How Much of the Civil War was About Slavery?

[Picaro]

No serious arguments against the illegality and reasons Lincoln started his illegal war yet, so we can review the diaries of the Constitutional Convention and get a sense of whether or not the 'Founders' claimed secession was illegal. Such proposals were made, but rejected. See pages 44 to 47 of Max Farrand's compilation of the proceedings and Madison's rejection of a proposal that the federal government be empowered to use military force to suppress a state's secession:

"A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a state, would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound."

The Records of the Federal Convention, Vol.1 page 47, Yale University Press 1911.

 

[Syriusly]

No serious arguments against the illegality and reasons Lincoln started his illegal war yet, .

There have been no serious arguments as to why Lincoln should have not acted as Commander in Chief after the insurrection started and attacked American troops.

 

[Picaro]

No serious arguments against the illegality and reasons Lincoln started his illegal war yet, .

There have been no serious arguments as to why Lincoln should have not acted as Commander in Chief after the insurrection started and attacked American troops.

You had your shot at it, but never supported your claim that secession was illegal. Now you're just playing '" I Touched You Last!!!". You can always still attempt that, but you will need a lot more than just you saying so. Go ahead and make a serious argument; it will be your first in this thread. If you can claim Lincoln's own words aren't relevant, you can publish an historical first and maybe get a job teaching at Harvard or something.

 

[Syriusly]

No serious arguments against the illegality and reasons Lincoln started his illegal war yet, .

There have been no serious arguments as to why Lincoln should have not acted as Commander in Chief after the insurrection started and attacked American troops.

You had your shot at it, but never supported your claim that secession was illegal..

I have never argued the legality of secession- as far as I am concerned its a moot point.

Whether it was rebellious states which fired on American troops- or an independent country which fired on American troops- Abraham Lincoln was Commander in Chief and was responsible for responding to the attack on the United States.

 

[Bonzi]

Bottom line: It's always about Money and power.

It was never "really" about slaves. the South was worried about losing economic viability, and view the North as trying to make the South "like them".....

If this could be accomplished without Slaves, the South would have no problem with it........

 

[Picaro]

I have never argued the legality of secession- as far as I am concerned its a moot point.

Whether it was rebellious states which fired on American troops- or an independent country which fired on American troops- Abraham Lincoln was Commander in Chief and was responsible for responding to the attack on the United States.

Lol I didn't think you would offer anything serious but your own opinion.

 

[Picaro]

Bottom line: It's always about Money and power.

Indeed. And we have the Record of Bills the Congress passed first after secession as absolute evidence for what the real game was.

 

[Syriusly]

Bottom line: It's always about Money and power.

It was never "really" about slaves. the South was worried about losing economic viability, and view the North as trying to make the South "like them".....

If this could be accomplished without Slaves, the South would have no problem with it........

Oh it really was about 'slaves'.

Because slaves were the single largest source of wealth in most of the states that seceded.

And they specifically state that the cause for their succession was their belief that the North was not respecting those rights.

 

[Picaro]

Oh it really was about 'slaves'.

Because slaves were the single largest source of wealth in most of the states that seceded.

And they specifically state that the cause for their succession was their belief that the North was not respecting those rights.

Because repeating baseless unsupportable assertions makes them more true with every repetition ...

 

[Syriusly]

Oh it really was about 'slaves'.

Because slaves were the single largest source of wealth in most of the states that seceded.

And they specifically state that the cause for their succession was their belief that the North was not respecting those rights.

Because repeating baseless unsupportable assertions makes them more true with every repetition ...

Oh the assertion is easily supportable- South Carolina said very clearly that Slavery was the main cause for its Secession- and of course then South Carolina fired the shots that started the war.

South Carolina Declaration of Secession
Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union



The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D. 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

.......

In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.


The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows:


"No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.


The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States
.
The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

.....

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.


We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.


For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.


The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.


Adopted December 24, 1860

 

[Syriusly]

Oh it really was about 'slaves'.

Because slaves were the single largest source of wealth in most of the states that seceded.

And they specifically state that the cause for their succession was their belief that the North was not respecting those rights.

Because repeating baseless unsupportable assertions makes them more true with every repetition ...

You seem to think that they do.

 

[Picaro]

Oh the assertion is easily supportable- South Carolina said very clearly that Slavery was the main cause for its Secession- and of course then South Carolina fired the shots that started the war.

Except that secession wasn't illegal, and therefore Lincoln's attempt to blockade and tax Carolina's imports and exports was a direct act of war, which made the firing the shots self-defense and nothing else. The rest of your post is just an attempt at hoping posting a lot of irrelevant stuff will make all that go away. They could have seceded for any reason whatsoever, and legally so.

 

[Picaro]

Oh it really was about 'slaves'.

Because slaves were the single largest source of wealth in most of the states that seceded.

And they specifically state that the cause for their succession was their belief that the North was not respecting those rights.

Because repeating baseless unsupportable assertions makes them more true with every repetition ...

You seem to think that they do.

Since your posts keep repeating the same thing, that happens with the responses as well; it's you who keeps quoting me, not the other way around.

 

[longknife]

I'm gonna ask a question - Who cares?

It's over and it can't be undone.

 

[Unkotare]

All of the factors that eventually and inevitably led to the Civil War were ultimately about or related to slavery.

 

[regent]

The new CSA Constitution itself did not give the CSA states the right to secede but did the CSA Constitution preamble?

 

[Syriusly]

Oh the assertion is easily supportable- South Carolina said very clearly that Slavery was the main cause for its Secession- and of course then South Carolina fired the shots that started the war.

Except that secession wasn't illegal, and therefore Lincoln's attempt to blockade and tax Carolina's imports and exports was a direct act of war, which made the firing the shots self-defense and nothing else. The rest of your post is just an attempt at hoping posting a lot of irrelevant stuff will make all that go away. They could have seceded for any reason whatsoever, and legally so.

Except that the Northern States did believe that secession was illegal- nor was there ever a court ruling that declared it to be legal. Just saying it was- doesn't make it so.

Shots fired on American troops at Fort Sumter: April 12, 1861
Abraham Lincoln announces blockade of the rebellious state: April 19, 1861

Shots starting the war came first- blockade against the attacking rebellous states came second.

 

[Picaro]

The new CSA Constitution itself did not give the CSA states the right to secede but did the CSA Constitution preamble?

Don't know why that would matter; it has nothing to do with Lincoln's deliberately starting the war.

We do how ever know that Madison rejected giving the federal government the power to use military force to suppress a state that seceded, he scotched a proposal to do just that during the Constitutional Convention, and with Jefferson co-authored the Virginia Resolution of 1798 while Jefferson authored the Kentucky Resolution alone. If the attendees of the Constitutional Convention thought it should be illegal to secede and wanted the federal government to have the power to force states to comply by using military force they would have voted for that when it was proposed then. They didn't.

We have the Federalists in New England threatening to secede merely because Jefferson was elected President, and again in 1807 when Jefferson began enforcing the embargo with federal troops, and again in 1814 or so. Obviously they didn't think it was illegal, and since none were arrested for treason for attempting it, even during a war, it's clear Jefferson and his faction didn't think it illegal and treason, nor did Madison when they tried again during the War of 1812. Daniel Webster didn't consider it illegal, since he sided with the New England faction at the time.

As for slavery, slave states were brought into the new government, and remained there. In the 70 years prior no amendment to outlaw slavery was ever seriously proposed, nor any Amendment declaring secession illegal ever proposed. Lincoln didn't think secession was wrong or illegal, he supported states who wanted to secede, as in his speech citing the Texas secession in 1848. Since Lincoln was himself a white supremacist, and help write and pass greatly strengthened Black Codes in Illinois in the mid-1850's right before the war, along with several other northern states, and the Republicans running on white supremacist planks in election right up and during the Civil War itself, it's clear they weren't running on the evils of slavery and the plight of the black people in America, and Lincoln himself saying numerous times he wasn't going to do a thing about slavery, the pickings for those claiming the war was about slavery have pretty much nothing to stand on re the historical records. The only issue Lincoln wouldn't compromise on was his tariffs; they were the key to the rest of the old Whig 'American system'.

We also know how Lincoln's military governors handled 'free' blacks and how Lincoln planned to handle that problem; Butler and Banks in Louisiana ordered 'freed' blacks to remain on their plantations and work at what they did before, and not to leave without written permissions from the plantation owners. But hey, the were 'free' and got paid wages! $3 a month, a wage also set by Banks.

The 'anti-slavery' fans in the North were about keeping blacks in the South and the new territories 'free soil for free white men'; very few were opposing slavery for moral principles outside of Quakers and Garrisonites, and a sliver of Radicals in the Republican Party.

 

[Picaro]

Except that the Northern States did believe that secession was illegal-

Pure nonsense; if that were the case Lincoln wouldn't have suspended the writ of habeas corpus all over the northern states, send loyal troops into northern states to control elections and arrest politicians who opposed his 'platform', have federal troops arresting voters who attempted to vote against Republican candidates, deport Ohio politicians for the crime of speaking out against the war, use federal troops to seize and shut down opposition newspapers, and conduct elections with federal troops controlling the ballot boxes and denying those suspected of 'disloyalty' the right to vote at all. All this without any input from any other branch of government, all illegal.

 

[Picaro]

I'm gonna ask a question - Who cares?

It's over and it can't be undone.

People who think they can use the Lincoln Myth as a faux moral soapbox to snivel and whine about the South in 2015. They think the Lincoln Myth gives them special cred or something. The problem with that pseudo-intellectual gibberish is that they would have to show that they themselves are just so Speshul and wonderful it's just a given they would have been completely unlike the vast majority back then and would be on the front lines 'fightin' the evil of slavery' or something, i.e. they're being ridiculously hypocritical and full of crap. Being 'against slavery n stuff' in 2015 is about as radical and daring as taking a nap after supper. Lincoln wasn't in any way conducting some high minded moral crusade against evil, nor were the northern states.