite hatred and disgust against him ..." Resettlement ("colonization") would not succeed, Lincoln seemed to argue, unless accompanied by humanitarian concern for blacks, and some respect for their rights and abilities. By apparently denying the black person's humanity, supporters of slavery were laying the groundwork for "the indefinite outspreading of his bondage." The Republican program of restricting slavery to where it presently existed, he said, had the long-range benefit of denying to slave holders an opportunity to sell their surplus bondsmen at high prices in new slave territories, and thus encouraged them to support a process of gradual emancipation involving resettlement of the excess outside of the country.

Earlier Resettlement Plans
The view that America's apparently intractable racial problem should be solved by removing blacks from this country and resettling them elsewhere -- "colonization" or "repatriation" -- was not a new one. As early as 1714 a New Jersey man proposed sending blacks to Africa. In 1777 a Virginia legislature committee, headed by future President Thomas Jefferson (himself a major slave owner), proposed a plan of gradual emancipation and resettlement of the state's slaves. In 1815, an enterprising free black from Massachusetts named Paul Cuffe transported, at his own expense, 38 free blacks to West Africa. His undertaking showed that at least some free blacks were eager to resettle in a country of their own, and suggested what might be possible with public and even government support.7

In December 1816, a group of distinguished Americans met in Washington, DC, to establish an organization to promote the cause of black resettlement. The "American Colonization Society" soon won backing from some of the young nation's most prominent citizens. Henry Clay, Francis Scott Key, John Randolph, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Bushrod Washington, Charles Carroll, Millard Fillmore, John Marshall, Roger B. Taney, Andrew Jackson, Daniel Webster, Stephen A. Douglas, and Abraham Lincoln were members. Clay presided at the group's first meeting.8

Measures to resettle blacks in Africa were soon undertaken. Society member Charles Fenton Mercer played an important role in getting Congress to pass the Anti-Slave Trading Act of March 1819, which appropriated $100,000 to transport blacks to Africa. In enforcing the Act, Mercer suggested to President James Monroe that if blacks were simply returned to the coast of Africa and released, they would probably be re-enslaved, and possibly some returned to the United States. Accordingly, and in cooperation with the Society, Monroe sent agents to acquire territory on Africa's West coast -- a step that led to the founding of the country now known as Liberia. Its capital city was named Monrovia in honor of the American President.9

With crucial Society backing, black settlers began arriving from the United States in 1822. While only free blacks were at first brought over, after 1827, slaves were freed expressly for the purpose of transporting them to Liberia. In 1847, black settlers declared Liberia an independent republic, with an American-style flag and constitution.10

By 1832 the legislatures of more than a dozen states (at that time there were only 24), had given official approval to the Society, including at least three slave-holding states.11 Indiana's legislature, for example, passed the following joint resolution on January 16, 1850:12

Be it resolved by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana: That our Senators and Representatives in Congress be, and they are hereby requested, in the name of the State of Indiana, to call for a change of national policy on the subject of the African Slave Trade, and that they require a settlement of the coast of Africa with colored men from the United States, and procure such changes in our relations with England as will permit us to transport colored men from this country to Africa, with whom to effect said settlement.

In January 1858, Missouri Congressman Francis P. Blair, Jr., introduced a resolution in the House of Representatives to set up a committee

to inquire into the expediency of providing for the acquisition of territory either in the Central or South American states, to be colonized with colored persons from the United States who are now free, or who may hereafter become free, and who may be willing to settle in such territory as a dependency of the United States, with ample guarantees of their personal and political rights.

Blair, quoting Thomas Jefferson, stated that blacks could never be accepted as the equals of whites, and, consequently, urged support for a dual policy of emancipation and deportation, similar to Spain's expulsion of the Moors. Blair went on to argue that the territory acquired for the purpose would also serve as a bulwark against any further encroachment by England in the Central and South American regions.13

Lincoln's Support for Resettlement
Lincoln's ideological mentor was Henry Clay, the eminent American scholar, diplomat, and statesman. Because of his skill in the US Senate and House of Representatives, Clay won national acclaim as the "Great Compromiser" and the "Great Pacificator." A slave owner who had humane regard for blacks, he was prominent in the campaign to resettle free blacks outside of the United States, and served as president of the American Colonization Society. Lincoln joined Clay's embryonic Whig party during the 1830s. In an address given in 1858, Lincoln described Clay as "my beau ideal of a statesman, the man for whom I fought all of my humble life."14

The depth of Lincoln's devotion to Clay and his ideals was expressed in a moving eulogy delivered in July 1852 in Springfield, Illinois. After praising Clay's lifelong devotion to the cause of black resettlement, Lincoln quoted approvingly from a speech given by Clay in 1827: "There is a moral fitness in the idea of returning to Africa her children," adding that if Africa offered no refuge, blacks could be sent to another tropical land. Lincoln concluded:15

If as the friends of colonization hope, the present and coming generations of our countrymen shall by any means succeed in freeing our land from the dangerous presence of slavery, and, at the same time, in restoring a captive people to their long-lost fatherland, with bright prospects for the future, and this too, so gradually, that neither races nor individuals shall have suffered by the change, it will indeed be a glorious consummation.

In January 1855, Lincoln addressed a meeting of the Illinois branch of the Colonization Society. The surviving outline of his speech suggests that it consisted largely of a well-informed and sympathetic account of the history of the resettlement campaign.16

In supporting "colonization" of the blacks, a plan that might be regarded as a "final solution" to the nation's race question, Lincoln was upholding the views of some of America's most respected figures.

Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858
In 1858 Lincoln was nominated by the newly-formed Republican Party to challenge Steven Douglas, a Democrat, for his Illinois seat in the US Senate. During the campaign, "Little Giant" Douglas focused on the emotion-charged issue of race relations. He accused Lincoln, and Republicans in general, of advocating the political and social equality of the white and black races, and of thereby promoting racial amalgamation. Lincoln responded by strenuously denying the charge, and by arguing that because slavery was the chief cause of miscegenation in the United States, restricting its further spread into the western territories and new states would, in fact, reduce the possibility of race mixing. Lincoln thus came close to urging support for his party because it best represented white people's interests.

Between late August and mid-October, 1858, Lincoln and Douglas travelled together around the state to confront each other in seven historic debates. On August 21, before a crowd of 10,000 at Ottawa, Lincoln declared:17

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.

He continued:

I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.

Many people accepted the rumors spread by Douglas supporters that Lincoln favored social equality of the races. Before the start of the September 18 debate at Charleston, Illinois, an elderly man approached Lincoln in a hotel and asked him if the stories were true. Recounting the encounter later before a crowd of 15,000, Lincoln declared:18

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people.

He continued:

I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

 

[Jeepers]

Just took my boat over to Fort Sumter last weekend...

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Well I'm sure if anyone can set the controversy straight, it's Abraham Lincoln. Maybe we can find something in his speeches, hmm where to start. Okay, I don't know, soo...how about his very first inaugural address:

Fellow-Citizens of the United States:

IN compliance with a custom as old as the Government itself, I appear before you to address you briefly and to take in your presence the oath prescribed by the Constitution of the United States to be taken by the President "before he enters on the execution of this office."

I do not consider it necessary at present for me to discuss those matters of administration about which there is no special anxiety or excitement.

Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that—

"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."

Abraham Lincoln: First Inaugural Address. U.S. Inaugural Addresses. 1989

Oh.

He isn't just saying that he has no intention of interfering with slavery. He's saying it at the very beginning of his very first speech as president. And he's quoting his own blunt words that he gave in another speech, to emphasize the point.

I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.

He's talking about the Corwin Amendment, a proposed amendment to the constitution that would have forbid a future constitutional amendment to outlaw slavery. So to be strictly constitutional, there would have had to been two amendments--one to repeal Corwin, and the other to abolish slavery on a national level.

 

[PatriotUSA]

I dunno about anyone else, but my grandparents were taught in school that the Civil War started over cotton because North was ripping us off. Slavery came second. They were taught that Lincoln wanted to send all the slaves back to Africa but it would be too expensive. Why don't we learn any of this now and days? Because the libs have changed history.

***

 

[Gunny]

I dunno about anyone else, but my grandparents were taught in school that the Civil War started over cotton because North was ripping us off. Slavery came second. They were taught that Lincoln wanted to send all the slaves back to Africa but it would be too expensive. Why don't we learn any of this now and days? Because the libs have changed history.

***

Yes and no. Your explanation is over-simplified which causes it to be misleading. The North was not ripping the South off for cotton. The North wanted high import-export tariffs to force the South to buy and sell from them rather Europe where the South was making a far better profit.

The South in turn wanted low import/export tariffs for the aofrementioned reason. With the threat to the expansion of slavery would come a tip of the balance of power in Congress in favor of the North.

So, the issue o fslavery was big, but not in the way it's sold by revisionists. The North did not fight a war to free the black man, nor did the South fight a war to keep the black man in chains. Whether or not slavery would be allowed to remain where it existed was not in question.

Whether or not a slave state would be added each time a free state was to maintain the status quo in Congress was the issue.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

To further prove that the Civil War was not fought to end slavery, there were 5 slave-states that remained in the Union and fought against the Confederacy. It would be a stretch to say that these 5 states fought to end something that they themselves practiced.

The southern states seceded predominantly over the issue of protectionist tariffs that benefitted the north and impeded the south. The institution of slavery where it already existed was not threatened when the southern states seceded.

Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederacy, sent delegates to Lincoln to offer to pay for the federal property in the south, and the south's portion of the national debt. Lincoln refused to meet with them, and then sent supplies to Fort Sumter knowing it would antagonize the south. The Confederates were willing to let Fort Sumter run out of supplies and be abandoned by the Union troops, but they were not willing to allow a Union base within their borders. So they attacked, and nobody was killed in the assault and all Union soldiers were allowed to return home.

During the course of the war Lincoln allowed his troops to kill civilians and burn southern cities to the ground, all to "save" the Union of course. Of course let's define what Lincoln meant by "saving" the Union. He meant forcing the southern states to remain in the Union so they could pay their taxes and tariffs, and utterly destroying them if they refused.

The founding fathers believed that governments derived their powers from the consent of the governed, and the federal government did not have the consent of the southern states. Therefore, it can be concluded that the founders would have recognized the right of the independent and sovereign southern states to leave the Union and form their own government.

 

[Orange_Juice]

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.