Posted on 08/11/2015 1:11:21 PM PDT by iowamark
What caused the Civil War? That seems like the sort of simple, straightforward question that any elementary school child should be able to answer. Yet many Americans—including, mostly, my fellow Southerners—claim that that the cause was economic or state’s rights or just about anything other than slavery.
But slavery was indisputably the primary cause, explains Colonel Ty Seidule, Professor of History at the United States Military Academy at West Point.
The abolition of slavery was the single greatest act of liberty-promotion in the history of America. Because of that fact, it’s natural for people who love freedom, love tradition, and love the South to want to believe that the continued enslavement of our neighbors could not have possibly been the motivation for succession. But we should love truth even more than liberty and heritage, which is why we should not only acknowledge the truth about the cause of the war but be thankful that the Confederacy lost and that freedom won.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.acton.org ...
The US Constitution is the Bean Counter for the Declaration. It is about the nuts and bolts of running a nation, and nothing else. It's authority is derived from the Legitimate authority given it by the Declaration of Independence, and it has no moral authority of it's own.
In simple terms, the foundational principles outlined in the Declaration of Independence trump the "rule book" which is the US Constitution.
Trouble is, the Dred Scott ruling was more or less legally correct for the time period in which it was rendered. The Declaration of Independence was not comprehended as applying to slaves when it was created.
Without the south’s insistence on embroiling the north into most unseemly aspects of its Peculiar Institution, it is difficult to envisage a civil war at all.
All of the North were Slave States when the country was founded. As their need for labor lessened, they found they could afford the morality they had previously eschewed. Their morality was funny though. Though they still hated blacks and regarded them as inferior, driving them out of their states whenever they could, they didn't want them forced to work for others.
It makes you wonder if their issue was unfair labor competition rather than concern for the well being of slaves. If you earn your bread by labor, you certainly wouldn't want others doing the same job for no pay. That actually makes more sense.
Monetary policy disguised as a feigned morality. Of course the women folk were motivated by concern, but the movers and shakers that made abolition happened may have had very different reasons.
I find that in many things, when in doubt, look to where the money is being made and lost.
BroJoeK's theory is one answer. Another is that Confederate spies found out that Lincoln had sent a flotilla of ships loaded with men and war material to reinforce Sumter, in direct contradiction to the message he had sent to the Confederates informing them he would not send any war material.
April 4, 1861
To: Lieut. Col. H.L. Scott, Aide de CampThis will be handed to you by Captain G.V. Fox, an ex-officer of the Navy. He is charged by authority here, with the command of an expedition (under cover of certain ships of war) whose object is, to reinforce Fort Sumter.
To embark with Captain Fox, you will cause a detachment of recruits, say about 200, to be immediately organized at fort Columbus, with competent number of officers, arms, ammunition, and subsistence, with other necessaries needed for the augmented garrison at Fort Sumter.
Signed: Winfield Scott
April 1, 1861
To Captain H.A. Adams
Commanding Naval Forces off PensacolaHerewith I send you a copy of an order received by me last night. You will see by it that I am directed to land my command at the earliest opportunity. I have therefore to request that you will place at my disposal such boats and other means as will enable me to carry into effect the enclosed order.
Signed: I. Vogdes, Capt. 1st Artly. Comdg.
Captain Adams REFUSED TO OBEY THE ORDER and reported to the Secretary of the Navy as follows:
It would be considered not only a declaration but an act of war; and would be resisted to the utmost.
Both sides are faithfully observing the agreement (armistice) entered into by the United States Government and Mr. Mallory and Colonel Chase, which binds us not to reinforce Fort Pickens unless it shall be attacked or threatened. It binds them not to attack it unless we should attempt to reinforce it.
Presumably the agreement applied to Ft. Sumter as well. If it became apparent to the Confederates that Lincoln was deliberately going to land a force and reinforce Sumter, then they knew there was no negotiating with him, and might as well take the fort before his forces could land and reinforce it.
If the Confederates knew Lincoln was intent on starting a war no matter what they did, they might as well land the first Punch. That is what I would have done.
Trouble is, they didn't think through the politics of it. They would have been better off to let Lincoln be seen as the aggressor, but it is unnatural for men to let someone deliberately attack them and do nothing about it.
There was no ambiguous situation about being taxed to death for the benefit of the north so they could build their industry. Secondly, the north threatened and ultimately achieved the complete submission of the south and the destruction of a people. The south had no other option but to fight.
We are in the same situation today, thanks to Lincoln and the northern Robber barons who have destroyed our REPUBLIC and taken states Rights to the cleaners!
Without the knowledge of what would happen that we have now, the leaders of the day were in the dark and unlikely to have some great scheme to crush their adversaries, which could just as well have resulted in their own downfall.
If you really do want to talk conspiracy, you might look up the Knights of the Golden Circle and others who conspired to create a powerful slaveowning empire.
Keep following the thread and read what's already been written. There are plenty of refutations of the idea that the South was being "taxed to death for the benefit of the North" in 1860.
I am not familiar with that assertion. Can you cite it
To accept your theory, you would have to believe that even if Sumter had been reinforced, rather than simply resupplied, that it would have posed some grave danger to the City of Charleston. Sumter could not possibly hold enough troops to threaten the overwhelming number of Confederate troops surrounding it.
It could not have possibly done so. It was only a symbolic presence of US authority, which after four months of stand off, Davis could not allow to continue if he were to move the upper South to secession.
IMHO, he made a foolish decision and was even told that by his Sec of State, but he did get the Upper South to join him.
Which once again I must comment, your justification for secession directly contracts the justifications offered by the men who actually seceded 150 years ago. They all rejected the Declaration while Lincoln made it the center piece of his philosophy.
Which is irrelevant, because their justifications are a courtesy, and not a requirement to the right to independence.
...a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Independence does not have to be justified. It is a right, ergo the reasons for wanting it DO NOT MATTER.
The British would have regarded leaving the Perpetual allegiance of the King to be Immoral. They probably regarded that as far more immoral than slavery was to them at that time. They regarded it as Treason, or worse. The King was ordained by God, and to oppose the King was to oppose God himself, in their mind.
They all rejected the Declaration while Lincoln made it the center piece of his philosophy.
That is a most asinine statement. The central premise of the Declaration is that states have a right to leave. Lincoln was the antithesis of that concept. The very polar opposite of what the Declaration stood for.
You have a serious delusion if you believe that Lincoln and the Declaration are compatible. They are at opposite ends.
You have a Checkers mind trying to understand a Chess game. That Lincoln would reinforce the fort had symbolic meaning. It meant that he wasn't going to give it up, and therefore he wasn't going to give the South up, and it meant that he'd been lying to them before when he said he would negotiate the issue.
IMHO, he made a foolish decision and was even told that by his Sec of State, but he did get the Upper South to join him.
Had Lincoln not arrested the legislators of Maryland, he may have gotten even more. It was at that point that the consent of the governed was overridden by the dictates of one man.
The Maryland State song still refers to Lincoln as a Tyrant and a Despot.
Don’t forget that DegenerateLamp feeeeeels that anyone can quit the club at any time and for any reason (or for no reason at all) and no one can even protest. It hasn’t (yet) claimed that they are entitled to a refund of their subscription but I wouldn’t be surprised.
Like Roe v Wade or Obergefell v. Hodges?
Taney ignored the constitution and history in his Dred Scott decision. Like Roe v Wade or our latest Gay marriage decision, The Court attempted to effect a political and social solution to issues they have no business being involved in the first place. In the process, they pervert the Constitution, and in the case of Scott set the table for the Civil War.
I can't even believe you are serious about defending the Dred Scott decision. That is horrendous!
Scott v. Sanford was a watershed moment in legal jurisprudence. It precipitated the Civil War. Slavery was essentially nationalized and it precluded states that wanted to be free to prevent southerners from bringing slaves into these states, to expand slavery into the territories, and indeed to make the rest of the United States ipso facto slave states.
In other words, the decision overturned the country’s legal position and historical precedent on slavery. Before, the United States was a free country except for states that permitted slavery. Now, the whole country could be open to slavery.
A sampling of opinion both era and contemporary:
The Dred Scott Case
The decision in this case of the Supreme Court of the united States, has created more, or as much, interest, probably, throughout the country than he rendering of any decision by that Court of any case since the foundation of the Government
*snip*
The delivery of this opinion occupied about two hours, and was listened to with profound attention by a crowded court room; and, whether as a decision of the Supreme Court, or for the constitutional arguments on which it stands, will exert the most powerful and salutary influence throughout the United States.
http://historyengine.richmond.edu/episodes/view/2611
The Effects of the Dred Scott Decision
The Dred Scott decision of March 6, 1857, brought to a head the tension surrounding the issue of slavery in the United States.In the case, the Supreme Court ruled that Scott was still a slave, and therefore, and no right to file suit in a United States court as he was not a citizen and did not have the rights of such.The Enquirer, a Democratic newspaper, greeted this decision with great applause.The author declared that the verdict in the case was a strong blow at the evils of the Missouri Compromise, and a victory for the people of the South.The author also stated that this was a major defeat for abolitionists, people who he referred to as enemies of the Union.It is also interesting to note that the decision was described as a victory over prejudice; assumedly the perceived prejudice to which southerners felt abolitionists subjected them.
The Dred Scott decision was a landmark case in that it drew a clear line of how the government stood on the issue of slavery, and further inflamed passions surrounding an already divisive topic within American politics.While southerners were ecstatic at the outcome, the massive abolitionist campaign to aid Scott led many southerners to claim that abolitionists were anti-southern and thus, enemies of a greater Union.Southern slave owners, as well as supporters of slavery, saw the Dred Scott case as a crucial precedent.It gave them a sense of legal standing to be able to say that the supreme law of the land had not only upheld the idea of slavery, but also dealt a crushing blow to the wildly unpopular Missouri Compromise.That act had sought to limit the spread of slavery into the new territories of the west and maintain the racial balance of power between North and South.
http://journals.chapman.edu/ojs/index.php/VocesNovae/article/view/328/704
The Reaction to the Dred Scott Decision
On March 6, 1857, Dred Scott’s eleven-year struggle for freedom had finally come to an end. The Supreme Court of the United States rendered its decision, ruling that Dred Scott was still a slave. Even more controversially, the Court ruled that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional; that all blacks, free or enslaved, could never be United States citizens, and that Congress did not have the right to decide the slavery question in the territories. This loaded decision, which was supposed to solve the slavery question once and for all and more importantly mitigate the nation’s growing sectional crisis, ended up creating more tension in the country between the North and South. The reaction to the decision varied by region and political party, with it being criticized by northerners and Republicans, and praised by southerners and Democrats. The nation’s intense reaction to the Dred Scott decision not only had an effect on politics in the late 1850s, but would also serve as one of several precipitates for the ultimate breakdown in American politics, the southern secession and Civil War.
http://www.watson.org/~lisa/blackhistory/scott/impact.html
Impact of Dred Scott
The Dred Scott decision served as an eye-opener to Northerners who believed that slavery was tolerable as long as it stayed in the South. If the decision took away any power Congress once had to regulate slavery in new territories, these once-skeptics reasoned, slavery could quickly expand into much of the western United States. And once slavery expanded into the territories, it could spread quickly into the once-free states. Lincoln addressed this growing fear during a speech in Springfield, Illinois on June 17, 1858:
Put this and that together, and we have another nice little niche, which we may, ere long, see filled with another Supreme Court decision, declaring that the Constitution of the United States does not permit a State to exclude slavery from its limits. . . . We shall lie down pleasantly dreaming that the people of Missouri are on the verge of making their State free, and we shall awake to the reality instead, that the Supreme Court has made Illinois a slave State. [32]
For many Northerners who had remained silent on the issue, this very real possibility was too scary to ignore. Suddenly many Northerners who had not previously been against the South and against slavery began to realize that if they did not stop slavery now, they might never again have the chance. This growing fear in the North helped further contribute to the Civil War.
And how did he ignore the constitution in his decision? Last I checked, it implicitly accepted slavery. It even has a clause in there to protect the institution.
No Person held to Service or Labour 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 Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
You may have never noticed it, but that clause is specifically about escaped slaves.
Now i'm all ears for you to explain how "Tanney Ignored the Constitution and History in his Dred Scott decision. "
The Court attempted to effect a political and social solution to issues they have no business being involved in the first place.
And why would the Court have no business in being involved in a legal matter that went through the appellate courts?
In the process, they pervert the Constitution, and in the case of Scott set the table for the Civil War.
Here's another clause in the Constitution that is specifically about slavery.
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
I don't think you actually understand the document or history that you are arguing. There is still yet a third clause in the Constitution regarding slavery.
Slavery was completely constitutional prior to 1865. It is an ugly, unpleasant truth, but it is a truth, none the less.
I can't even believe you are serious about defending the Dred Scott decision.
You are arguing from emotion, I am arguing from logic. According to the laws of that time period, the Dred Scott decision was legally correct. It was ugly and immoral, but it met all the requirements of being a correct legal decision under the then existing paradigm of legal slavery.
You and others like you, keep trying to judge the first half of the 19th century by the first half of the 21rst century. You suffer from an inability to grasp the zeitgeist. You can't place your mind back into that era.
You shouldn't fool yourself into believing things that are not true just because you want them to be true.
I understand the constitution perfectly well, but it is obvious that you do not understand the Dred Scott decision. The clause you cite from the constitution pertained to runaway slaves. Dred Scott was not a runaway.
Taney's decision went far beyond the narrow question of weather or not Scott was entitled to his freedom as the Missouri court had decided. It went on to claim that no black person, slave or free, was a citizen, that even free blacks had no rights under the constitution, and in Taney's, words, no rights that any white person need respect, and that Congress, or even the states, did not have the power to restrict slavery.
Now you point out the clause in the Constitution, where Taney found a basis for any of that? He ignored the Constitution which had nothing to restrict the rights of any free person, black or white. He ignored both history, and the law. At the time of the revolution, and the framing of the Constitution, free blacks were voters in 4 of the 13 states, Washington's army at times consisted of up to 30% free blacks. On top of that, Taney voided the North West Ordinance which banned slavery in those territories. That law was passed by the Congress under The Articles, an then passed through the first Congress with a unanimous vote. That first Congress had a number of members who were also framers of the Constitution. And Taney claims their act was unconstitutional?
If “states rights” meant you could keep people enslaved with no rights, then wasn’t there something wrong with “states rights”? Or incomplete or problematic?
Perhaps I could see your point if anti-slavery edicts applied equally to ALL states and time was given to the southern states to restructure their economy. It did not work that way, however, as the Emancipation Proclamation was enacted in January of 1863, long after the war started, and DID NOT APPLY to NORTHERN or UNION STATES! So your slavery slant is invalid!
You are reading back the results of four years of destructive war into the intentions of people at the war’s beginning. But people in 1860 didn’t know what war would bring. There wasn’t any certainty that it would end with the South crushed.
......................................................
There was a good chance it would end that way but the south had no choice because they were an AGRICULTURAL ECONOMY and the north was an INDUSTRIAL ECONOMY in expansion. The north wanted the south’s dollars and taxed accordingly, they also had the means of production for arms and associated materiel. The south had great military leaders, but they did not have the means to recover loss of supplies, etc. Lincoln was losing when he came up with the means to split the south in the Emancipation Proclamation. I note again that it DID NOT APPLY to the SLAVE OWNERS in the NORTH!
The refutations you mention are based on wishful thinking and a desire to appear lily white by the north. That was far from the facts of the matter.
Sure, the North was a growing industrial economy at the time. It wasn't yet the industrial powerhouse it would become after the war, though.
Most people at the time weren't aware of the significance that Northern industrial capabilities would have in the war. If they were -- if Northern industrial predominance was perceived as being so significant militarily -- why'd the slaveowners want to go to war with the more developed North so much?
But crushing the South and wanting its money are two different things. If the "Yankees" could foresee that they'd win the war, how come they didn't foresee just how destructive the war would be? Or was all that destruction part of the plan?
Lincoln was losing when he came up with the means to split the south in the Emancipation Proclamation. I note again that it DID NOT APPLY to the SLAVE OWNERS in the NORTH!
The Emancipation Proclamation influenced Britain and France to stay out of the war and inspired many Northerners, but how did it split the South? Capital letters aside, the Emancipation Proclamation could only be issued as a military measure. The government had no authority to free slaves from loyal citizens. That is why it only applied to areas in rebellion. But it was a sign that slavery was on the way out and most likely wouldn't be tolerated after the war.
You are arguing for how the law "ought to be", not in regard to how it actually was.
Yes, Slavery "ought" never have been accepted in the newly founded United States of America, but had the founders not explicitly accepted it, they never would have acquired the Southern States in the first place.
They deliberately wrote protections for slavery into the Constitution, as I pointed out in one of my messages above.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.