So Why Did the U.S. Fight its Civil War?

[muff528 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So Why Did the U.S. Fight its Civil War?

Succession issues were MUCH more than just 'racist' issues.

Sorry; I can tell from numerous responses, including yours, that I obviously didn't phrase the thread title as I meant the message. I didn't literally mean, "What was the real cassus belli in the Civil War?"; I meant more like "Why did we fucking bother preserving the Union - i.e., what use was it - if this was destined to be the result?"

Pretty obvious to me that it was a rhetorical question. That's why I included both Lincoln quotes. Lincoln knew that what is in people's hearts will not be changed and that the War was not fought to do that anyway. (That is what is dangerous about so-called "hate speech" laws. Give haters the freedom to spout whatever bile they wish and we will all get a daylight glimpse into their true nature. But that's another debate.)

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

I meant more like "Why did we fucking bother preserving the Union - i.e., what use was it - if this was destined to be the result?"

Well, people have the right to be stupid and hold stupid opinions (clearly). But they do not have the right to use that opinion to deny rights to others.

I do not support the racist undertones to the civil war. Unfortunately, it always seems to be all that is considered and anyone that agrees with the 'States rights' angle is automatically considered a racist.

So if we can drop the racist BS, this could be a good discussion.

Why bother preserving the Union?

"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

It was fought to try and see if the little experiment in a nation built on a representative democracy could work. The irony is that the South was trying to take it a step further and the nation as a whole decided that was one step too far.

The Founding Fathers, I think, would have supported the Souths succession. It is a pretty good example of the Federalists overpowering the States rights.

Personally, I think the South was within its right to succeed. I used to not hold that position till a buddy argued me into the ground with examples of how the Founding Fathers wanted States to have more rights than the Federal Govt and was in fact afraid of a powerful Federal Govt.

One of the problems with a democracy and even a representative democracy is that the majority often gets to vote the majority more at the expense of the minority.

This is where the SC comes into play.... And one reason I hold the BoR's in such high regard.

The Constitution should be the litmus test to any law. And I think the 'Original Intent' backed by the framers is the key. I do not think that modern definitions are relevant, but rather the meanings at the time of the writing.

This is different than Modernism or Literalism.

So based on me being an original intent kinda guy... I think the South had the right to try and succeed. In the same token, I think that while the framers didn't intend to overlook the rights of women and minorities.... So in this I tend to take the thought that the original intent could also include the rights even if they didn't specifically list them.

And we have to look at the fact that the framers gave us the ability to amend the Constitution.

So the idiots have the right to want to ban interracial marriages (1st Amendment).... They do not have the right to actually do it (13, 14).

And the civil war was fought to allow them the right to be idiots with an opinion, but not the power to actually be idiots with power.

[popsjumper 2]

Doesn't ANYONE here know the difference between "succeed" and "secede"??????

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Doesn't ANYONE here know the difference between "succeed" and "secede"??????

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Quote

Doesn't ANYONE here know the difference between "succeed" and "secede"??????

Edumacation...a fairly good indicator of intellect.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Doesn't ANYONE here know the difference between "succeed" and "secede"??????

The South did not succeed in the attempt at seceding.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[davjohns 1]

I didn't read the article. Sounds pretty stupid to me.

As to your question...the US Civil War was about money.

Southern states were buying goods from Europe cheaper than they could buy them from the Northern states. The Northern states imposed import restrictions to try to make the Southern states a captive market. The Southern states cited state rights and loose confederation of states as justification for quitting. The Northern states went to war to maintain their income stream. They thought it would be short and sweet. Two years later, Abraham Lincoln was having trouble selling the political ideal of Union to the tired Northern states. He then mounted a campaign to pretend the whole thing had been about slavery all along. Abolitionists joined the band waggon and the war regained momentum. Meanwhile, the Southern states had overestimated the value of their cotton in a Europe that had stocked up on cotton before the war. They were unable to recruit Europe to their cause and ran out of funds and industrial production capacity. Then, they invaded the North and stoked the fires of indignation of the Northern states.

After the war, the Northern states wrote the history books to pretend the cause had been moral indignation all along. And that's what little children are taught in school still today.

The war was about money. Money / resources and religion are pretty much all that cause wars. Any other questions I can help with?

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

As to your question.

As I noted above, I phrased my original question inartfully. Please see my post #49, where I've re-phrased it for clarity.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Doesn't ANYONE here know the difference between "succeed" and "secede"??????

Or auto correct bit me in the ass and I didn't bother to proofread.

Now any comment on the CONTENT?

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Quote

As to your question.

As I noted above, I phrased my original question inartfully. Please see my post #49, where I've re-phrased it for clarity.

I noticed you rephrased it. I recognized from the beginning that you didn't mean what the question seemed to ask if taken literally. But your intended meaning suggests we fought the civil war over things such as the color of men's skins and attitudes towards them. My answer addressed that.

Nuclear waste, poop, ignorance...try to not to get any on you.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

But your intended meaning suggests we fought the civil war over things such as the color of men's skins and attitudes towards them.

No, it really meant that for all the blood and treasure expended in prosecuting the war, the achieved value of the end result was painfully questionable.

[pirana 0]

Quote

The Founding Fathers, I think, would have supported the Souths succession. It is a pretty good example of the Federalists overpowering the States rights.

The Founding Fathers were were very split over state's rights - but by a slim margin foresaw that a strong federal union subject to review was the best compromise. Unfortunately, the compromise was untenable and eventually exploded into war.

Read the source documents penned by both sides. It is a debate that predated the union, nearly undermined the Constitutional Convention, and never went away - and still hasn't.

The FF saw the union as more important than the individual states, enough to relegate the states to matters of local concern, and to give the Fed the real power. Times change, issues evolve, and things that were once of only local concern (such as commerce) morphed into national importance. The South could not let go and took up arms.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[davjohns 1]

Actually, I see the Southern action as extremely similar to what the 13 colonies did; just with different results. I've never understood why one body of people can not choose to separate themselves from another (when, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary).

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

but by a slim margin foresaw that a strong federal union subject to review was the best compromise.

They actually wanted a loose organization of strong States. People seeking power wanted the stronger federal govt.....

The civil war AND the revolutionary war were both about the right of States vs a Super-powerful central govt. A battle that had be fought even before the country was a country and a great example was the arguments between Hamilton and Jackson. Hamilton won by using banking to unite all the Colonies. His banking program created a National banking system and Federal currency. The 13 States were in a bad economic situation and a Federal banking system allowed the States to write off that debt to the Federal system.

Fact is the South left for the same base reasons that the Colonists fought for their freedom from England... A powerful central govt making rules that hurt them.

It is a shame that people just assume it was about slavery. The true issues are deep and still valid today and seen today in issues like California's medical marijuana cases.

[davjohns 1]

I was never taught in school how historians differenciate between revolutions and civil wars. It is the outcome. The American Revolution is so named because the incumbent government was overthrown. The American Civil War is so named because the incumbent government remained.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Andy9o8 3]

You know, on reflection, some of you are right - not all GOP racism is restricted to the South.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/18/racist-obama-email-califo_n_850754.html?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk3|56886

[billvon 3,132]

>It is a shame that people just assume it was about slavery.

Well, in a very real sense, that was the most proximate cause. Lincoln campaigned heavily against slavery. The South could not abide this; their economy depended on slavery. Although Lincoln was careful to phrase his campaign so as not to end slavery in established Southern states, it was clear what his goal was. He wanted to "arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction."

The South was already very much opposed to restrictions on slavery. The cotton gin had greatly increased the demand for slaves, while Congress kept restricting it (imports of slaves were outlawed decades earlier.) The South had made it clear their economy could not survive its loss, and that they were staunchly opposed to the idea of racial equality. The Texas Declaration of Secession criticized the North for "proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color" and that Africans "were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race."

Meanwhile, popular sentiment was growing against slavery. "Uncle Tom's Cabin" had recently been released and it was the biggest social cause of the time. "This question of Slavery was more important than any other; indeed, so much more important has it become that no other national question can even get a hearing just at present," said Lincoln afterwards.

When Lincoln was elected, the states with the most slave-operated plantations seceded first. The remainder did not seceded until the war forced them to take sides.

So while there were a great many causes of the Civil War - economic, political, cultural - the issue that caused the initial secessions was Lincoln's stand on slavery.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

You know, on reflection, some of you are right - not all GOP racism is restricted to the South.

Yes, because a monkey would only be used on a black right?

http://www.google.com/search?q=bush+as+a+monkey&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

[Andy9o8 3]

Gosh, you're right; historical context be damned.
You really need the long version of the previous sentence?
Get your game up.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Gosh, you're right; historical context be damned.
You really need the long version of the previous sentence?
Get your game up.

Ooh...is this the part where you tell him what he really, REALLY meant?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Well, in a very real sense, that was the most proximate cause.

No, it was a part of the cause. The main reason Federal v States rights. There were tariffs and other tax issues as well as slavery issues.

The South felt the North was ignoring them.

Quote

Lincoln campaigned heavily against slavery.

Not really:
Matson v. Rutherford he represented a slave owner trying to get his slave back

He held that the federal government was prevented by the Constitution from banning slavery in states where it already existed.

"If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union" -- Lincoln letter in response to an editorial by Horace Greeley

"I will say here, while upon this subject, that I have no purpose directly 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. I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which in my judgement 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. I have never said anything to contrary , but I hold that notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to these as the white man. I agree with judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects - certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man." -- Lincoln Speech at Columbus, Ohio, September 16, 1859

Quote

So while there were a great many causes of the Civil War - economic, political, cultural - the issue that caused the initial secessions was Lincoln's stand on slavery.

You can think that (along with most Americans that have not really looked at the issues) but that does not change the fact that the South left due to the North's ignoring the damage the North's plans would have on the South... Slavery was just one of those issues.

It is easy, romantic and heroic to think that the war was over slaves.... But it was just not that simple. The slavery issue was one part of the issue, not the issue.

[muff528 3]

Quote

......
You can think that (along with most Americans that have not really looked at the issues) but that does not change the fact that the South left due to the North's ignoring the damage the North's plans would have on the South... Slavery was just one of those issues.

It is easy, romantic and heroic to think that the war was over slaves.... But it was just not that simple. The slavery issue was one part of the issue, not the issue.

I think that, although the North did not go to war over slavery, the South did. I don't think the southern states would have seceded and gone to war over a lesser issue. For the South it was about slavery and it's proliferation. If the end of slavery was the end game for the North then that may have been more effectively accomplished by just letting the South secede and then begin applying sanctions, tariffs and other economic pressures to cause them to abandon slavery. It may have taken longer and it may or may not have led to war since the South could have (and did) form other trading relationships. But ending slavery was not the objective for the Union (especially since many Northern landholders were also slaveholders.) Lincoln, in spite of his personal beliefs and opinions about slavery, simply did not want to preside over the breakup of the United States. But back to the original topic ...the war may have done more to affirm and solidify some of the racial attitudes and the resentments towards the North in some populations than it did to change hearts about slavery and race relations.

[billvon 3,132]

>No, it was a part of the cause.

Yes, that's what I said.

>The main reason Federal v States rights.

Yes - and that argument came to a head over the slavery issue, which was at the end of the day a state's rights issue. Had Lincoln been a staunch supporter of slavery, the war would not have occurred as a result of his election.

>but that does not change the fact that the South left due to the North's ignoring the
>damage the North's plans would have on the South... Slavery was just one of those
>issues.

Agreed. It was also the most proximate one.

>It is easy, romantic and heroic to think that the war was over slaves.... But it was
>just not that simple.

That's what I said.