The Origins and Causes of the U.S. Civil War

[Discombobulated]

Lesson time.

Civil War Avoided Video C-SPAN.org

 

[Billo_Really]

The civil war started over a mis-understanding.

Lincoln was very aware of the impact (and higher costs) southerners were having with their slave labor, due to the blockades and tariff's, so he thought he would offer them an olive branch by sending down an emissary to tell the southern plantation owners, "From now on, all your slaves are free!"

But they took it the wrong way.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Slavery was not headed for extinction in the near future.

The slaves of Cuba and Brazil were decades from liberty in 1860.

 

[Discombobulated]

Slavery was not headed for extinction in the near future.

The slaves of Cuba and Brazil were decades from liberty in 1860.

I wonder how slavery could have ended peacefully? War was inevitable because the slave holders would never have compromised, they held political and economic power. If it were up to Confederates slavery never would have ended, they'd still be claiming the right to fight for their freedom to preserve slavery.

 

[James Everett]

The Southern leaders would not accept constitutional, electoral procedure.

South Carolina had seceded months before Lincoln was inaugurated.

The CSA fired on US ships under Buchanan and Lincoln's administrations.

No where does the 10th Amendment, much less the Constitution, permit states to secede.

Slavery was well off and protected, with 90% of the economy vested directed and indirectly in the cotton empire.

Southerners could (1) no longer stand being called immoral, and (2) not live on an equal basis with the slaves. They are much like our far right conservatives.

The Old South deserved to die.

JakeStarkey,
You write....
"The CSA fired on US ships under Buchanan and Lincoln's administrations."
Buchanan attempted to send a supply ship to the Yankee soldiers at Fort
Sumter, In order to reach Fort Sumter, that supply ship would violate the sovereign State of South Carolina's territorial waters in CHARLESTON HARBOR: The invasion of South Carolina/CHARLESTON HARBOR by this supply ship was an act of War, when the U.S. was forbidden to enter South Carolina's territorial waters. A U.S. Ship cannot simply waltz into any Harbor in the world if the Country wherein the harbor lies forbids its entrance. Such would constitute an act of War, this is why today, if a U.S. Air Force plane enters Russian airspace it will likely be met with force and be shot down.
Next you state....
"No where does the 10th Amendment, much less the Constitution, permit states to secede."
The simple fact that YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. Constitution does not address the subject of secession, means that it is a POWER reserved by each State INDIVIDUALLY....READ THE TENTH AMENDMENT....
"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."

JAKE STARKEY, You also state.....
"Southerners could (1) no longer stand being called immoral, and (2) not live on an equal basis with the slaves. They are much like our far right conservatives."
How about I ask you a question here to show your hypocrisy....
Could the U.S. stand to live on an equal basis with the Native American Indian in 1860?
How were the free Slaves in the North Treated? Or the Irish for that matter? Were they treated as equals?
The reason I ask is that I am confused when I read these Northern States Jim Crow laws....
Pennsylvania
1869: Education [Statute] Black children prohibited from attending Pittsburgh schools.
1956: Adoption [Statute] Petition must state race or color of adopting parents.

Rhode Island
1872: Miscegenation [State Code] Prohibited intermarriage. Penalty: $1,000 fine, or up to six months' imprisonment.

Ohio
Enacted a miscegenation statute in 1877 and a school segregation law in 1878. Segregation of public facilities was barred in 1884
Illinois
1927: Housing [Municipal Code]
Chicago adopted racially restrictive housing covenants beginning in 1927.

Indiana
Enacted seven Jim Crow laws in the areas of education and miscegenation between 1869 and 1952.

 

[James Everett]

and so is the subject as the title implies: causes of civil war? Do you know the causes?

Yes. Read the OP, I assure you it's quite thorough, though not as thorough as it could be because I ran into the character limit in the place it was originally posted.

The op is a piece of crap, it makes incorrect assertions, and never addresses the legality of secession.

I can address that issue for you right now: There never was any legal basis for secession.

Discombobulated, there is no legal basis to stop a state from seceding, that's the point. If there is no law established making something illegal, then it is most certainly legal. The tenth amendment covers that issue.

Wrong again......or rather still.

No, I am right and you know it, As I have challenged.....
Cite the law, Article within your 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, or amendment thereto that states that secession is an illegal act.
You simply stating "Wrong" does NOT make it so.

 

[Discombobulated]

There never was any constitutionally legal justification for secession. But you certainly could argue that many Confederates sincerely believed they had that right.

Southern Perceptions Abraham Lincoln Video C-SPAN.org

No justification was needed, there was nor iss law to preventaState from exiting the union. You just don't get it. Do you? Do you needed justification to severe a relationship with a friend or leave your job? What is it about NO LAW that you don't understand?

A sovereign nation is now apparently defined as a social club.

 

[James Everett]

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Oh..you don't want to talk about the war of northern aggression any more...now you want to quote the preamble....
Collapse, partitioning and reconstruction, ravi.
Corrections will be made.

You asked a question and didn't like the answer. The South got what it deserved.

Not quite. If they had gotten what they deserved the leaders of the Confederacy would have all been hanged as traitors.

Good point.

Many southern folks learned the wrong lessons from the Civil War. Had we hanged the leaders as traitors then they might have understood that the question of secession is settled.

Discombobulated, you state.....
"Many southern folks learned the wrong lessons from the Civil War. Had we hanged the leaders as traitors then they might have understood that the question of secession is settled."
Is YOUR U.S. not a nation of laws????
Our Southern leaders could not have legally been hanged as traitors, because they were NOT BY DEFINITION TRAITORS.
Under Article III,Section 3, of the Constitution,any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them Aid and Comfort has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution.
Here YOU MUST RETURN TO THE FIRST CAUSE...
There was, nor is an Article within your 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, or amendment thereto that states that secession is an illegal act. Therefore when the Southern States seceded, the citizens thereof, were NO LONGER U.S. CITIZENS, hence a NON citizen cannot commit treason against a country in which he is not a citizen.

 

[James Everett]

There never was any constitutionally legal justification for secession. But you certainly could argue that many Confederates sincerely believed they had that right.

Southern Perceptions Abraham Lincoln Video C-SPAN.org

No justification was needed, there was nor iss law to preventaState from exiting the union. You just don't get it. Do you? Do you needed justification to severe a relationship with a friend or leave your job? What is it about NO LAW that you don't understand?

A sovereign nation is now apparently defined as a social club.

Dis....
You state...
"A sovereign nation is now apparently defined as a social club"
Sir,
It is a UNION OF STATES, united by treaty, called the U.S. CONstitution. The central government is a sovereign entity acting within the VERY SMALL sphere of authority that the States delegated to it. The States are also Sovereigns acting within there near unlimited sphere of RETAINED AUTHORITY/POWER.

 

[James Everett]

Slavery was not headed for extinction in the near future.

The slaves of Cuba and Brazil were decades from liberty in 1860.

I wonder how slavery could have ended peacefully? War was inevitable because the slave holders would never have compromised, they held political and economic power. If it were up to Confederates slavery never would have ended, they'd still be claiming the right to fight for their freedom to preserve slavery.

Disbo,
That is a gratuitous asertion backed by nothing more than your attempt to gain a moral superior position, which looking back on what the U.S. government did in its extermination of the Native American Indian, You cannot possibly hold that position.

 

[James Everett]

Slavery was not headed for extinction in the near future.

The slaves of Cuba and Brazil were decades from liberty in 1860.

JAKESTARKEY, You state....
"The slaves of Cuba and Brazil were decades from liberty in 1860."
Why did the U.S. not continue its crusade to end slavery by invading Cuba and Brazil?

 

[James Everett]

I am rethinking my stance on southern secession in 1861. They had a right to succeed, and, given the reasons, they would have rued the day. And on top of that, Slavery was doomed to fail because of the industrial revolution, let alone Christian values would have led the south to eventually relent and abandon slavery. And it would have saved lives, maybe even Lincoln's. If you love something let it go... The southern states would have sued to get back in the union years later after this hiccup.

Exactly wrong and completely stupid. Slavery became much more important as a direct result of the industrial revolution making cotton production the most important export from the south. Which made slaves their most important financial investment, worth more than all the factories and foundries of the north. And Christian values were used to justify slavery as often as not. So where are your alleged facts? I don't see any.

Discoma,
And what is YOUR excuse for YOUR U.S. Governments extermination practices against the Native American Indian???? Were they not called Savage heathens by the Northern Christian? And I suppose the gold in the western land wherein the plains Indians and those in California such as the Nez Perce inhabited was worth more than those same factories and foundries in the North?

 

[Discombobulated]

Slavery was not headed for extinction in the near future.

The slaves of Cuba and Brazil were decades from liberty in 1860.

I wonder how slavery could have ended peacefully? War was inevitable because the slave holders would never have compromised, they held political and economic power. If it were up to Confederates slavery never would have ended, they'd still be claiming the right to fight for their freedom to preserve slavery.

Disbo,
That is a gratuitous asertion backed by nothing more than your attempt to gain a moral superior position, which looking back on what the U.S. government did in its extermination of the Native American Indian, You cannot possibly hold that position.

I have absolutely no idea what Indians have to do with slavery and secession.

 

[Discombobulated]

Oh..you don't want to talk about the war of northern aggression any more...now you want to quote the preamble....
Collapse, partitioning and reconstruction, ravi.
Corrections will be made.

You asked a question and didn't like the answer. The South got what it deserved.

Not quite. If they had gotten what they deserved the leaders of the Confederacy would have all been hanged as traitors.

Good point.

Many southern folks learned the wrong lessons from the Civil War. Had we hanged the leaders as traitors then they might have understood that the question of secession is settled.

Discombobulated, you state.....
"Many southern folks learned the wrong lessons from the Civil War. Had we hanged the leaders as traitors then they might have understood that the question of secession is settled."
Is YOUR U.S. not a nation of laws????
Our Southern leaders could not have legally been hanged as traitors, because they were NOT BY DEFINITION TRAITORS.
Under Article III,Section 3, of the Constitution,any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them Aid and Comfort has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution.
Here YOU MUST RETURN TO THE FIRST CAUSE...
There was, nor is an Article within your 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, or amendment thereto that states that secession is an illegal act. Therefore when the Southern States seceded, the citizens thereof, were NO LONGER U.S. CITIZENS, hence a NON citizen cannot commit treason against a country in which he is not a citizen.

Actual Constitutional scholars evidently don't concur with your fanciful interpretations.

 

[Discombobulated]

Oh..you don't want to talk about the war of northern aggression any more...now you want to quote the preamble....
Collapse, partitioning and reconstruction, ravi.
Corrections will be made.

You asked a question and didn't like the answer. The South got what it deserved.

Not quite. If they had gotten what they deserved the leaders of the Confederacy would have all been hanged as traitors.

Good point.

Many southern folks learned the wrong lessons from the Civil War. Had we hanged the leaders as traitors then they might have understood that the question of secession is settled.

Discombobulated, you state.....
"Many southern folks learned the wrong lessons from the Civil War. Had we hanged the leaders as traitors then they might have understood that the question of secession is settled."
Is YOUR U.S. not a nation of laws????
Our Southern leaders could not have legally been hanged as traitors, because they were NOT BY DEFINITION TRAITORS.
Under Article III,Section 3, of the Constitution,any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them Aid and Comfort has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution.
Here YOU MUST RETURN TO THE FIRST CAUSE...
There was, nor is an Article within your 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, or amendment thereto that states that secession is an illegal act. Therefore when the Southern States seceded, the citizens thereof, were NO LONGER U.S. CITIZENS, hence a NON citizen cannot commit treason against a country in which he is not a citizen.

Lincoln's worst flaw was being too generous with traitors. Jefferson Davis, his entire cabinet, and every officer who betrayed their oath to the United States of America should have been hanged. Had Lincoln's successor not been so diligent about carrying out his plans for post war reconciliation the traitors might have gotten real justice instead of being lionized as heroes.

 

[Discombobulated]

The Confederacy never had any legal legitimacy, it was an illegal political and military entity with no diplomatic recognition by any nation. And there continues to be no constitutionally sanctioned provision for secession. Any arguments to the contrary lack the necessary substance to validate their premise.

 

[James Everett]

Slavery was not headed for extinction in the near future.

The slaves of Cuba and Brazil were decades from liberty in 1860.

I wonder how slavery could have ended peacefully? War was inevitable because the slave holders would never have compromised, they held political and economic power. If it were up to Confederates slavery never would have ended, they'd still be claiming the right to fight for their freedom to preserve slavery.

Disbo,
That is a gratuitous asertion backed by nothing more than your attempt to gain a moral superior position, which looking back on what the U.S. government did in its extermination of the Native American Indian, You cannot possibly hold that position.

I have absolutely no idea what Indians have to do with slavery and secession.

I have no idea what slavery has to do with the legality of secession either, yet you keep throwing it in the conversation, I can only assume you are attempting to divert from the legal issue, (which is the only relevant issue concerning secession), by introducing slavery in a feeble attempt at gaining the distorted view that Northerners hold some sort of moral superiority, therefore your governments extermination practices against the Native American Indian becomes relevant in the moral discussion that YOU introduced. Stick to the only relevant issue of the legality of secession, and you will not be required to defend your government concerning the Native American Indian. The author of the article which spawned this thread complained that his article was not about the legality of secession, however he introduced it when he falsely charged the Southerners of "insurrection". In doing so he entered the legal question concerning insurrection to which I posted the definition thereof, and gave proof that there was NO insurrection from the Southerners, yet clearly there was an insurrection by Lincoln and the Northerners, as they were in rebellion to the lawful authority of YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitutions' tenth amendment.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Southern leaders would not accept constitutional, electoral procedure.

South Carolina had seceded months before Lincoln was inaugurated.

The CSA fired on US ships under Buchanan and Lincoln's administrations.

No where does the 10th Amendment, much less the Constitution, permit states to secede.

Slavery was well off and protected, with 90% of the economy vested directed and indirectly in the cotton empire.

Southerners could (1) no longer stand being called immoral, and (2) not live on an equal basis with the slaves. They are much like our far right conservatives.

The Old South deserved to die.

JakeStarkey,
You write....
"The CSA fired on US ships under Buchanan and Lincoln's administrations."
Buchanan attempted to send a supply ship to the Yankee soldiers at Fort
Sumter, In order to reach Fort Sumter, that supply ship would violate the sovereign State of South Carolina's territorial waters in CHARLESTON HARBOR: The invasion of South Carolina/CHARLESTON HARBOR by this supply ship was an act of War, when the U.S. was forbidden to enter South Carolina's territorial waters. A U.S. Ship cannot simply waltz into any Harbor in the world if the Country wherein the harbor lies forbids its entrance. Such would constitute an act of War, this is why today, if a U.S. Air Force plane enters Russian airspace it will likely be met with force and be shot down.
Next you state....
"No where does the 10th Amendment, much less the Constitution, permit states to secede."
The simple fact that YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. Constitution does not address the subject of secession, means that it is a POWER reserved by each State INDIVIDUALLY....READ THE TENTH AMENDMENT....
"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."

JAKE STARKEY, You also state.....
"Southerners could (1) no longer stand being called immoral, and (2) not live on an equal basis with the slaves. They are much like our far right conservatives."
How about I ask you a question here to show your hypocrisy....
Could the U.S. stand to live on an equal basis with the Native American Indian in 1860?
How were the free Slaves in the North Treated? Or the Irish for that matter? Were they treated as equals?
The reason I ask is that I am confused when I read these Northern States Jim Crow laws....
Pennsylvania
1869: Education [Statute] Black children prohibited from attending Pittsburgh schools.
1956: Adoption [Statute] Petition must state race or color of adopting parents.

Rhode Island
1872: Miscegenation [State Code] Prohibited intermarriage. Penalty: $1,000 fine, or up to six months' imprisonment.

Ohio
Enacted a miscegenation statute in 1877 and a school segregation law in 1878. Segregation of public facilities was barred in 1884
Illinois
1927: Housing [Municipal Code]
Chicago adopted racially restrictive housing covenants beginning in 1927.

Indiana
Enacted seven Jim Crow laws in the areas of education and miscegenation between 1869 and 1952.

South Caroina had no sovereign authority to resist federal travel missions to federal installations, which had been ceded decades earlier by South Carolina to the national government. South Carolina committed an act of violent treason firing on Ft. Sumter.

The false equivalency is noted of comparing the bad treatment of First Peoples or Irish or other despised people in the North to Negro Chattel slaves. None of the excuses slavery.

Try this a normal history class in college and you will fail the assignment.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes. Read the OP, I assure you it's quite thorough, though not as thorough as it could be because I ran into the character limit in the place it was originally posted.

The op is a piece of crap, it makes incorrect assertions, and never addresses the legality of secession.

I can address that issue for you right now: There never was any legal basis for secession.

Discombobulated, there is no legal basis to stop a state from seceding, that's the point. If there is no law established making something illegal, then it is most certainly legal. The tenth amendment covers that issue.

Wrong again......or rather still.

No, I am right and you know it, As I have challenged.....Cite the law, Article within your 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, or amendment thereto that states that secession is an illegal act. You simply stating "Wrong" does NOT make it so.

Your stating you are "Right" is laughable. Point to the U. S. Constitution or federal law that permits a state to secede.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Oh..you don't want to talk about the war of northern aggression any more...now you want to quote the preamble....
Collapse, partitioning and reconstruction, ravi.
Corrections will be made.

You asked a question and didn't like the answer. The South got what it deserved.

Not quite. If they had gotten what they deserved the leaders of the Confederacy would have all been hanged as traitors.

Good point.

Many southern folks learned the wrong lessons from the Civil War. Had we hanged the leaders as traitors then they might have understood that the question of secession is settled.

Discombobulated, you state.....
"Many southern folks learned the wrong lessons from the Civil War. Had we hanged the leaders as traitors then they might have understood that the question of secession is settled."
Is YOUR U.S. not a nation of laws????
Our Southern leaders could not have legally been hanged as traitors, because they were NOT BY DEFINITION TRAITORS.
Under Article III,Section 3, of the Constitution,any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them Aid and Comfort has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution.
Here YOU MUST RETURN TO THE FIRST CAUSE...
There was, nor is an Article within your 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, or amendment thereto that states that secession is an illegal act. Therefore when the Southern States seceded, the citizens thereof, were NO LONGER U.S. CITIZENS, hence a NON citizen cannot commit treason against a country in which he is not a citizen.

They were traitors because, since they had no lawful authority to secede, they violated constitutional, electoral process; they stole federal property; they levied war on the US. The leaders legally could have been summarily executed.