South Started Civil War Over Slavery

[alan1]

The whole notion of calling it a "civil war" just proves how indoctrinated all of you are.
A civil war is when 2 opposing forces fight for control of the governmental body.
Hey, that isn't what happened.
Instead, it was a war for independence much like the first war for independence that founded this country. The southern states were seeking independence from an oppressive overbearing government. They weren't seeking to take over that government, they were trying to escape it.

 

[PatBuchanan]

Jump down - turn around - pick a bale o cotton - jump down - turn around - pick a bale o hay!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

The south didn't start the civil war, Lincoln did. The south also had no reason to believe that Lincoln had any ambition to end slavery where it already existed, as he stated very clearly that he would support an amendment that would have made slavery a permanent fixture.

Did white supremacy end when the slaves were freed? Nope.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The whole notion of calling it a "civil war" just proves how indoctrinated all of you are.
A civil war is when 2 opposing forces fight for control of the governmental body.
Hey, that isn't what happened.
Instead, it was a war for independence much like the first war for independence that founded this country. The southern states were seeking independence from an oppressive overbearing government. They weren't seeking to take over that government, they were trying to escape it.

A very good point.

 

[alan1]

A very good point.

I have my moments.

 

[Orange_Juice]

The south didn't start the civil war, Lincoln did. The south also had no reason to believe that Lincoln had any ambition to end slavery where it already existed, as he stated very clearly that he would support an amendment that would have made slavery a permanent fixture.

Did white supremacy end when the slaves were freed? Nope.

The south started the war by firing on Sumter, they had no reason to do that. Lincoln never said he would support that amendment, and anyway, that was not enough for the south anyway, they wanted a slave state Kansas, to take Cuba with slavery and for free citizens to hunt down their slaves

 

[elvis]

Can we make slavery legal again? At least I'd feel like I was getting something for all the money we keep wasting on blacks between food stamps, free education, free health care....

For all that I should at least have them out in my fields picking cotton.

do you mind wasting money on food stamps for whites between free education, free health care......public aid, etc.

or are you somehow poorer if the same dollars go to african americans?

stroke of brilliance.

 

[Orange_Juice]

The whole notion of calling it a "civil war" just proves how indoctrinated all of you are.
A civil war is when 2 opposing forces fight for control of the governmental body.
Hey, that isn't what happened.
Instead, it was a war for independence much like the first war for independence that founded this country. The southern states were seeking independence from an oppressive overbearing government. They weren't seeking to take over that government, they were trying to escape it.

The North wasn't oppressing anyone. They wanted to restrict slavery [oppression] from being allowed in any more states.

 

[elvis]

The Civil War was fought over whether or not states had the right to succeed from the Union, not over whether or not to keep slavery legal. Lincoln was willing to allow slavery to be legal if it meant keeping the Union together. (although he did not say this until toward the end of the war, if I remember correctly) He was an abolitionist, but preserving the Union was his first priority.

 

[hopner33]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[alan1]

The North wasn't oppressing anyone. They wanted to restrict slavery [oppression] from being allowed in any more states.

Yeah, whatever.
I suppose you think it was "civil war" also.

 

[hopner33]

The whole notion of calling it a "civil war" just proves how indoctrinated all of you are.
A civil war is when 2 opposing forces fight for control of the governmental body.
Hey, that isn't what happened.
Instead, it was a war for independence much like the first war for independence that founded this country. The southern states were seeking independence from an oppressive overbearing government. They weren't seeking to take over that government, they were trying to escape it.

This is repeated over and over again but it has no merit.
Your definition is entirely stipulational.

"The common scholarly definition has two main criteria. The first says that the warring groups must be from the same country and fighting for control of the political center, control over a separatist state or to force a major change in policy. The second says that at least 1,000 people must have been killed, with at least 100 from each side."
The American Civil War fits this.

And how is the term Civil War used by people? Oh wait, the American Civil War. The common definition disagrees with you.

The dictionary also disagrees. A civil war is ": a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country." While you might disagree that they were the same country, your definition is still far too narrow.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The south started the war by firing on Sumter, they had no reason to do that. Lincoln never said he would support that amendment, and anyway, that was not enough for the south anyway, they wanted a slave state Kansas, to take Cuba with slavery and for free citizens to hunt down their slaves

Lincoln knew that the south was not going to allow a Union fort within their borders, and exploited this by arrogantly choosing to resupply the fort after refusing to allow the Confederates to purchase it. He needed a better reason than "saving the union" to wage his war, because most people at the time would have said that the south had the right to leave the Union.

"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." - Abraham Lincoln

Sounds like he supports the amendment right there, doesn't it?

The Lincoln Cult’s Latest Cover-Up by Thomas DiLorenzo

An interesting article from the author of The Real Lincoln and Lincoln Unmasked that further proves that Lincoln supported the amendment to make slavery permanent.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The North wasn't oppressing anyone. They wanted to restrict slavery [oppression] from being allowed in any more states.

Tariffs were passed by the federal government that hurt the economy of the south, but helped the northern states. Sounds like oppression to me.

 

[hopner33]

The south didn't start the civil war, Lincoln did. The south also had no reason to believe that Lincoln had any ambition to end slavery where it already existed, as he stated very clearly that he would support an amendment that would have made slavery a permanent fixture.

Did white supremacy end when the slaves were freed? Nope.

You are right that the South should no have believed that Lincoln would free the slaves. But the fact is that they did think that. Read the newspapers from the time, or read the secession commissioners' speeches.

What the Southerners though Lincoln would do towards slavery is more important that what Lincoln would really do if you are trying to explain secession.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Civil War was fought over whether or not states had the right to succeed from the Union, not over whether or not to keep slavery legal. Lincoln was willing to allow slavery to be legal if it meant keeping the Union together. (although he did not say this until toward the end of the war, if I remember correctly) He was an abolitionist, but preserving the Union was his first priority.

Lincoln was not an abolitionist, he was a white supremacist.

The quote you're thinking of was in a letter to Horace Greely in 1862, not the end of the Civil War.

 

[hopner33]

Lincoln knew that the south was not going to allow a Union fort within their borders, and exploited this by arrogantly choosing to resupply the fort after refusing to allow the Confederates to purchase it. He needed a better reason than "saving the union" to wage his war, because most people at the time would have said that the south had the right to leave the Union.

"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." - Abraham Lincoln

Sounds like he supports the amendment right there, doesn't it?

The Lincoln Cult’s Latest Cover-Up by Thomas DiLorenzo

An interesting article from the author of The Real Lincoln and Lincoln Unmasked that further proves that Lincoln supported the amendment to make slavery permanent.

Lincoln did support the Corwin amendment. But think about it deeper.

A common view at the time, in both the North and the South, was that slavery would surely die if it could not expand. If slavery was allowed to expand slavery could continue indefinitely.
Lincoln also believed that he had no constitutional power to end slavery in the South, it would have to be an entirely state run effort.
The Corwin amendment was thus the best way to make sure that slavery DID end. In Lincoln's eyes it would doom slavery to death in a constitutional manner, while at the same time keeping the South in the Union.
Nobody (or very few people outside the South) in 1861 foresaw the slaves being free by 1865.

 

[elvis]

Lincoln was not an abolitionist, he was a white supremacist.

The quote you're thinking of was in a letter to Horace Greely in 1862, not the end of the Civil War.

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?

 

[alan1]

This is repeated over and over again but it has no merit.
Your definition is entirely stipulational.

"The common scholarly definition has two main criteria. The first says that the warring groups must be from the same country and fighting for control of the political center, control over a separatist state or to force a major change in policy. The second says that at least 1,000 people must have been killed, with at least 100 from each side."
The American Civil War fits this.

And how is the term Civil War used by people? Oh wait, the American Civil War. The common definition disagrees with you.

The dictionary also disagrees. A civil war is ": a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country." While you might disagree that they were the same country, your definition is still far too narrow.

I guess we know which definition we both want to choose as our definition, don't we.

 

[hopner33]

I guess we know which definition we both want to choose as our definition, don't we.

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